Judge blocks Prop 143, saying it would have banned city and county labor talks

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has knocked Proposition 143 off Arizona’s November ballot, ruling the Republican-backed union measure violates the state’s Separate Amendment Rule, according to reporting by the Arizona Capitol Times. Judge Greg Como concluded the proposal bundled unrelated constitutional changes and, as written, would have barred the state and every local government from negotiating with any labor organization over wages, benefits, or other employment terms.

The consequence for cities, towns, counties, and special districts is immediate and concrete: unless supporters win on appeal, voters will not face a statewide up-or-down question that, by the judge’s reading, would have stripped local officials of the option to meet and confer with any employee group. Supporters can appeal, or the measure will be removed from the November ballot, the Capitol Times reported.

Como wrote there was “no ambiguity” in Proposition 143’s text stating “this state or any political subdivision of this state may not negotiate with a labor organization,” and he rejected arguments that voters should read “state” and “political subdivision” as if they meant only school districts. In his view, that wording covered all Arizona cities, counties, and other local governments, and he said rewriting those terms to narrow the scope would be “impermissible,” the Capitol Times reported.

The court also drew a bright line between two ideas legislators had welded together. Como said a measure limited to prohibiting public schools from using taxpayer resources to support unions, such as distributing union materials on campus or deducting dues from paychecks, could have passed constitutional muster on its own. But lawmakers added a separate, broader ban on any state or local bargaining with labor organizations. Forcing voters to accept or reject both at once ran afoul of the Separate Amendment Rule, he found, according to the Capitol Times.

Proposition 143’s definition of “labor organization” was another sticking point. The proposal defined it broadly as “any employee representation organization that exists for the purpose of dealing with employers,” language Como noted “does not even mention” teachers’ unions or school employee associations. Far from being school-specific, the text reached any public-sector employee group across state and local government, he wrote, per the Capitol Times reporting.

Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose office asked the court to remove Proposition 143 from the ballot, praised the decision. “In their rush to attack public school teachers, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro wrote a horrible initiative that would have stripped every public servant from having the right to demand fair treatment and fair wages,” she said, according to the Capitol Times. Legislative leaders who advanced the referral did not immediately comment after the ruling.

The fight over Proposition 143 grew out of an escalating clash about Arizona’s universal school voucher program. The Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona are pushing Proposition 212, the Protect Education, Accountability Now Act, to tighten rules on Empowerment Scholarship Accounts with new spending limits and income-based eligibility. Republican lawmakers responded by crafting Proposition 143, aimed primarily at curbing the AEA’s influence, the Capitol Times reported. Talks to pull both measures broke down, the paper added.

Whether Proposition 212 reaches the ballot is also uncertain. Voucher supporters have sued, alleging that many of the more than 421,000 submitted signatures are invalid because some paid circulators failed to register with the Secretary of State and others have disqualifying criminal convictions. If those signatures are voided, opponents of the initiative argue, the campaign would fall short of the 259,949 valid signatures needed to qualify, according to the Capitol Times reporting.

In a separate development, a different Republican-backed ballot referral to protect private school voucher funding for military families was tossed off the ballot after a judge concluded it would unconstitutionally ban any future reforms to the voucher system, the Arizona Mirror reported. That ruling underscores how quickly referrals can fail in court when they do more than their titles suggest.

For local governments, the immediate takeaway is plain: the court’s reading of Proposition 143 would have imposed a blanket statewide prohibition on negotiating with any labor organization, removing discretion from mayors, councils, and county boards. If lawmakers want voters to decide discrete questions, whether about school union access or city and county labor talks, they should write clean, single-subject measures and vet them in the open. Arizonans can handle a clear choice. What we do not need is logrolling that muddies the ballot and ties the hands of local residents and their elected boards without a straight, well-noticed vote on each distinct issue.

See an error? Email corrections@saguarosignal.com. We append material corrections to the article.