Arizona Supreme Court throws out a ballot measure that would have capped the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program by income and tightened oversight of private‑school staff.
Court Ruling Details
The court said the petition fell short of the 256,000 valid signatures required for Proposition 212, citing duplicate entries, addresses not tied to a residence and signatures not written by the signers.
Goldwater Institute attorney Victor Riches filed the suit, alleging that proponents hired felons to collect signatures and that the petition contained invalid signatures.
Reactions
Former Governor Doug Ducey, a Goldwater Institute board member, said tens of thousands of parents and students are relieved, calling the decision a clear message that Arizonans support school choice.
Ducey warned anti‑school‑choice groups that millions wasted on the effort will not change voter sentiment.
The Empowerment Scholarship Account, which lets state K‑12 funds follow the child, currently serves over 103,000 students and can cover private‑school tuition, tutoring, homeschooling supplies and other education costs.
Save Our Schools Arizona, which opposed the measure, had proposed limiting eligibility to households earning under $150,000 and banning use of funds for family members unless the student has a disability.
The group also demanded fingerprinting and state board oversight of private‑school teachers receiving program money.
In its statement, Save Our Schools said the measure aimed to add safety, accountability and transparency to a $1 billion program it claims is draining public schools.
The organization accused the voucher lobby of using “scorched‑earth legal objections” to invalidate signatures, saying the tactics show fear of Arizona voters deciding on tax spending.
Save Our Schools added that public‑school advocates will now focus on electing pro‑public‑education candidates to the state legislature in November.
Goldwater Institute CEO Victor Riches said Proposition 212 was funded by unions and out‑of‑state special interests, noting that they spent heavily to deceive voters but failed to gather enough legitimate signatures.
He called the effort an unlawful attempt to game the system and dupe voters onto the ballot.
