A deadline this week should help decide which measures go on the Arizona ballot

There are still a number of pending legal challenges that’ll determine which ballot measures Arizonans vote on this fall, and how those measures are described on the ballot.

But we should get some more clarity on all of that this week, with a pending deadline.

With The Show now to explain is Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services.

Politics

Here are the 10 measures lawmakers sent to the Arizona ballot in November

Camryn Sanchez, Wayne Schutsky

Arizonans will get to decide whether to add voter ID requirements to state elections, keep transgender children out of peer’s bathrooms and more in November, as lawmakers passed a series of last minute ballot measures.

Full conversation

HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning. Yes, so the lawyers are in court and everyone is confused.

MARK BRODIE: So what is this deadline coming up this week that may force people to make decisions?

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, this comes down to the ballots having to be printed. Now, yes, it's true that the election isn't until November, but the ballots need to be designed. And remember that you have to come up with a design for each precinct. So it's not simply a question of having one ballot, Maricopa County, because you've got different school districts, you have different legislative districts, and each of these have to be designed. Plus, you also need to put the wording on there, which is supposedly coming from the secretary of state. So that's one deadline. There's another deadline for a brochure that gets mailed to all 4.3 million registered voters. That's a little more leeway on that, but still coming up rapidly.

MARK BRODIE: OK, so let's talk about some of the questions that we still have about which questions we'll be deciding. And one of them is still at the trial court phase, sort of the initial stage. And this is over Prop. 212, which has to do with empowerment scholarship accounts. And the question here is whether or not there are enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Where are we with that?

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, the judge issued a preliminary ruling last week saying that it appears that they've got more than the 255,949 that are needed to qualify for the ballot. But here's the thing. He didn't have the numbers back from Maricopa and Apache counties.

Now, what makes that important is that each county gets a random sample of 5% of the signatures from that county, and then they use that to extrapolate out statewide how many of the signatures that did come in are in fact valid. So that still needs to be worked out and and these not expected to have those maybe until tomorrow.

Yet at the same time, given the preliminary rulings he's issued, there have already been appeals filed to the state Supreme Court. For example, the question of if somebody has their correct residential address on when they register with the secretary of state, but the address they put on the petitions as a circulator is different because they're afraid, for example, of being stalked, is that in compliance? The judge said no, there's an argument about yes.

Then there are a lot of other technical requirements. And this is really going to come down to how close we get and how quickly it needs to be done. But like I said, they've already filed the appeal with the Supreme Court, both sides, because they recognize this deadline coming up.

MARK BRODIE: Well, Howie, safe to say that however the judge rules on the signatures issue will also likely get appealed to the Supreme Court?

HOWARD FISCHER: Oh, the whole thing is being already being put together the package, and that's why the attorneys are pre-filing. Now, there are two other issues related to this. One of them is, as I talked about, this brochure that goes out to all of the the registered voters. And this is prepared by the Legislative Council, which are lawmakers, which, by definition, is controlled by Republicans. And they crafted a definition that the trial court judge said was argumentative, speculative and non-neutral. And the trial court judge said, "No, you can't use that in terms of what you're sending out to all the voters." ... That's been one that's going to have to get a final ruling, although I think the Supreme Court has pretty much said, "No, they did it wrong and they're going to have to do it over."

Now, there's a separate measure, the separate issue that goes right on the ballot. So when you get your ballot, you're going to see a short title and then you're going to see the effect of a yes vote, the effect of a no vote. ... That is prepared by the secretary of state, who happens to be a Democrat. And a trial judge said, "No, he's wrong in calling it a voucher."

Now, this is one of those arguments we've had ever since we've had the first legal vouchers. And then they — the Supreme Court said, "Well, vouchers in that form are illegal, but an empowerment scholarship account is different because of how the money is handled." Now, most people know them as vouchers. I don't know how much difference that makes in terms of what people think, but that's going to end up at the Supreme Court. And that's just one of the ballot measures that's still pending out there.

MARK BRODIE: Right. So let's talk about one of the other ones. This has — this also has to do with empowerment scholarship accounts, but it's ostensibly about military families, but also has another provision that critics call a "poison pill," which would nullify Prop. 212 if voters approve this other one.

HOWARD FISCHER: That's exactly it. And it was clearly designed that way. What they've done is recognize that one of the things in Prop. 212 says you can't hang on to money you haven't used from a voucher year after year after year and then use it to pay for college. They say that's not the purpose of what ESAs, vouchers, whatever you want to call them, is for.

What the Republicans have done is they said, "Let's take the most popular group out of this. It's a very small group. These are the children of military families, and we will put something on the ballot constitutionally to say you cannot take away any of this money for military families." That part of it is fine. But it was, as you point out, this poison pill that says, "And if this, and if in fact this passes, anything else that deals with military families and their ability to bank money also is voided." And that, of course, would void Prop. 212.

Again, it's not just it would void that part of Prop. 212, it would void everything, the income cap on parents, the fact you can't buy lingerie and jewelry with voucher money, and things like that. And at this point, the the trial judge threw it off the ballot, said you can't combine those two issues. That's on appeal.

Yet at the same time, the trial judge said that Adrian Fontes had to reword his explanation of what it did because of the fact that he pointed out it tied the two of them together. Again, different judges, different ideas.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah. Well, Supreme Court's going to be busy over the next few days. We'll be excited to talk to you, Howie, about the results of all these cases. That is Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services. Thank you, sir, as always.

HOWARD FISCHER: Have a great morning.