A Republican-controlled legislative committee illegally crafted a biased description of a proposed education sales tax to try to convince voters to reject it, a judge ruled today.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea said there was nothing wrong with members of the Legislative Council describing Proposition 204 as a tax "increase.'' He said that, in fact, it could easily be seen as a new 1-cent tax if passed.
But Rea said lawmakers failed to point out that there already is a 1-cent surcharge on the state's 5.6 percent sales tax, approved by voters in 2010. That tax is set to expire on May 31, 2013; the new tax, if approved, would kick in the following day -- a point the judge said should be made to voters that approval of Proposition 204 would not change the current tax.
"By using the term `tax increase,' the council has adopted one point of view that tends to discourage favorable votes,'' Rea said. He said the lawmakers should simply describe what the measure does: describe the temporary tax as it exists "and the proposition will continue a temporary tax that would otherwise expire.''
The ruling is significant because Arizona law requires the council to prepare an "impartial analysis'' of each ballot measure. More to the point, that analysis becomes part of the brochure mailed to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.
Rea's order, unless overturned, forces the GOP-dominated committee to reconvene and recraft their analysis.
The judge also found fault with two other provisions in the analysis.
There was no immediate comment from Republican legislative leaders on whether they would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Spamola5 posted at 10:39 am on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.
It does not matter none of the Money ever reaches are Schools, our are teachers, they put in a lot of extra hrs, own time to keep there Jobs,ever year we hear the same thing, there is no money, Where the Money going?[sad]
chuckles3 posted at 8:52 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.
Um, yea. It was a tax increase when it was implemented. If we keep it, it is a permanent tax increase until changed by law.
The Clinton Tax increases were permanent until changed by law, they had no sunset provisions.
Sunset provisions are compromise measures for politicians who want to pass the hard decisions down the road.
I will be voting no on this one, just like I did the first time around.
bblade50 posted at 8:57 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
I'm voting NO onthis just because most of the money will be use for GENERAL FUNDSnot EDUCATION
Mike McClellan posted at 6:23 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
These are the same guys and gals who, when a tax cut is about to sunset, call that a tax increase.
Please. Unlike what Chat above says -- and by the way, Chat, whatever happened to Clinton's tax increase of the early '90's? Oh, that's right, it went away when the Bush tax cuts when into effect in 2001 and 2003 -- taxes like the one proposed is only extended IF the majority of voters approve it. Folks like Chaty don't like the Great Unwashed voting because often they don't agree with the "enlightened" legislature.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:41 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
This just proves there is no such thing as a temporary tax increase. Vote NO on this tax INCREASE.