Log in

Government

Arizona tax cut vote clears first hurdle

Enough signatures verified to get it on ballot

Posted 11/19/21

PHOENIX — Arizonans are one step closer to being able to vote whether to repeal $1.9 billion of tax cuts that mainly benefit the most wealthy.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs said a review of …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Government

Arizona tax cut vote clears first hurdle

Enough signatures verified to get it on ballot

Posted

PHOENIX — Arizonans are one step closer to being able to vote whether to repeal $1.9 billion of tax cuts that mainly benefit the most wealthy.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs said a review of the nearly 220,000 signatures submitted by Invest in Arizona found more than 118,823 were valid. That is the bare number needed to both put the plan approved by the Republican-controlled legislature on hold until the November 2022 election.

At that point, it would appear on the ballot as Proposition 307 and voters would get to decide whether to ratify the plan or reject it.

All that, however, assumes it gets that far.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper is weighing arguments by the anti-tax Free Enterprise Club that the right of voters to get the last word on legislation does not extend to anything that affects state revenue. And attorney Kory Langhofer said it’s irrelevant that killing what the legislature approved actually would leave the state with more money than it needs.

But if it ever gets to the ballot, it will give Arizonans a chance to weigh in on whether to scrap the current system where tax rates — and, by extension — tax bills are based on net taxable income.

Under current law, for individuals earning up to $26,500 a year and couples earning $53,000, that rate is 2.59%. There are several interim steps before the tax tables top off at 4.5% for individual earnings of more than $159,000, double that for married couples.

SB 1828 collapsed that into a flat 2.5% rate.

Gov. Doug Ducey has repeatedly sought to portray the measure as providing a tax cut of about $300 a year for the “average Arizonan.” But the details paint a different picture.

An analysis of the plan by legislative budget staffers put the savings for someone making between $35,000 and $50,000 at $11 a year. That increases to $96 for those in the $50,000 to $75,000 income range.

Bigger benefits kick in at higher income levels.
Taxpayers with incomes of between $250,000 and $500,000 would see an average $3,071 reduction in what they owe each year according to the staff analysis. That increases to more than $7,300 annually for those earning from $500,000 to $1 million.

Whatever Cooper rules on whether the tax cut measure can go to voters is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, if the courts do not buy Langhofer’s argument that the tax cut plan is beyond the reach of voters, he has a grab-bag of what he said are other legal flaws with the petitions that could further reduce the number of valid signatures.

Among the allegations is that some paid circulators had not registered with the secretary of state, as required by law, or that they collected signatures before registering.

There also are claims that some of the registration forms are missing required information like providing a full address. And Langhofer also cited what he said are handwriting irregularities and missing dates or addresses of those who have signed the petitions.