Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / courts / Voucher foes respond to lawsuit seeking to toss referendum

Voucher foes respond to lawsuit seeking to toss referendum

A Save Our Schools Arizona volunteer hands off a box of signatures to another helper. The anti-school voucher expansion group delivered 111,540 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

A Save Our Schools Arizona volunteer hands off a box of signatures to another helper. The anti-school voucher expansion group delivered 111,540 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Foes of universal school vouchers are counting on a gap in state law to preserve their bid to force a public vote on the issue.

Roopali Desai, attorney for Save Our Schools Arizona, said Secretary of State Michele Reagan has determined there are more than enough signatures to give voters the last word on whether all parents can use tax dollars to send their children to private or parochial schools. That sets the stage for the measure going on the 2018 ballot.

What has happened, Desai said, is two individuals have filed suit contending there are multiple deficiencies in the petitions and the signatures. The challengers hope to have Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney conclude those flaws would disqualify enough signatures to leave the referendum drive short of the minimum needed.

Desai is not conceding the point. But in new legal filings, she is telling Mahoney all that is irrelevant.

She said there was a law allowing individuals to sue to challenge petitions. But that, Desai said, was repealed in 2015.

Lawmakers restored that right this year, with the renewed statute taking effect on Aug. 9.

Why that matters, Desai said, is that Save Our Schools Arizona started its referendum drive on May 11 and submitted the signatures on Aug. 8. And she contends only challenges allowed between those dates can be heard — challenges which the law during those dates could not come from individuals.

Those seeking to quash the referendum will argue that it is the law that was in effect on Aug. 23, the date the challenge was filed, that should govern. Mahoney will hear arguments on the issue in December.

At issue is SB 1487 which vastly expands eligibility for vouchers.

The program was originally started in 2011 to help students with various disabilities who could not get their needs met at traditional public schools. Since then, however, supporters of the concept have moved incrementally to widen the law to the point that it includes children in foster families, children living on reservations and those in schools rated D or F.

There are about 3,500 students now getting vouchers.

This year Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, sought to throw the doors wide open to eliminate any preconditions, making vouchers available to all 1.1 million students attending public schools. But she had to agree to a cap of 30,000 by 2023 to get the necessary votes.

The referendum, if allowed to proceed, would stay the expansion until the November general election when voters would get the last word whether to ratify or reject the change.

Desai is not relying solely on her argument about what the law was earlier this year in her bid to have the case dismissed. She also has some alternate arguments to undermine the lawsuit.

One of the issues goes to the requirement that the signatures of the circulators on petition sheets must be notarized.

Attorney Kory Langhofer who is representing those trying to block the referendum said there are multiple situations where the name the notary has signed does not precisely match the name on that notary’s official application and seal. What that means, he contends, is that more than 700 petition sheets where the names don’t match must be thrown out, along with the roughly 60,000 signatures on those sheets.

Desai sniffed at that argument.

She acknowledged there may be situations where the name on the notary’s seal might be something like Jonathan A. Smith but the notary has signed John Smith. But Desai said there is nothing in laws regulating notaries that makes such a difference illegal.

She also wants Mahoney to reject Langhofer’s allegations of fraud.

Those are based on claims that some petition circulators made what Langhofer said are false statements about what the voucher expansion law would do, including that it would be the rich who benefit.

Desai, in her legal filings, said Langhofer’s claim is flawed because it does not identify who allegedly made the statements, fails to articulate how they are “materially false,” and even whether or how they were used to obtain signatures on petitions.

One comment

  1. It’s ironic how those who are supporting this referendum to quash school choice are the very same people who would demand choice in aborting babies, choice in disrespecting our flag, choice in altering sexual preferences on a whim, etc. Why are these people resisting school choice in the form of a voucher program? Because they are hellbent in propagating a public school system that is archaic, inefficient and places the needs of a corrupt institutionalized dinosaur above what’s best for our children. This is all about public school unions maintaining and increasing teacher membership roles as their priority. The effective and efficient education of AZ children is a mere afterthought. It’s all about the money and job security!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

Rogers calls Blackman ‘a weasel’ for criticism (access required)

State Rep. Walt Blackman publicly declared that the people of the northern Arizona legislative district he shares with Sen. Wendy Rogers don't agree with the Twitter post she made this weekend about the murder of 10 people in Buffalo by a white supremacist.

/* code for tag */