It’s often said that good policy is also good politics, and that’s especially true when it comes to education funding in Arizona.

Proposition 123, which distributes over $300 million annually to Arizona schools from the state’s Permanent Land Endowment Trust, is a prime example. Crafted by former Gov. Doug Ducey, referred to the ballot by Republicans and Democrats, and approved by voters in 2016, it successfully increased K-12 funding without raising taxes.

I was part of Ducey’s team when we developed this plan, and I can attest to the challenges we faced in convincing education stakeholders, the Legislature, and ultimately the public of its merits.

This 10-year policy expired in the summer of 2025, largely without notice. More than $300 million a year just slipped away into the night.

The state’s Land Trust is complex, which may help explain why Prop. 123 passed with only 51% of the vote in 2016. When Arizona became a state in 1912, the federal government granted millions of acres of land, with revenues intended to fund education. Over more than a century, the trust had grown significantly, but infrequent adjustments to the distribution rate meant the state wasn’t fully benefiting from its growth.

When Prop. 123 was first proposed, critics claimed the trust would be “raided” or “drained.” That didn’t happen. Schools received hundreds of millions more, and the trust itself has grown to record levels.

So why haven’t voters been asked to extend it?

There’s been lots of debate about modifying the policy. Some want a higher distribution rate; others want it lower. Some want school choice protections; others want guarantees tied to specific education line items. While these conversations are understandable, they’ve also resulted in paralysis.

In 2016, the slogan for Prop. 123 was: “It’s as easy as 1-2-3.” Today, it’s turned into something that feels more like an algebra equation that stretches across three white boards.

That’s not a winning strategy when voters have repeatedly rejected ballot issues that are overly complex.

The consequence of inaction is real. With Prop. 123 expired, the general fund has been forced to backfill the loss, leaving less funding for other priorities and less money returned to hardworking taxpayers.

Realistically, the earliest voters could decide on a new Prop. 123 is November 2026. By then, Arizona will have missed out on nearly $700 million in revenue from the Trust.

At the same time, Arizona’s budget has become less flexible in recent years. Recent tax and policy changes tied to the “Big Beautiful Bill” are expected to cost the state at least $350 million to align with federal standards.

In that context, the $300 million annually generated by Prop. 123 would be invaluable in protecting our budget and taxpayers.

Here’s a straightforward solution: keep it simple. The existing policy worked, and is now popular. Maintain the current distribution rate.

The charge for voters is an easy one: extend Prop. 123 and keep those dollars flowing to our schools.

Prop. 123 was good policy then, and it remains good policy now. If we want it to pass at the ballot box again, simplicity will be key.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry.