292 P.3d 192
Ariz.2013Background
- Quality Education & Jobs Supporting I-16-2012 Committee challenged the Secretary of State’s descriptive title and yes/no language for Proposition 204 in the voter guide and ballot under § 19-125(D).
- The Secretary consulted with the Attorney General and proponents to draft the language; the measure would permanently increase the state sales tax by one cent for specified purposes.
- The superior court held the language substantially complied with § 19-125(D) and rejected the challenge.
- The Committee appealed by an appellate special action; this Court accepted jurisdiction but denied relief.
- Petition concerns centered on whether the language was false/misleading, particularly characterizing the measure as a tax increase and describing the tax base provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary’s language complied with § 19-125(D). | Committee argues language is false/clearly misleading and overstates effects. | Secretary contends language is fair, not false, and provides necessary information. | Substantial compliance; language not false or clearly misleading. |
| Whether describing the measure as a 'tax increase' is accurate. | Labeling as tax increase is unquestionably inaccurate. | Fairly debatable that it is a new, permanent tax increase. | Description not categorically inaccurate; language can be fair and informative. |
| Whether the 'forbids reductions to the current state sales tax base' phrase misdescribed the measure. | Phrase misleads by implying broader restriction than intended. | Language reasonably communicates the effect on the existing tax base. | Not false or clearly misleading; substantially complies. |
| Whether the Secretary’s language was neutral and informative given § 19-125(D) constraints. | Language lacks neutrality and resembles advocacy. | Language provides necessary information within statutory limits. | Language is reasonably neutral and informative; substantial compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe, 192 Ariz. 378 (Ariz. 1998) (impartiality and adequacy of summary analysis; substantial compliance framework)
- Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, 199 Ariz. 71 (Ariz. 2000) (neutrality and absence of partisan coloring in summaries)
- Fairness & Accountability in Ins. Reform v. Greene, 180 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1994) (concerns about partisan coloring and lack of neutrality in analyses)