A Tucson political activist’s proposals to increase spending for education and boost voter turnout have drawn criticism and surprise from state officials.

Democrat Mark Osterloh, who has run unsuccessfully for the Legislature and for governor, filed the initiative notices with the Secretary of State’s Office on July 30.

One asks voters to require the Legislature to spend the national per pupil average for K-12 education, a proposal the state Department of Education says could cost the state at least $1.6 billion.

The other would award a $1 million prize for voting in a state primary or general election.

Mr. Oslerloh, a non-practicing attorney and physician, calls his organization “Arizonans for Voter Rewards and Education Funding.” He has until next July to collect the signatures he needs to qualify his proposals for the ballot.

He told a news conference on July 30 the Legislature has failed to fund public education adequately.

“We cannot have a first-world economy if we have Third World funding for education,” he said.

The education initiative would amend the state Constitution to require the Legislature to provide annual per pupil funding “equal to or greater than the most recent average per-pupil expenditure . . . as determined by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) of the United States Department of Education…”

The most recent statistics used by the Arizona Department of Education put the state’s per-pupil spending (for a state public and charter school population of 912,645) at $5,559, or $1,817 below the national average of $7,376, said agency spokeswoman Amy Rezzonico.

Using NCES statistics, the Eller College of Business and Public Administration at the University of Arizona reported in January that Arizona ranked 49th last year in per pupil spending.

Mr. Osterloh told how he believes legislators could provide the additional funds for education.

“They could easily fund this by getting rid of tax exemptions and loopholes and tax cuts for rich campaign contributors who have gotten them into office in the first place,” he said.

Opponents: ‘Be Realistic’

But Sen. Toni Hellon, R-Dist. 26, said, “The money’s not there. We have to be realistic in this.”

Ms. Hellon, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, said that if the education initiative were passed by voters it could lead to a backlash against school funding, as well as “a huge tax increase.” She said the initiative could put education in further competition with health care and other state services and might anger some legislators who then would try to cut other educational funding.

Rep. Linda Gray, R-Dist. 10, who heads the House Education Committee, said the initiative fails to take into account the need for higher per-pupil spending for children with special needs and should include a specific source of funding.

Governor Napolitano said she spoke with Mr. Osterloh several months ago about his initiative ideas and described them at the time as “vague.”

“There has not been adequate funding for education in the past,” the governor said, “but it’s just not about spending . . . it’s about achievement and what to do with the money that’s available. He’s identified a problem, but I’m not sure this is the answer.”

Increasing Voter Turnout

Of his other initiative, to make a lottery out of voting, Mr. Osterloh said he hopes a financial incentive would increase turnout in the state from what he said was less than 50 per cent to more than 90 per cent. (Turnout of registered voters in the 2002 general election was 56.3 per cent of those registered to vote, the Secretary of State’s Office reported, but not everyone who is eligible registers.)

The voting initiative would assign each voter an I.D. number and require the state Lottery Commission to act as the “Arizona Voter Reward Commission” and oversee a drawing every two years for $1 million or more that would be awarded from Lottery funds and private donations to one person who voted in a primary or general election or both.

“We’re rewarding patriotism,” Mr. Osterloh said.

He said Australia assesses a $100 fine on people who don’t vote and has a 95 per cent turnout rate.

“We can do the same thing without punishing them,” Mr. Osterloh said. “They’ll want to vote now.”

The voter initiative came as a complete surprise to Lottery officials.

“We’ve heard nothing about it,” said spokeswoman Kevan Kaighn. “The Lottery cannot spend money it’s not appropriated to spend. All expenditures are appropriated, and all beneficiaries are statutorily identified.”

Secretary of State Jan Brewer, the state’s chief elections officer, was not available for comment, and Gini McGirr, president of the Arizona League of Women Voters, said her organization probably would not take a position on the initiative.

Mr. Osterloh said he hopes to use non-paid volunteers to gather enough signatures to have the initiatives placed on the 2004 general election ballot.

Because the education funding measure is a proposed constitutional amendment, 183,917 valid signatures of registered voted are required to qualify for the ballot. To change a state law, such as the voter incentive initiative would do, requires 122,612 signatures.

The deadline for obtaining the necessary signatures is July 1, 2004.

Mr. Osterloh has experience in the initiative-petition field. He was involved in ballot measures that led to the Clean Election Act, Independent Redistricting Commission and Healthy Arizona initiatives that expanded AHCCCS health services to more residents. —