Arizona begins tricky process of drafting 'neutral language' for ballot measures

Supporters of a ballot measure to put new rules on Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or ESAs — basically school vouchers — turned in more than 420,000 signatures late last week.

And shortly thereafter, the American Federation for Children, which opposes the referendum, announced it would challenge those signatures, trying to stop the measure from going before voters in November.

On Wednesday, a legislative panel will meet to draft language to describe all the measures that will be on this fall’s ballot. But if the past few election cycles are any indication, that process will not be without controversy.

To explain it all, The Show spoke with Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services.

Elections

Arizona group submits signatures to get ESA initiative on November ballot

Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services

Backers of comprehensive changes to the state's system of taxpayer funded vouchers for education submitted more than 400,000 signatures Thursday for their plan, setting the stage for what could be an expensive campaign.

Full conversation

MARK BRODIE: Good morning, Howie.

HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning. Are you suggesting that the requirement to prove and come up with neutral language would be anything but simple?

MARK BRODIE: Well, I guess that kind of goes to the question of what exactly constitutes neutral, right?

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, what I think constitutes neutral is the truth. I don’t care what you think.

MARK BRODIE: So what is this panel? Who comprises it, and what are they actually tasked with doing?

HOWARD FISCHER: This is a legislative committee, it’s called the Legislative Council. Essentially, these are some key lawmakers from the House and Senate, both parties, obviously controlled by Republicans. And they have various duties having to do with oversight and such, but their main duty here is to say, “We have to come up with a neutral explanation of each of the measures on the ballot.”

Now, I’d love to tell you this has been a smooth procedure in the past. There are probably some things that can be done fairly on a bipartisan fashion. For example, the issue of putting on the ballot the question of whether local communities should have to vote on photo radar. I think that’s fairly straight up and down.

Now, when we get to things like vouchers and anti-voucher things, just as was discussed on the newscast, that’s where we go down the rabbit hole.

MARK BRODIE: And Howie, am I right that these are the descriptions that actually show up on the ballot that voters get?

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, no. These actually show up on the brochure that comes to everyone’s house. There are some really short descriptions that go on the ballot, and they could get fought over.

Capitol Media Services

/

Handout

For example, the question, as again discussed in the newscast, you have a measure that is being billed as protecting against future ballot initiatives dealing with vouchers. Now, this is billed as a “Military Family Scholarship Account,” which is true. It would protect the scholarships of military families from being wiped out.

But then they have, as we’ve talked about before, this poison pill in there to say that if people approve this protection for the group of military families, it puts into the Constitution something that wipes out any other initiative passed statutorily that does anything at all to vouchers, that trims it at all in terms of putting in the income caps, in terms of putting in the requirements for people to be checked out and have some sort of background checks and such.

And that’s where you get into trouble because one of the important points — what makes it neutral? I might call that provision a poison pill because it seems to be hidden in the bill. But other people say, “Well, it’s just a matter of protecting vouchers.”

MARK BRODIE: So is this the kind of thing that could lead to litigation? Like, if, for example, critics of that referendum or that initiative don’t like the way that that provision is described, can they sue to get it changed?

HOWARD FISCHER: Oh, you bet, and they do. I mean, that’s the fact. Anyone can hire a lawyer.

So not only do we have lawsuits out there over several of the referrals of the Legislature on whether in fact they are legal, whether they meet the single-subject rule, but we will have the same, sending same cases come back on the issue of the description with the Legislative Council.

Again, you end up with a judge trying to decide, “Is this sufficiently neutral?” And that becomes the issue. There is no such thing as perfect neutrality.

It’s not like, light is red, light is green, we can describe what they say. What happens when the light is yellow? I mean, I believe the old line from an old movie that yellow means go very, very fast.

MARK BRODIE: Not recommended to follow Howie on the roads. Quickly, Howie, before I let you go, it’s interesting we saw late last week that when you talk about the referendum, the initiative rather, that the Legislature put up dealing with military families, one of its biggest supporters is a former Arizona governor.

HOWARD FISCHER: Exactly, and we haven’t heard much from Doug Ducey. I mean, he has been involved in helping organize and putting some of his former supporters into think tanks and such, many of which the policies that they put out, I think tend to be looking at something to attack the current Democratic governor.

Now, they will deny it. They will say numbers are numbers. Well, yeah, but it’s how you present them and what you compare them to.

All of a sudden, we get this press release from Doug Ducey — hasn’t returned any calls — saying, “I will be chairing this committee to go ahead and fight for this ‘Military Family Scholarship Account,’ and we need to protect our military families.”

I think what the real purpose is, he was the person who was the governor when we went to universal vouchers in 2022, and he believes in them, and he wants to do what he can to protect them and saying that he believes that this is what voters want.

Is this what voters want in terms of universal scholarships? Do they want issues in terms of how the money has to be spent? Should there be an income cap? This is going to be a very bitter and very expensive fight.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah and Howie, I guess it’s, given what you just said, it’s maybe not such a surprise that former Gov. Ducey is getting involved in this, given that this was one of his big achievements as governor.

HOWARD FISCHER: Oh, I definitely think so. I think he’s protecting his legacy. Now, is there something down the road for Doug Ducey? I mean, he’s not an old man. Heck, we got a president who’s 80, so I mean, Dougie is younger than I am.

I know I shouldn’t call him Dougie. I’m sorry. I’m showing my age here because I’m 76. You’re all just children to me.

But leaving that aside, I think that he may be feeling that certain Potomac fever that kicks in every so often, like, “They need me, they want me.” Is he vice presidential material to somebody? Maybe very possibly.

MARK BRODIE: All right, we’ll have to see. That is Howie Fischer with Capitol Media Services. Howie, thank you as always.

HOWARD FISCHER: Have a great day.