Taxpayers on hook for $1M in lawyer fees

Arizona taxpayers must pick up the tab for attorneys hired by Republican lawmakers who successfully killed a 2020 voter-approved plan to tax the state’s most wealthy to fund education.

In a new ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah said Arizona law entitles the lawyers hired by Senate President Karen Fann, House Speaker Rusty Bowers and others to some compensation for the work of their lawyers in blocking Proposition 208 from ever taking effect.

But Hannah rejected as unwarranted the claims by 11 attorneys working at four separate firms that they should get near $1 million. And he chided them for also seeking to recoup the costs of routine online legal research and photocopy fees.

Hannah’s ruling in a 2018 non-jury trial set the stage for the restoration of the Ahwatukee Lakes Golf Course by siding with two homeowners who had sued over its 2013 closure.

The judge said none of the $250,000 he is awarding in legal fees will have to come from Invest in Arizona, the group that actually put the measure on the 2020 ballot, even though it was the lawyers for the organization that actually did most of the legal work in defending the initiative.

Hannah said giving the firms hired by the challengers what they want – and taking the cash from the initiative supporters – “would conflict with the fundamental right of the people to legislation by initiative.’’

“Such an award would have an unacceptably chilling effect on the ability and willingness of Arizona citizens to propose, advocate for and defend the initiatives that the executive and legislative branches of the state might oppose,’’ the judge wrote. “The citizens who support the initiative have no direct financial stake in its enactment.’’

So that leaves only the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the successful challenge to Proposition 208 even though a majority who turned out for the 2020 election actually voted for it.

Hannah’s ruling drew derision from Bowers. He said Republican legislative leaders and others sued because they believed that Proposition 208 was unconstitutional.

“We went after them because of what it was doing to us,’’ Bowers said, saying the plan to tax only the wealthiest to raise more money for K-12 education was a bad idea for Arizona.

“This particular judge is kind of a free spirit,’’ Bowers said. “It’s kind of a poke in the eye at us.’’

Hannah, however, said there’s a good reason to make the state liable for the legal fees.

He said it was the state’s responsibility, as the named defendant, to make the best legal arguments defending Proposition 208 once it was approved by voters. In fact, Hannah said, the private attorney hired by the Attorney General’s Office focused only on narrow technical legal issues and never addressed the key constitutional question on which the case eventually was decided.

“Had Invest in Arizona not intervened, Prop 208 would have effectively gone undefended on its merits,’’ the judge said. He said it was the organization’s attorneys who did “most of the heavy lifting in defense of Proposition 208.’’

The fight over the legal fees is all that’s left of Proposition 208.

Approved in 2020, it would have imposed a 3.5% tax surcharge on the incomes of those making more than $250,000 – double that for married couples filing jointly – to raise about $900 million for K-12 education.

After foes were unsuccessful in knocking it off the ballot, voters approved the plan by a margin of 51.7%. That resulted in a new lawsuit by several Republican lawmakers along with individuals who said their incomes were high enough that the proposal affected them.

Hannah initially upheld the measure. But he was overruled by the Arizona Supreme Court which concluded that there was no legal way to spend the money Proposition 208 would have raised because it bumped up against a constitutional aggregate expenditure limit on education.

Sponsored Content

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.