Key Points:

• Proposition 143 was aimed at taking away the power of unions to organize at schools
• A judge agreed with challengers who claimed all unions would have been banned from negotiating with public entities
• Supporters can appeal, or else it will be removed from November’s ballot

PHOENIX — A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that Proposition 143, a Republican-backed ballot measure targeting public employee unions, is unconstitutional and cannot appear on Arizona’s November ballot.

Judge Greg Como determined that the measure violates the Arizona Constitution’s Separate Amendment Rule, which prohibits combining unrelated constitutional changes into a single ballot proposition that voters must approve or reject as a package.

The ruling blocks the entire measure from going before voters unless overturned on appeal.

Como said Proposition 143 would have been constitutional if it had been limited to barring public schools from using taxpayer funds to support labor organizations. That includes everything from allowing union information to be distributed on campus to having union dues deducted from employee paychecks.

Instead, lawmakers also included a broader provision prohibiting the state and local governments from negotiating with any labor organization over wages, benefits or other terms and conditions of employment. That, the judge concluded, would ask voters to approve two or more unrelated issues on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

GOP leaders responsible for the measure did not immediately comment on Tuesday, shortly after the decision was announced.

But Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose office fought to remove the measure from the ballot, praised the ruling.

“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.

Measure grew out of school voucher fight

The dispute stems from a broader political fight over the state’s universal school voucher program.

The Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona are backing Proposition 212, which would impose new restrictions on the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program, including limits on how voucher funds can be spent and income-based eligibility requirements.

In response, Republican lawmakers crafted Proposition 143, aimed primarily at limiting the AEA’s influence.

After negotiations to withdraw both ballot measures failed, initiative organizers submitted signatures for Proposition 212 while the Republican-controlled Legislature voted to place Proposition 143 on the ballot.

Union challenge

Public employee unions filed a lawsuit shortly thereafter, claiming that the language barring negotiations with labor groups is illegal.

Attorneys for legislative leaders argued that’s not the case. They told Como that the only union activities Prop. 143 targets involved only labor groups working with public schools, despite the measure’s language.

The judge disagreed.

“This court finds no ambiguity in the phrase ‘this state or any political subdivision of this state may not negotiate with a labor organization,’” he wrote.

Como also noted that Prop. 143 defines the term “labor organization as “any employee representation organization that exists for the purpose of dealing with employers.”

“Far from limiting the term to teachers’ unions or school employee associations, the definition does not even mention such organizations,” Como wrote.

The judge further rejected arguments that references to “the state” and its “political subdivisions” should be read as applying only to school districts.

“It includes any Arizona cities, counties and other local governments,” Como wrote. “Reading ‘state’ and ‘political subdivision’ to mean ‘school district’ requires impermissibly rewriting the bill, not interpreting it.”

Proposition 212 facing legal challenge

Whether voters will get to decide on Prop. 212 itself is a separate legal question.

Voucher supporters have filed a lawsuit contending that many of the more than 421,000 signatures submitted for what is formally known as the Protect Education, Accountability Now Act are not valid.

They claim that many people gathering the signatures did not comply with laws regulating paid circulators, like having to first register with the Secretary of State’s Office. That would make all the signatures they gathered invalid.

Foes also say some circulators have been convicted of crimes that make them ineligible to circulate initiative petitions, with the same requirement to void the signatures. 

Their lawyers say that, when those ineligible signatures are stripped from petitions, that leaves the effort short of the 259,949 valid names necessary to get the issue to voters.