UPDATE: Trial Court Hearing On GOP Suit To Stop "Invest In Ed" Surcharge VACATED Pending Supreme Court Decision

UPDATE, 6/23, 9am:  UPDATE: Trial Court Hearing On GOP Suit To Stop "Invest In Ed" Surcharge VACATED Pending Supreme Court Decision

Following last week's trial court ruling (below) whittling down the Republicans' lawsuit to stop the Invest In Ed surcharge, the judge and the parties agreed today to vacate next week's hearing and put the case on hold until after the Arizona Supreme Court issues its decision.

State Senate President Karen Fann filed the suit (with others) last November and told the court a quick decision was needed so that the Legislature could consider and pass a budget. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 20 and could issue its decision on the "no supplant" clause at any time.

A pre-trial conference in front of Superior Court Judge John Hannah was set for July 1.

6/14: NEW: Judge Dismisses Most of Republicans' Suit To Stop Prop. 208 From Taking Effect ("Invest In Ed"); Waiting For Supreme Court On Last Claim

In January, State Senate President Karen Fann, other Republican lawmakers and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club sued the state to keep the voter-approved Invest In Ed tax surcharge from going into effect. Today, Superior Court Judge John Hannah dismissed three of their constitutional arguments as an exercise in "futility".

The only remaining claim - that it violates the state constitution's school expenditure limitations by specifying that the monies raised do not count toward those limits - is currently awaiting a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court. (Hannah previously ruled that that "no supplant" clause is directed at the schools and not the legislature when it sets its budget.)

The claims Hannah disposed of today were:

1) That voters do not have the power to tax themselves by initiative. Hannah: "It could hardly be clearer that the people of Arizona reserved to themselves the authority to exercise all of the legislature's powers, including the power of taxation". And: "The planitffs' bald assertion... that the Voter Protection Act does not mean what it says...underscores the futility of their argument."

2) That Prop. 208 violates the Revenue Source Rule (i.e. initiative must "provide for an increased source of revenues"). Hannah: "They mostly try to explain away the obvious contradiction.... Their explanation is not persuasive."

3) That it violates the Separation of Powers. Hannah: "The claim that Proposition 208 unconstutionally delegates legislative authority to the executive is too insubstantial to survive a motion to dismiss." Hannah compares the present initiative to a 100-year old effort by Arizona voters to create a new executive agency ("the Board of Control") which could do just about anything and would have a blank check. "Proposition 208 is not remotely similar....Moreover, the legislature is not powerless in the face of (it).

Oral argument on the "no supplant" rule (and somewhat-related issues) was held on April 20. The legislators had argued that a quick decision was necessary to assist them with their budgeting process. Of course, since then, the proposed flat tax which they are one vote short of passing in each chamber has become another way to emasculate the Invest In Ed tax surcharge.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcast.