|
Proposition
Number |
Subject |
Recommended Vote |
|
141 |
Vehicles;
Transportation
taxes |
NO |
|
--
Prohibits
taxes or
fees
based on
vehicle
miles
traveled
and laws
monitoring
or
limiting
vehicle
miles
traveled
without
consent. |
|
 |
|
A "YES"
vote
supports
a
constitutional
amendment
to
prohibit
state
and
local
governments
from
taxing
or
tracking
vehicle
miles
traveled. |
|
|
|
|
A “NO”
keeps
the
following
options
available:
1.
Taxation
Flexibility:
State
and
local
governments
retain
the
authority
to
propose
or
implement
taxes
based on
vehicle
miles
traveled
in the
future.
2.
Tracking
Programs:
Transportation
agencies
can
continue
to
explore,
test, or
implement
mileage-tracking
technologies
or
voluntary
pilot
programs
to study
infrastructure
funding
alternatives.
3.
Funding
Alternatives:
Lawmakers
keep the
option
to use
vehicle-miles-traveled
metrics
as a
replacement
or
supplement
for
traditional
fuel
taxes as
electric
vehicles
become
more
common.
Supporters,
primarily
Republican
lawmakers,
view
this
measure
as a
"freedom
to
travel"
protection.
Opponents,
including
transportation
planners
and
budget
analysts,
argue
the
measure
unnecessarily
ties the
state's
hands
regarding
future
infrastructure
funding.
1.
Undermining
Road
Maintenance:
Critics
point
out that
Electric
Vehicle
(EV)
drivers
do not
pay the
state's
18-cent-per-gallon
gas tax.
They
argue
that
banning
mileage-based
fees
permanently
removes
a fair,
user-based
alternative
that
ensures
all
drivers
pay for
the wear
and tear
they
cause to
public
roads.
2.
Restricting
Innovative
Solutions:
Opponents
believe
that
completely
outlawing
mileage
tracking
stops
the
state
from
even
researching
voluntary
pilot
programs
or
testing
new
technologies
to solve
long-term
highway
budget
shortages. |
|
|
|
|
142 |
Higher education
governance; Race
and ethnicity;
Constitutional
rights; Public
education
governance;
Affirmative
action |
NO |
|
--
Adds
further
details
to the
constitutional
prohibition
against
preferential
treatment
or
discrimination
by the
state
based on
race,
ethnicity,
or other
classes. |
|
 |
|
A "YES"
vote
would
restrict
state
and
government
agencies,
including
public
universities
and K-12
schools,
from
operating
DEI
offices,
requiring
diversity
training,
and
compelling
students
or
employees
to
endorse
DEI
tenets
or
race-based
preferential
treatment. |
|
|
|
|
A “NO”
vote
would
keep in
place
the
following
systems
in
place:
1.
Existing
Offices:
Public
universities,
K-12
schools,
and
government
agencies
can
maintain
their
current
operations
regarding
Diversity,
Equity,
and
Inclusion
(DEI).
2.
Current
Training:
Institutions
can
continue
to
implement
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
programs
or
training.
3.
School
Policies:
K-12
school
districts
retain
the
ability
to use
disciplinary
policies.
This
measure
is a
Republican
attempt
to
enforce
Trump's
anti-DEI
policy. |
|
|
|
|
143 |
Labor; Union
deductions;
Public education
governance;
Teachers |
NO |
|
REMOVED
FROM
BALLOT
ON JULY
28, 2026
- RULED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- |
|
--
Prohibits
collective
bargaining
agreements
with
unions
representing
state or
local
government
employees,
including
police,
firefighters,
and
teachers;
prohibits
certain
union-related
activities
and
communications
in
school
districts. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote on
Arizona
Proposition
143
supports
a
constitutional
amendment
to
prohibit
public
school
districts
from
providing
financial
support
or
administrative
assistance
to labor
unions
and
restrict
collective
bargaining.
If
passed
this
measure
would
implement
several
strict
rules
regarding
public
resources
and
union
activities:
1. No
Payroll
Deductions:
School
districts
would be
banned
from
automatically
deducting
union
dues
from
employee
paychecks.
2. No
Resource
Sharing:
Schools
could no
longer
distribute
labor
organization
materials
through
district
emails
or
public
communication
channels.
3. No
Paid
Leave
for
Unions:
School
employees
would be
prohibited
from
using
paid
sick
leave or
personal
leave to
conduct
union-related
business.
4.
Collective
Bargaining
Restrictions:
The
measure
contains
broader
language
that
public
employee
unions
argue
would
block
the
state,
cities,
and
counties
from
negotiating
employment
terms
and
conditions
altogether. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote on
this
amendment
keeps
the
following
practices
in
place:
1.Payroll
Deductions:
Public
school
districts
can
continue
to
automatically
deduct
union
dues
from
employee
paychecks
if
requested
by the
employee.
2.
Resource
Sharing:
Schools
retain
the
ability
to
distribute
labor
organization
materials
through
district
emails
or
public
communication
channels.
3. Union
Leave:
School
employees
can
continue
using
designated
paid
leave or
release
time to
conduct
union-related
business.
4.
Collective
Bargaining:
State,
city,
county,
and
school
district
entities
retain
their
existing
authority
to
negotiate
employment
terms
and
conditions
with
public
employee
unions.
Simply
put, 143
is a
union
buster. |
|
|
|
|
144 |
Election
administration;
Absentee voting;
Citizenship
voting; Early
voting; Campaign
finance; Voter
ID |
NO |
|
--
Requires
all
voters,
including
voters
who vote
by mail,
to show
government-issued
ID to
vote in
each
election;
makes
other
changes
to
election
administration
and
campaign
finance
prohibitions. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
would
amend
the
Arizona
Constitution
to enact
several
changes
to
election
policies:
1. It
would
explicitly
state
requirements
regarding
citizenship
for
registering
and
voting
in
Arizona
elections.
2. It
would
require
voters
to
provide
government-issued
photo
identification
in order
to cast
a
ballot.
3. It
would
address
foreign
nationals
making
financial
contributions
to
influence
an
Arizona
election,
and
individuals
or
groups
knowingly
accepting
them. 4.
It would
address
ballot
tabulation
at
voting
locations.
|
|
|
|
IN
REGARDS
NUMBER
4:
Arizona
Proposition
144
addresses
ballot
tabulation
by
granting
voters
the
constitutional
right to
have
their
votes
tabulated
directly
at their
voting
location
on
election
day. If
approved
by
voters,
this
provision
would
establish
the
following:
1.
On-Site
Counting
Option:
It
ensures
that
voters
have the
legal
option
to
insert
their
ballots
into an
on-site
tabulator
at the
polling
place or
voting
center
to be
scanned
and
counted
immediately,
rather
than
having
their
ballots
transported
elsewhere
for
central
processing.
2.
Timeline
for
Implementation:
This
requirement
would
officially
become
effective
for all
Arizona
elections
taking
place
after
January
1, 2028. |
|
|
|
|
While
this all
sounds
great
one must
ask "How
much
would
this
cost?".
Proposition
144 is
not
cost-effective.
key
financial
and
operational
points:
1.
Insufficient
Dedicated
Funding:
The
measure
allocates
funding
from the
Clean
Elections
Fund to
help
Arizona's
15
counties
pay for
all the
structural
changes
it
mandates.
Election
officials,
including
the
Secretary
of
State,
have
stated
this is
wholly
insufficient
to cover
the true
costs of
implementation.
2.
High
Equipment
Costs:
Because
election
security
standards
may
require
backup
machines
on-site
in case
of a
breakdown,
counties
might
need to
purchase
multiple
tabulators
per
voting
location,
potentially
exceeding
the
provided
budget.
3.
Long-Term
Operational
Overhead:
The
initial
fund may
not
account
for the
ongoing
costs
of
hiring
additional
polling
staff,
purchasing
software
subscriptions,
performing
annual
equipment
maintenance,
and
providing
secure
storage
for new
machines. |
|
|
|
|
COST:
While
a
precise
county-by-county
fiscal
impact
breakdown
has
not
been
officially
finalized
for
the
ballot
pamphlet,
an
average
ballpark
figure
for
a
county
the
size
of
Pima
County
would
likely
range
between
$1
million
and
$3
million
in
upfront
capital
costs,
followed
by
hundreds
of
thousands
in
ongoing
annual
expenses.
This estimation is built on the logistical realities of transitioning to widespread on-site polling place tabulation:
|
-
Hardware
Procurement:
Pima
County
typically
operates
dozens
of
voting
centers
or
polling
locations.
To
provide
on-site
scanning,
the
county
would
need
to
purchase
commercial-grade
optical
scan
tabulators
for
every
single
location.
At
an
estimated
cost
of
$5,000
to
$6,000
per
unit,
plus
mandatory
backups,
hardware
alone
could
easily
exceed
several
hundred
thousand
dollars.
-
Licensing
and
Software:
Secure
election
software,
programming
for
precinct-specific
ballots,
and
logic/accuracy
testing
protocols
add
substantial
vendor
fees.
-
Staffing
and
Training:
On-site
tabulation
changes
how
poll
workers
manage
troubleshooting.
Pima
County
would
need
to
invest
heavily
in
comprehensive
training
programs
and
hire
additional
technical
support
staff
to
rove
between
voting
centers
on
election
day.
|
|
Because
these
costs
multiply
based on
the
number
of
physical
polling
places a
county
maintains,
mid-to-large
jurisdictions
like
Pima
County
face
significantly
higher
financial
hurdles
than
smaller,
rural
counties,
while
Maricopa
County's
costs
would
scale
even
higher. |
|
|
|
|
A “NO”
vote
would
maintain
current
state
laws and
voting
protocols.
Rejecting
this
amendment
keeps
the
following
practices
in
place,
according
to the
official
description
of the
measure:
1.
Identification
Requirements:
Arizona's
current
statutory
voter ID
rules
would
remain
unchanged.
2.
Tabulation
Flexibility:
Counties
would
retain
the
authority
to use
central-count
tabulation
methods.
3.
Campaign
Finance
Rules:
Current
state
and
federal
regulations
regarding
foreign
national
contributions
in
elections
would
remain
as they
are. |
|
|
|
|
145 |
Prohibit the
state from
confiscating
money from a
scholarship
account of a
student who is a
child of a
military family |
NO |
|
-- Would
nullify
Proposition
212. If
voters
enact it
this
election;
Prohibits
the
State
from
sweeping
funds
from
certain
state-run
scholarship
accounts
if the
students
parent
has
provided
certain
active-duty
military
service;
Nullifies
all laws
that
would
sweep
any such
funds,
including
unrelated
provisions
of those
laws. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
would
have the
effect
of
amending
the
Arizona
Constitution
to
prohibit
the
state
from
confiscating
money
from
state-maintained
scholarship
accounts
belonging
to
students
in
military
families.
If
passed
by
voters,
this
measure
would
implement
the
following
constitutional
rules:
1.
Account
Protections:
The
state
government
would be
legally
barred
from
seizing,
reclaiming,
or
redistributing
funds
from any
state-established
scholarship
account
used for
postsecondary
tuition
or fees
by a
child of
a
military
family.
2.
Voiding
Future
Changes:
Any
future
state
law or
voter-approved
ballot
measure
passed
on or
after
November
1, 2026,
that
attempts
to
violate
this
restriction
would be
considered
entirely
void and
could
not be
altered
or saved
by a
court
ruling.
This
would be
a
PERMANENT
change. |
|
|
|
|
Republican
lawmakers
want to
pass
Proposition
145
primarily
to
permanently
protect
school
choice
programs
(ESA's)
and
completely
block
citizen-led
efforts
to
reform
the
state's
universal
school
voucher
system.
The
Republican
strategy
for
passing
this
measure
involves
several
key
political
and
policy
objectives:
protecting
ESA
voucher
funds,
blocking
citizen
reform
initiatives,
ensuring
permanence
and
circumventing
Democratic
leadership.
Since
145 was
passed
as a
legislative
ballot
referral,
it
bypassed
Democratic
Governor
Katie
Hobbs,
allowing
the
Republican
legislative
majority
to take
the
issue
directly
to
voters. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote on
Arizona
Proposition
145
maintains
current
state
laws and
preserves
the
existing
authority
over
state-maintained
scholarship
accounts.
Here's
what
they
don't
want you
to know
. . .
public
school
advocates,
teacher
unions,
and
Democratic
lawmakers,
argue
that the
measure
is
entirely
unnecessary
and
serves
as a
political
maneuver
to
protect
a
controversial
system.
1. A
Manufactured
Conflict:
Critics
point
out that
there is
no
active
effort
or
political
appetite
to strip
school
vouchers
away
from
military
families.
They
argue
that
using
military
families
as the
face of
the
measure
is a
tactic
to pass
a
broader
constitutional
law. 2.
Blocking
Voter-Led
Reforms:
It's
believed
that the
true
purpose
of the
measure
is its
"voiding
clause,"
which
explicitly
cancels
out any
future
citizen-led
ballot
initiatives
aiming
to cap
or
reform
Arizona's
universal
voucher
program
[PRO_145_REP].
This
measure
takes
away the
public's
right to
fix a
system
that
critics
argue
defunds
public
schools. |
|
|
|
|
212 |
Protect
Education Act |
YES |
|
--
Limits
eligibility
for
Empowerment
Scholarship
Accounts
("ESA'S")
to
families
making
$150,000
or less
per
year;
Prohibits
ESA
funds
from
being
spent on
noneducational
or
luxury
items;
Imposes
other
rules
and
restrictions
on the
ESA
program. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
will
amend
Arizona’s
Empowerment
Scholarship
Account
(“ESA”)
school
voucher
program
by: 1.
Limiting
eligibility
to
families
earning
$150,000
or less
per
year,
adjusted
for
inflation,
with
exceptions
for
students
with
disabilities
and
others;
2.
Prohibiting
the use
of ESA
funds on
noneducational
items,
luxury
goods,
supplemental
materials
not
directly
associated
with an
approved
curriculum,
or to
pay
students’
family
members
unless
the
student
is
disabled;
3.
Requiring
that
tutors
who
receive
ESA
funds
must
have
graduated
from
high
school
and
obtained
a
fingerprint
clearance
card; 4.
Requiring
schools
that
receive
ESA
funds to
be
accredited
or
administer
state
standardized
tests,
unless
they
serve
only
students
with
disabilities;
and 5.
Generally
requiring
that
allocated
ESA
funds
not
spent by
July 1
of each
year be
returned
to the
State
for
distribution
to the
classroom
site
fund,
for
certain
costs of
the ESA
program,
and for
other
purposes.
SIMPLY
PUT...
212
would
change
the
state's
laws
surrounding
the
Empowerment
Scholarship
Account
program.
It would
limit
eligibility
in the
program
to
families
that
earn
less
than
$150,000
per year
beginning
in the
2027-2028
school
year and
adjusted
annually
by 2%.
Under
Proposition
212,
families
would
not be
able to
purchase
luxury
items,
including
out-of-state
travel,
dining,
amusement
park
tickets,
home
appliances,
or home
improvements
with the
money
provided
from the
ESA
program
(ref 1)
(ref 2).
Proposition
212
would
prohibit
the
payment
of
family
members
with
money
from the
ESA,
except
for in
the case
of
students
with
disabilities.
The
measure
would
require
that
teachers
and
staff at
schools
qualified
for the
program
must
have
fingerprint
clearance
cards
and be
subject
to
oversight
from the
State
Board of
Education. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
shall
have the
effect
of
maintaining
the
current
laws
relating
to the
ESA
school
voucher
program. |
|
|
|
|
316 |
Prohibit local
government from
imposing or
increasing a tax
on the sale of
food items
without voter
approval and cap
the tax rate at
2% |
NO |
|
--
Retroactively
prohibits
local
governments
from
adopting
or
increasing
a tax on
groceries
without
voter
approval
and sets
a
maximum
rate of
2% |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
would
support
a
legislatively
referred
state
statute
that
would
establish
rules
regarding
local
government
taxation
of
groceries.
If
passed
by
voters,
this
measure
would
establish
several
fiscal
provisions
for
municipalities
across
Arizona:
1. Local
governments
could be
limited
in the
maximum
sales
tax rate
they can
impose
on
groceries.
2. Local
governments
may be
required
to
obtain
voter
approval
before
enacting
a new
grocery
tax or
increasing
an
existing
one. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote
keeps
the
following
fiscal
authorities
in
place:
1. Tax
Rate
Autonomy:
Cities
and
towns
retain
the
authority
to set
their
own
local
sales
tax
rates on
groceries,
without
a
state-imposed
2%
limit.
2.
Council
Authority:
Local
city
councils
and town
boards
keep the
power to
increase,
decrease,
or
implement
local
grocery
taxes
through
regular
council
votes,
without
being
forced
to hold
a public
ballot
election
for
voter
approval.
3.
Revenue
Control:
Local
governments
preserve
their
current
streams
of
municipal
tax
revenue,
which
are
often
used to
fund
local
public
services
like
police,
fire
departments,
parks,
and road
maintenance.
In
short, a
"NO"
vote
keeps
these
decisions
LOCAL
instead
of
letting
Phoenix
decide
local
law. |
|
|
|
|
317 |
Declare drug
cartels to be
terrorist
organizations |
NO |
|
--
Declares
that
drug
cartels
are
terrorist
organizations;
Directs
the
Arizona
Department
of
Homeland
Security
to do
everything
in its
authority
to
address
drug
cartels |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
would
support
a
legislatively
referred
state
statute
to
declare
drug
cartels
as
terrorist
organizations
and
mandate
state
action
against
them. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote
keeps
the
following
practices
in
place:
1.
Existing
Law
Enforcement
Framework:
State
and
local
law
enforcement
will
continue
to
target,
investigate,
and
prosecute
drug
cartels
using
Arizona's
existing
criminal
statutes,
such as
racketeering,
illegal
enterprise,
and drug
trafficking
laws. 2.
Current
DHS
Priorities:
The
Arizona
Department
of
Homeland
Security
will
maintain
its
current
strategic
plan and
operational
priorities
without
being
legally
mandated
to pivot
resources
toward
this
specific
state-level
designation.
3.
Federal
Jurisdiction:
The
legal
classification
of
transnational
criminal
organizations
and
terrorist
entities
will
remain
primarily
a matter
of
federal
law and
federal
agency
designation.
Here's
the rub:
The
official
legislative
fiscal
analysts
have not
attached
a
specific,
localized
dollar
amount
to
Proposition
317.
However,
state
budget
experts
note
that its
passing
would
likely
trigger
significant
indirect
operational
costs
due to
its
sweeping
mandate.
The
financial
impact:
1. No
Direct
Appropriation:
The text
of the
measure
legally
mandates
the
Arizona
Department
of
Homeland
Security
(AZDHS)
to
counter
cartel
threats,
but it
does not
allocate
new
state
funding
to pay
for it.
2.
Agency
Budget
Shifting:
AZDHS
would be
forced
to
absorb
the
costs of
this new
directive
into its
existing
operational
budget,
potentially
defunding
other
state
security
and
emergency
management
programs
to
comply
with the
law. 3.
Local
Law
Enforcement
Overhead:
Opponents,
including
some law
enforcement
officials,
argue
that if
state
agencies
expand
tracking
or
coordinate
new task
forces,
it could
strain
local
city and
county
police
budgets
through
increased
administrative
and
overtime
costs.
This
would be
just
another
unfunded
mandate
that, if
passed,
the
Legislature
would be
forced
to fund
at the
expense
of other
points
in the
annual
budget. |
|
|
|
|
318 |
Prohibit schools
and athletic
associations
from allowing a
student,
athlete,
employee, or
other individual
from using a
restroom, locker
room, shower
room, or other
private space
that is not
designated for
their sex |
NO |
|
--
Requires
all
schools
and
athletic
associations
to
designate
athletic
teams as
male,
female,
or coed
based on
the
biological
sex of
the
athletes
as
defined
at
birth;
Prohibits
these
entities
from
authorizing
use of
private
spaces
not
designated
for a
person's
sex. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
would
support
a
legislatively
referred
state
statute
related
to
school
facilities
and
athletic
teams
based on
biological
sex.
According
to the
text of
the
measure,
public
schools
and
athletic
associations
would be
restricted
in
allowing
individuals
to use
restrooms,
locker
rooms,
changing
areas,
or
shower
rooms
that do
not
align
with
their
designated
biological
sex as
recorded
at
birth.
The
proposition
would
also
eliminate
a rule
in
Arizona
law
concerning
female
students
participating
on
sports
teams or
intramural
leagues
designated
for
males. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote
would
maintain
the
current
state
laws,
local
school
district
policies,
and
athletic
association
rules
such as
1.
School
District
Autonomy:
Individual
public
school
districts
and
charter
schools
retain
the
authority
to set
their
own
policies
regarding
access
to
restrooms,
locker
rooms,
and
changing
areas.
2.
Inclusion
Policies:
Schools
can
continue
providing
accommodations
or
gender-inclusive
facilities
based on
a
student's
gender
identity
rather
than
being
legally
restricted
to
biological
sex at
birth.
3.
Athletic
Rules:
The
current
Arizona
Interscholastic
Association
(AIA)
policies
and
existing
state
laws
regarding
student
eligibility
and
participation
in
sports
remain
unchanged. |
|
|
|
|
319 |
Prohibit the
government from
using traffic
photo
enforcement
systems without
voter approval |
YES |
|
--
Prohibits
State
agencies
and
local
governments
from
using
photo
enforcement
systems
for
traffic
enforcement
unless
provided
by
contract
as of
December
31,
2026;
Requires
local
governments
to
obtain
voter
approval
to
continue
their
use. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote on
this
measure
supports
a
legislatively
referred
state
statute
to
prohibit
government
entities
from
using
photo
traffic
enforcement
systems
to
identify
traffic
violators.
If
passed
by
voters,
this
measure
would
implement
the
following
strict
rules on
photo
radar,
speed
traps,
and
red-light
cameras:
1. Ban
on New
Systems:
State
agencies
and
local
municipal
governments
would be
legally
blocked
from
installing
or
operating
any new
photo
enforcement
traffic
cameras.
2.
Contract
Cutoff
Date:
The only
exception
to the
ban
would be
if a
local
government
had
already
entered
into a
contract
to use
those
specific
photo
systems
by
December
31,
2026. 3.
Voter
Approval
for
Existing
Systems:
Any city
or town
currently
utilizing
traffic
cameras
would be
forced
to
obtain
explicit
voter
approval
at the
next
regular
general
election
to keep
them
active.
4.
Mandatory
10-Year
Renewals:
Local
governments
would be
required
to put
their
existing
photo
enforcement
systems
up for a
public
vote
every 10
years
afterward
to
continue
operating
them. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote on
Proposition
319
means
local
cities
and
towns
can keep
using or
adding
traffic
cameras
as they
do right
now.
Rejecting
the
measure
keeps
the
following
rules in
place:
1. No
New
Bans:
Local
governments
can
still
install
new
red-light
cameras
or speed
radar
systems.
2. No
Public
Votes:
Cities
do not
have to
ask
voters
for
permission
to keep
their
existing
traffic
cameras
running.
3. Local
Control:
Police
departments
and city
councils
keep the
power to
decide
how to
use
photo
radar to
enforce
traffic
laws. |
|
|
|
|
320 |
Require certain
school districts
to spend at
least 60% of
their budget on
direct
instructional
expenses |
NO |
|
--
Requires
certain
school
districts
to spend
at least
sixty
percent
of their
operational
spending
on
direct
instructional
expenses
as
defined
by the
Auditor
General;
Reduces
certain
state
funding
for
non-compliant
districts. |
|
|
|
|
A "YES"
vote
means
you want
to force
big
school
districts
to spend
a set
amount
of their
money
directly
on
teaching
students.
In
simpler
terms,
it would
do the
following:
1. The
60%
Rule:
Big
school
districts
must
spend at
least
$60 out
of every
$100 of
their
budget
directly
inside
the
classroom.
2.
Classroom
Spending:
This
money
covers
things
like
teacher
salaries,
textbooks,
and
school
supplies.
3. Other
Spending:
Less
money
could go
toward
outside-the-classroom
costs,
like
administration,
busing,
and
building
maintenance.
4.
Punishment
for
Failing:
Schools
that do
not meet
the 60%
goal
could
lose
some of
their
state
funding. |
|
|
|
|
A "NO"
vote
would
mean
school
districts
can keep
deciding
how to
split up
their
budgets
without
being
forced
to meet
a
state-mandated
percentage.
In
simpler
terms,
rejecting
the
measure
keeps
the
following
rules in
place:
1. No
Set
Limits:
School
districts
are not
required
to spend
at least
60% of
their
money
specifically
inside
the
classroom.
2. Local
School
Control:
Elected
local
school
boards
keep the
flexibility
to
divide
their
budget
based on
what
their
specific
schools
need
most. 3.
Flexible
Funding:
Schools
can
continue
putting
as much
money as
necessary
toward
outside-the-classroom
services
like
school
buses,
cafeteria
workers,
counselors,
security,
and
building
repairs.
4. No
State
Penalties:
School
districts
will not
face any
risk of
losing
state
funding
for how
they
balance
their
operational
spending.
Now
here's
what
they
aren't
telling
you . .
.
lawmakers,
teacher
unions,
and
school
administrators,
argue
that the
measure
is an
arbitrary
mandate
designed
to
squeeze
school
budgets
and make
public
districts
look
financially
irresponsible.
Some of
the
points:
1.
Misleading
Definition
of
"Classroom":
Critics
point
out that
vital
school
employees—like
bus
drivers,
cafeteria
staff,
campus
security
guards,
guidance
counselors,
and
school
nurses—are
classified
as
"outside
the
classroom."
To meet
the 60%
rule,
schools
might
have to
cut
these
essential
student
support
services.
2.
Ignores
Local
Needs:
Opponents
argue
that a
flat
percentage
mandate
ignores
real-world
differences.
For
example,
a rural
school
district
with
massive
fuel
costs
for long
bus
routes
or an
older
school
needing
expensive
air
conditioning
repairs
will
automatically
have
higher
"outside-the-classroom"
expenses.
3. Sets
Up
Schools
to Fail:
Because
the
measure
cuts
funding
for
schools
that
miss the
target,
critics
argue it
is a
political
trap
meant to
defund
public
education
while
shifting
public
support
toward
private
school
vouchers. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
U.S.
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT 1
