Sponsored by


Note: This story is more than 5 years old.

Guest opinion

Appeals court says gov't must respect voters

In 2000, Cave Creek voters approved a $41.6 million bond agreement specifically to build new schools, buy school buses, and improve school grounds. Ten years later, school board officials decided to spend $13 million on projects they preferred, not what voters approved. Rather than asking voters for permission to use the money for other purposes, the district asked the state legislature for a special law to give the district legal cover.

But Arizona law requires school districts to use voter-approved bond money only on voter-approved projects, and the Arizona Constitution says that the voters, not politicians, must authorize bond measures. The Goldwater Institute sued on behalf of taxpayers, arguing that the school district can't substitute its own preferences for a voter-approved contract, and the legislature can't grant special permission to violate the Constitution. An Arizona trial court agreed that school districts may not use bond money in ways voters have not approved, because it "strikes a blow to the election process."

The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. The Arizona Constitution gives voters a voice in how government spends their money, the court said, and the purpose of a bond is "an essential consideration in voting for or against a bond measure." Governments can't induce voters to approve a bond measure for one purpose only to spend the money on another, unapproved purpose. "To hold otherwise," declared the court, "makes this constitutional guarantee illusory."

- 30 -
have your say   


There are no comments on this report. Sorry, comments are closed.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Read all of TucsonSentinel.com's
coronavirus reporting here »


news, politics & government, business, local, arizona, opinion, guest opinion, breaking

Read more about

bonds, election, goldwater institute,

TucsonSentinel.com publishes analysis and commentary from a variety of community members, experts, and interest groups as a catalyst for a healthy civic conversation; we welcome your comments. As an organization, we don't endorse candidates or back specific legislation. All opinions are those of the individual authors.