Homeless in Arizona

Arizona legislators spit in the face of the people they pretend to serve

Our elected officials love to tell us they are "public servants" who work for us.

Sadly in reality they are royal government rulers who could care less about will of the people they pretend to serve.

And of course this article is a perfect example of how our elected officials routinely flush the will of the people down the toilet.

The article pretty much says that the people voted for a school funding initiative that called for annual inflation adjustments to the base education-funding formula. But the elected officials in the Arizona legislator ignored the law when handing out school funds. In the end the courts ruled that was illegal and ordered the legislators to obey the voter initiative.

Last but not least I am against government schools and think they should be ended and we should let the private sector educated our children, not government bureaucrats. So I don't support the money the people voted to give the schools.

Source

Court: Ariz. education spending must account for inflation

By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:12 PM

Arizona schools and voters scored a significant legal victory over the state in a court ruling Tuesday that says the Legislature must fully pay for the base education budget, something that hasn’t happened for three years.

The unanimous decision by the state Court of Appeals amounts to an $80 million annual boon for the schools but could blow a similar-size hole in the upcoming state budget.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel effectively told the Legislature it cannot pick and choose which parts of a voter-approved school-funding initiative it wants to pay for.

Proposition 301, a ballot measure that voters approved in 2000, called for annual inflation adjustments to the base education-funding formula, which covers school operating costs and other education spending such as transportation and extra assistance to state charter schools.

But in the past three budget years, the Legislature paid only for minor elements in the education plan, omitting funding increases to account for inflation. Lawmakers argued “either/or” language in the ballot measure gave them permission to pick and choose which elements to fund, especially in years when the state was trying to erase deep budget deficits.

For this year, that meant the Legislature provided $7.2 million for inflation funding. Full funding with 2percent inflation would have amounted to $81.6 million, leaving a gap of $74.4 million, according to Chuck Essigs, governmental-relations director for the Arizona Association of School Business Officials.

A Maricopa County Superior Court ruling in 2011 agreed with lawmakers’ assertions that the language of the ballot measure gave them room to maneuver, but the Appeals Court used the Legislature’s own words, as well as the history of Prop. 301, to reverse the lower-court decision.

The Appeals Court noted that the Legislature assumed full inflation funding when it calculated the cost of the ballot measure before it went to the voters. And the Legislature’s description of the ballot measure said both the base education level and other education components must be adjusted for inflation.

More money for schools

If the ruling stands, it will be a boon for schools, which have not only dealt with smaller budgets due to the lack of inflation funding but also have taken cuts on top of reduced base funding, Essigs said.

“It’s a victory for schools, for education and a victory for the voters,” said Andrew Morrill, president of the Arizona Education Association, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with school districts.

The schools win because the ruling could mean more than $80 million a year in education funding. And voters win because the funding plan they approved more than 12 years ago has been upheld, Morrill said.

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said in a statement late Tuesday that he will ask the attorney general to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Tuesday’s ruling could further complicate budget negotiations, coming one day after Gov. Jan Brewer asked the Legislature to expand the state’s Medicaid rolls, a move that would cost about $27 million in the coming fiscal 2014 budget.

The state is expecting a surplus of nearly $700 million this year and could draw on that to pay the education costs.

“It’s just another brick on the load,” said Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The education groups that sued the state say they are not looking for a restoration of the estimated $250 million lost over the last three years. But they want the Legislature to honor what voters approved as well as any new education spending that Brewer or lawmakers might be contemplating.

In her State of the State address Monday, Brewer signaled she would seek increased funding to help schools meet new academic standards and to help pay for school-resource officers.

Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa and a member of the Senate Education Committee, said he suspects the ruling means the governor’s education plans are “out the window.” But the initiatives Brewer wants could be covered by the money from inflation funding, he said.

Brewer’s office did not respond to a request for comment on how Tuesday’s ruling might affect her education-spending recommendations. She plans to present her fiscal 2014 budget Friday.

Education advocates said it would be unacceptable to expect the return of inflation funding to cancel out any new funding.

“We’re still up against one heck of a funding cliff,” said the AEA’s Morrill. The extra $80 million a year would be helpful, but it pales in comparison with the estimated $1.5 billion cut the K-12 schools have taken over the last five years, he said.

In that time, the Legislature has added new mandates with little funding to accompany them, he said. Those include tighter academic expectations in the Common Core standards, a requirement to have children reading at grade level by third grade.

Voter victory

Schools aren’t the only winners if the Appeals Court ruling stands.

Attorneys Tim Hogan and Don Peters, who represented a coalition of education groups, school districts and education supporters in the lawsuit, said voters also have prevailed in this case. That’s because Prop. 301, which passed with 53.5 percent of the vote, is safeguarded by the Voter Protection Act. That means the Legislature can’t scale back the measure.

“It requires the Legislature to honor the vote of Arizonans when they approved this,” Hogan said.

David Berman, a senior policy analyst at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, called the ruling “a victory for ballot-box budgeting and also for the Voter Protection Act.”

While voter-mandated spending puts the Legislature in a straitjacket and makes budgeting more difficult, Berman said, lawmakers need to heed the will of voters.

“The Legislature has got to start paying attention to what the voters want,” he said. “I know that sounds revolutionary, but the law is quite clear.”

Crandall said the ruling is “probably the right thing” because it reflects voter intent.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the ruling could consume a lot of the extra money the Legislature thought it had to spend as it begins work on the fiscal 2014 budget.

Chris Thomas, general counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association, said he hopes lawmakers save taxpayer dollars and forgo an appeal. It would be better for lawmakers to focus on funding the pending achievement mandates, he said.

“Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work,” he said.

--------------------

Courts vs. Legislature

The Arizona Legislature’s policy decisions have sparked dozens of lawsuits in recent years. In many of the budget-related cases, the Legislature has prevailed more often than it has lost. But in other cases, such as Tuesday’s ruling on K-12 inflation funding, higher courts have rejected legislative moves. Here is a recap of some key cases:

Senate Bill 1070. The lawsuit the U.S. Department of Justice filed challenging Arizona’s immigration law is still pending before a District Court judge. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled three parts of the law were unconstitutional.

ID at the polls. Arizona is appealing a ruling in a lawsuit it filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder over whether the state’s voter-ID law conflicts with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state cannot require proof of citizenship to register to vote using a federal form in Arizona. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case this spring.

Brewer vs. Burns. In 2009, new Gov. Jan Brewer sued the Legislature, demanding they release budget bills for her review. The state Supreme Court ultimately decided that once such bills are approved, they must go to the governor.

First Things First. In July 2009,the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed the Legislature violated two voter-approved ballot measures when it swept $7 million in interest income from an early-childhood-development fund, First Things First, to help balance the budget.

Tucson elections. The Legislature in 2009 passed a law requiring the city hold nonpartisan elections for City Council seats, rather than partisan elections. A Pima County Superior Court upheld the law, but the state Court of Appeals overturned it.

Redistricting commission. The state Senate in 2011 affirmed Brewer’s decision to remove the head of the Independent Redistricting Commission. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the chair.

Transportation aid. After the Legislature in 2010 eliminated a program that funds transportation-assistance programs, a federal court ordered $10 million reinstated. Cutting dollars violated Arizona’s clean-air plans under the federal Clean Air Act.

— Compiled by Mary Jo Pitzl, Alia Beard Rau and Mary K. Reinhart