1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dominic E. Draye (#033012) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 445-8000 drayed@gtlaw.com Brett W. Johnson (#021527) Eric H. Spencer (#022707) Colin P. Ahler (#023879) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Telephone: 602.382.6000 bwjohnson@swlaw.com espencer@swlaw.com cahler@swlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

JAIME A. MOLERA, an individual and qualified elector; ARIZONANS FOR GREAT SCHOOLS AND A STRONG ECONOMY, a political action committee,

Plaintiffs,

v. KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State; INVEST IN EDUCATION (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN), a political action committee,

Defendants.

Case No. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR SPECIAL ACTION, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Entitled to Priority Trial Under A.R.S. §§ 19-118, 19-122)

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs bring this action for a writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive

relief pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 19-118(F) and 19-122(C),1 and hereby allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an initiative measure titled the

“Invest in Education Act,” serial number I-31-2020 (the “Initiative”).

2. Notwithstanding the number of individual signatures collected for the

Initiative, the Initiative simply cannot move forward because the petition circulation effort

to send this Initiative to the ballot was beset with legal deficiencies.

3. On one hand, to collect the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the

ballot, on information and belief, Invest in Education (sponsored by Arizona Education

Association (“AEA”) and Stand for Children) (the “Initiative Committee”)), directly and

via its vendors, kept its paid petition circulators on task by instituting signature quotas or

bonuses. Any such pay-for-signature agreement violates Arizona law and renders any

signatures collected by those circulators invalid. This violation alone is sufficient to

invalidate the vast majority of the Initiative Committee’s signatures.

4. On the other hand, the Initiative was sold to well-meaning petition signers

by way of a thoroughly misleading 100-word summary. Nowhere in that summary would

voters perceive that individuals and businesses would suffer a tax increase of almost 80%

rather than facing a new tax of 3.5%, or that funding for “teachers” actually extended to

any non-administrative employee.

5. The summary also misleadingly implied that the Initiative creates two

distinct funding measures in a subtle effort to oversell the amount of funding that it would

provide to schools.

6. The summary also fails to disclose principal provisions of the Initiative,

including that the Initiative seeks to exempt itself from the Arizona Constitution and that

the Initiative would hamper the Legislature’s ability to respond to budget crises. Thus, far

1 Plaintiffs intend to file separate actions pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-121.03(B) to challenge County Recorder certifications as appropriate.

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from accurately describing the Initiative’s principal provisions, the 100-word summary

created a significant danger of voter confusion or unfairness and rendered the Initiative

Petition invalid as a matter of law.

7. For these reasons, the Initiative is legally ineligible to appear on the

November 2020 general election ballot. If an initiative is necessary to enact sweeping

policy changes of this nature, which the Legislature would be powerless to modify or

correct, the tradeoff is strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory provision

governing initiatives. The Initiative Committee failed this basic test, and this improvident

effort must be enjoined.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Jaime A. Molera is a registered voter and qualified elector who

resides in the State of Arizona. Mr. Molera is the former State Superintendent of Public

Instruction for Arizona. Mr. Molera is also Chair of the political action committee,

Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy.

9. Plaintiff Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy is a political

action committee operating under the laws of the State of Arizona. Its purpose is ensuring

that Arizona implements commonsense tax policies that foster economic growth, which

generates more revenue for Arizona schools. Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong

Economy is concerned that the Initiative’s 100-word summary misleads Arizona voters

and intentionally obscures the dire economic consequences that will result if this proposal

is enacted, including lost jobs, less economic growth, and, consequently, a deterioration

in the quality of Arizona schools.

10. Defendant Katie Hobbs is the Arizona Secretary of State, a public officer of

this State, and is named as a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity. The

Secretary of State is the filing officer responsible for placing initiatives on the ballot and

for the conduct of statewide elections, including elections on, and the canvassing of votes

for, statewide ballot measures. Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(9)-(11); A.R.S. §§ 19-121(D)

and 19-126.

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Defendant (and real party in interest) Invest in Education (Sponsored by

AEA and Stand for Children) is a political action committee operating under the laws of

the State of Arizona.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, § 14 of the Arizona

Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-123, 12-1801 et seq., 12-1831 et seq., and 19-122(C).

13. Venue is proper in Maricopa County pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-401 and 19-

122(D).

14. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C), “[a]ny person may contest the validity of an

initiative . . . [and] may seek to enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from certifying

or printing the official ballot for the election that will include the proposed initiative or

referendum and to enjoin the certification or printing of the ballot.” A person may contest

the validity of an initiative by invalidating a sufficient number of randomly-sampled

signatures (such that the projection of total valid signatures from the sample drops below

the constitutional minimum) or by independently invalidating a sufficient number of raw

signatures.

15. An actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding the legal sufficiency

of the signatures and petition sheets intended to place the Initiative on the ballot (the

“Initiative Petition”). Without court intervention, the Defendants stand to violate

Plaintiffs’ rights under Arizona law, resulting in immediate and irreparable injury to

Plaintiffs and the Arizona electorate. A judgment of this Court will redress this

controversy.

16. Because this Verified Complaint challenges the sufficiency of an initiative

petition, Plaintiffs are entitled to a priority trial under A.R.S. § 19-122(C).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Overview of Ballot Initiative Process

17. The ballot initiative process begins when a political committee submits a

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

statement of organization with the Secretary of State’s Office. A.R.S. §§ 16-906, 19-

111(A), 19-114(B).

18. Among other things, the statement of organization must state the proposed

name of the political committee, which must include the sponsor’s name or commonly

known nickname. A.R.S. § 16-906(B)(1)(b).

19. When a person or organization intends to propose a law, before circulating

an initiative petition, the person or organization must file an approved application form

that includes, among other items, the correct name of the organization proposing the

initiative and the text of the initiative with the Secretary of State. Upon filing an initiative

application, the Secretary of State will issue a serial number to identify the initiative.

A.R.S. § 19-111(A)-(B).

20. Proponents may then collect signatures on petition signature sheets; petition

signature sheets must strictly comply with statutory requirements. Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt.

1, § 1(9); A.R.S. §§ 19-102, 19-102.01(A), and 19-121(A).

21. The petition signature sheets are collected by petition circulators. Petition

circulators who are not residents of Arizona or who are paid must register with the

Secretary of State before circulating petitions. A.R.S. § 19-118(A). All circulators,

regardless of whether they are an Arizona resident, must be eligible to register to vote in

Arizona if they were a resident of the state. A.R.S. § 19-112(D).

22. Petition circulators may not be compensated or receive any other thing of

value based on the number of signatures collected for an initiative petition. A.R.S. § 19-

118.01(A). Violation results in a class 1 misdemeanor and invalidation of all signatures

collected by a circulator paid in this manner. A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A)-(B).

23. As a part of their registration application, circulators certify that they “submit

to the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona regarding any case or controversy arising out of

my activities while circulating petitions.” A.R.S. § 19-118.

24. “If a registered circulator is properly served with a subpoena to provide

evidence in an action regarding circulation of petitions and fails to appear or produce

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents as provided for in the subpoena, all signatures collected by that circulator are

deemed invalid.” A.R.S. § 19-118(E).

25. Completed petition signature sheets are filed with the Secretary of State at

least four months before the next general election. Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(4). In

this election cycle, completed petition signature sheets were required to be filed by July

2, 2020.

26. Next, the petition signature sheets are reviewed by the Secretary of State,

who removes any that do not comply with signature sheet requirements. A.R.S. § 19-

121.01(A). The Secretary of State then counts the signatures on all remaining petition

signature sheets that are eligible for verification. A.R.S. § 19-121.01(A)(6). This process

yields the total number of signatures eligible for verification, which serves as the baseline

for further county recorder review.

27. Under the constitutional initiative power, “ten per centum of the qualified

electors shall have the right to propose any measure.” Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(2).

Thus, to be included on the statewide ballot, an initiative proposing a statutory measure

must be supported by valid signatures of ten percent of the qualified electors. Id. The total

number of qualified electors is calculated based on the total number of votes cast for all

gubernatorial candidates in the previous general election. See Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1,

§ 1(7).

28. In this election cycle, 237,645 signatures from qualified electors were

required for an initiative measure to be placed on the ballot. See Secretary of State,

Initiative, Referendum and Recall: Important Dates and Signature Requirements for the

2020 Election Cycle, https://azsos.gov/elections/initiative-referendum-and-recall (last

visited July 6, 2020).

29. “If the total number of signatures [eligible] for verification [as determined

by the Secretary of State] . . . equals or exceeds the constitutional minimum” required to

place the measure on the ballot, the Secretary of State will randomly select “five percent

of the total signatures for verification by the county recorders” in various counties. A.R.S.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 19-121.01(B).

30. The county recorders evaluate these signatures to determine if any should be

invalidated based on statutory grounds. A.R.S. § 19-121.02(A).

31. The Secretary of State uses the certifications from the county recorders to

project the total final number of valid signatures. A.R.S. § 19-121.04(A). If the projected

number of valid signatures meets or exceeds the minimum number of required signatures,

the Secretary of State must “notify the governor that a sufficient number of signatures has

been filed and that the initiative or referendum shall be placed on the ballot in the manner

provided by law.” A.R.S. § 19-121.04(B).

II. The Initiative Committee Was Required to Strictly Comply with Arizona Law.

32. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), “[c]onstitutional and statutory

requirements for statewide initiative measures must be strictly construed and persons

using the initiative process must strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory

requirements.”

33. Prior to the passage of this statutory requirement, the Arizona Supreme Court

had historically required only substantial compliance. See, e.g., W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of

Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426, 428 (1991). However, this judge-made standard did not rest—

and did not purport to rest—on any constitutional language. Indeed, the rules for carrying

out the initiative process are left largely to the Legislature. See, e.g., Adams v. Bolin, 74

Ariz. 269, 283 (1952). Consistent with the doctrine of displacement, the Legislature may

displace judge-made common law that determines substantive rights. Seisinger v. Siebel,

220 Ariz. 85 (2009).

34. The Legislature adopted the strict compliance standard to further and protect

the strong public policy of ensuring a fair and orderly process.

35. By preventing abuses of the initiative process, the strict compliance standard

safeguards Arizonans’ constitutional right to legitimately engage in the initiative process.

See Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 6 (1972).

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. The Initiative Petition Suffers From Systemic Legal Deficiencies that Disqualify the Measure From Appearing on the Ballot.

36. Plaintiffs challenge the Initiative pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C) based on

the following legal deficiencies. A time-and-date stamped copy of the Initiative is

attached as Exhibit A.

A. Circulator Compensation Was Based on the Number of Signatures Collected.

37. A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A) states “a person shall not pay or receive money or

any other thing of value based on the number of signatures collected on a statewide

initiative or referendum petition.”

38. Upon information and belief, numerous petition circulators accepted

payment in violation of A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A).

39. Upon information and belief, an agent of the Initiative Committee expressly

advertised the promise of payment based on the number of signatures a circulator

collected, stating: “You’ll get paid per signature. I’m making $120 an hour, but I’m very

good at it. You can earn the same if you’re a high performer, but $25 is realistic for

beginners.”

40. Upon information and belief, agreements between the Initiative Committee

and the vendor responsible for collecting signatures evince a structure for paying

circulators that included payments dependent on how many signatures the circulators

collected.

41. Upon information and belief, numerous circulators’ employment agreements

confirm that they received payment based on the number of signatures they collected.

42. Accordingly, all of the signatures collected by paid circulators in support of

the Initiative Petition are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law.

43. Upon information and belief, disqualification of the signatures collected by

paid circulators in support of the Initiative Petition would result in the Initiative Petition

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

falling short of the 237,645 valid signatures required to qualify for placement on the

November 2020 general election ballot.

B. The Initiative’s 100-Word Summary Is Highly Misleading.

44. A.R.S. § 19-102(A) requires that initiative petition sheets contain a

description of the proposed initiative “of no more than one hundred words of the principal

provisions of the proposed measure.”

45. An initiative petition must be invalidated if the 100-word summary is

“fraudulent or creates a significant danger of confusion or unfairness.” Molera v. Reagan,

245 Ariz. 291, 295 ¶ 13 (2018).

46. In addition, an initiative petition must be invalidated if the 100-word

summary omits a “principal provision.” Id. at 297 ¶¶ 23–24.

47. The Initiative Committee included the following summary of the Initiative

on the application for serial number it filed with the Secretary of State:

“The Invest in Education Act provides additional funding for public education by establishing a 3.5% surcharge on taxable income above $250,000 annually for single persons or married persons filing separately, and on taxable income above $500,000 annually for married persons filing jointly or head of household filers; dedicates additional revenue to (a) hire and increase salaries for teachers, classroom support personnel and student support services personnel, (b) mentoring and retention programs for new classroom teachers, (c) career training and post-secondary preparation programs, (d) Arizona Teachers Academy; amends the Arizona Teachers Academy statute; requires annual accounting of additional revenue.”

48. The following portions of the 100-word summary are fraudulent and create

a significant danger of confusion or unfairness:

1. The Initiative “establish[es] a 3.5% surcharge on taxable income” for “individuals” and “households.”

49. The 100-word summary states that the Initiative “establish[es] a 3.5%

surcharge on taxable income” for “individuals” and “households.” Ex. A. This statement

is misleading because (1) what the 100-word statement refers to as a “surcharge” is a tax;

(2) the 100-word statement presents the tax as new rather than a tax increase; and (3) the

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

100-word statement omits the fact that many businesses would face a near-doubling of

their marginal rates.

50. Arizona courts apply a three-part test to identify “taxes”: “(1) the entity that

imposes the assessment; (2) the parties upon whom the assessment is imposed; and (3)

whether the assessment is expended for public purposes, or used for the regulation or

benefit of the parties upon whom the assessment is imposed.” May v. McNally, 203 Ariz.

425, 430–31 (2002).

51. The “surcharge” imposed by the Initiative falls squarely within the

definition of a tax under this three-part test. The State would impose the “surcharge,” and

it would do so against taxpayers who are not guilty of any misdeed (as in the case of a

fine) or seeking any special permission (as in the case of a fee). There can also be little

doubt that the “surcharge” would be used to fund traditional public purposes, including

the salaries of teachers and ancillary school personnel.

52. Moreover, the 100-word statement obscures the fact that this proposed tax

is actually a tax increase. Contrary to the language in the summary, taxpayers affected by

the proposed tax already pay 4.5% state income tax on the income in question. Yet by

saying the Initiative “establish[es] a 3.5% surcharge” on this income, the summary gives

signers the misimpression that the income is currently untaxed. See “Establish,” BLACK’S

LAW DICTIONARY 688 (11th ed. 2019) (“To make or form; to bring about or into

existence.”); “Establish,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 874 (2d ed. 1949) (“To

originate and secure the permanent existence of; to found.”).

53. Potential signers would find the distinction between a new tax and a tax

increase to be material. A voter might be willing to tax their fellow citizens 3.5% but not

8%. The decision to increase taxes from the former rate to the latter is the heart of the

Initiative and qualifies as a “principal provision” requiring clear explanation in the 100-

word summary. See A.R.S. § 19-102(A).

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

54. The 100-word summary also misleads voters as to who would pay the

increased tax. Namely, it omits the fact that approximately 40% of Arizona small

businesses would face a near-doubling of their marginal tax rates.

55. Changes to tax policy rest on two primary pillars: the tax rate and the

tax base. Omitting information about either pillar is inconsistent with the command in

A.R.S. § 19-102(A).

2. The Initiative dedicates revenue to “hire and increase salaries for teachers.”

56. The 100-summary professes to “dedicate additional revenue to . . . hire and

increase salaries for teachers[.]” Ex. A.

57. But this claim is misleading because: (1) it does not alert readers that the

Initiative defines “teacher” broadly and counterintuitively, thereby misleading voters as

to how the money raised by the Initiative will be spent; and (2) the increased funding

promised in the summary is actually subject to fluctuating tax revenue, meaning there is

no guarantee that the Initiative would actually “increase” available resources.

58. The word “teacher” has an ordinary and accepted meaning.

59. However, A.R.S. § 15-1281(F)(5) in the Initiative counterintuitively defines

“teacher” as “any nonadministrative school personnel, including certified teachers, who

instruct students or support student academic achievement as prescribed by the school

district governing board.” (emphasis added).

60. While this definition “include[es]” teachers, it departs materially from what

potential signers would expect. It is also so capacious that it is difficult to imagine many

types of district employees that would not qualify. For instance, custodians and bus

drivers are surely nonadministrative personnel who support student academic

achievement, but are not “teachers” in any ordinary sense of the word.

61. Because “teachers” enjoy a full 50% of the spending under the new initiative,

see A.R.S. § 15-1281(D)(1), and because the defined term departs so starkly from

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ordinary usage, omitting any reference to the Initiative’s counterintuitive definition of

“teacher” would materially impact whether a person would sign the petition.

62. Furthermore, the 100-word summary’s statement that the Initiative would

“increase” available resources misrepresents the Initiative’s funding mechanism.

63. The fund that the Initiative creates would rise and fall with tax revenue. See

Initiative § 3, Ex. A (A.R.S. § 15-1281(A)).

64. Accordingly, the 100-word summary creates a significant risk of

misleading voters because it misrepresents the operation of the fund the Initiative creates

and how the monies in that fund will be used.

3. The Initiative “provides additional funding for public education by establishing a 3.5% surcharge” and “dedicates additional revenue.”

65. The 100-word summary overstates its actual impact by misleadingly

implying that the Initiative includes two distinct funding measures.

66. Specifically, the 100-word summary implies that it creates a new tax that

“provides additional funding for public education” and a second source that “dedicates

additional revenue” to teacher hiring and other items. Nothing in the 100-word summary

reveals that the “revenue” in the second clause is the same as the first.

67. Thus, a voter might agree to sign the petition on the view that the Initiative

requires a tax increase but with the promise of reallocation of other state funds. In reality,

the second event does not exist.

68. Thus, the 100-word summary misleads potential signers by overselling the

amount of resources it will allocate to Arizona schools.

4. The 100-word summary omits the severe limitations it places on the Legislature’s power over the budgeting process.

69. The Initiative prevents the Legislature from reducing funding levels to

public schools that receive additional money pursuant to the new Student Support and

Safety Fund. Specifically, A.R.S. § 15-1284(E) in the Initiative states that

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“[n]otwithstanding any other law, the additional monies received by school districts . . .

from the Student Support and Safety Fund . . . are in addition to any other appropriation,

transfer or allocation of public or private monies from any other source and may not

supplant, replace or cause a reduction in other funding sources.” Initiative § 3, Ex. A

(emphasis added).

70. By stating that the additional monies districts receive from the Initiative’s

provisions “may not supplant, replace or cause a reduction in other funding sources,” the

Initiative severely limits the Legislature’s discretion to adjust the existing education

budget from year to year. In essence, the Initiative is not just creating a “surcharge,” but

in addition is subtly creating a 2020 budget floor for education funding that could not be

reduced. This fact is material to voters who value the separation of powers, the

Legislature’s authority over the annual budget, and not creating a new unchangeable

budget mandate. See Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 20 (the Legislature’s “general

appropriation bill shall embrace . . . public schools . . . .”).

71. The 100-word summary entirely omits this significant limitation on

legislative power, which is a “principal provision” of the Initiative.

5. The 100-word summary omits the Initiative’s attempt to elide constitutional constraints.

72. The 100-word summary omits the fact that the Initiative attempts to exempt

the funds it collects from the school-district expenditure limit in art. IX, § 21 of the

Arizona Constitution. See Initiative § 3, Ex. A (A.R.S. § 15-1285(1)).

73. By attempting to exempt the Initiative from a provision of the Arizona

Constitution, A.R.S. § 15-1285(1) is facially invalid.

74. The Arizona Legislative Council, which reviewed the Initiative at the

Initiative Committee’s request pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-111.01, pointed this out in its pre-

circulation analysis of the Initiative, stating that “paragraph 1 [of § 15-1285] is likely

invalid.” Exhibit B.

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

75. Voters would be significantly less likely to endorse a ballot measure that is

unconstitutional and will therefore never take effect.

76. Moreover, the 100-word summary’s failure to address the expenditure limit

in art. IX, § 21 renders misleading its claim that the Initiative will actually increase

funding. Upon information and belief, school districts would not be able to expend the

funds collected by the Initiative because such expenditures would exceed the limit in art.

IX, § 21. Because the monies collected by the “surcharge” cannot be transferred to any

other fund or revert to the state’s general fund, see Initiative § 3 (A.R.S. § 15-1281(A)),

those monies would instead be stuck in legal limbo; once collected, they would be in

effect unusable.

77. Potential signers would be significantly less likely to endorse a ballot

measure to raise taxes when the monies collected from those taxes could never be spent.

78. Furthermore, due to the Voter Protection Act, Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, §

1(6)(A)-(D), the Legislature would not be able to fix this significant omission absent a

new initiative.

79. Thus, the provision of the Initiative that purports to exempt it from art. IX,

§ 21 is a “principal provision” that was omitted from the 100-word summary.

6. The 100-word summary misrepresents the categories and amount of revenue to be expended.

80. The 100-word summary states that the Initiative will dedicate revenue from

the new tax to four distinctly enumerated categories with no specific guidance or

prescribed order of importance. The Initiative, however, expands these categories and

provides specific allocable percentages for distribution that are not indicated within the

100-word summary.

81. The 100-word summary enumerates the following four categories: (1) hire

and increase salaries for teachers, classroom support personnel and student support

services personnel; (2) mentoring and retention programs for new classroom teachers; (3)

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

career training and post-secondary preparation programs; and (4) the Arizona Teachers

Academy.

82. The Initiative expands these four categories into five, allocating the monies

collected from the new tax as follows: (1) 50% for hiring teachers and classroom support

personnel and increasing their base compensation; (2) 25% for hiring student support

services personnel and increasing their base compensation; (3) 10% for mentoring and

retention programs; (4) 12% for a “career training and technical workforce fund”; and (5)

3% for the Arizona Teacher’s Academy. See § 3 (A.R.S. § 15-1281).

83. The 100-word summary’s description of the Initiative’s funding therefore

creates a significant risk of confusing voters in multiple ways. For example, it leads voters

to believe that each category receives an equal share of the funds, or that no categories

would be assigned specific allocations and may receive funding based on need. Yet the

Initiative does not actually accomplish these supposed rationales.

84. The 100-word summary’s description of how revenue generated by the

Initiative will be divided thus creates a significant risk of confusion for voters.

* * *

85. Collectively, the various omissions and ambiguities in the 100-word

summary are sufficiently confusing and misleading such that the Initiative cannot appear

on the ballot. If initiative backers want to squeeze in so many provisions that they cannot

capture them in only 100 words, the solution is to draft a less complicated Initiative

without logrolling, not to take shortcuts with the 100-word summary so critical for

signers.

COUNT I (Declaratory Relief)

86. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior allegations.

87. Pursuant to Arizona’s Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (A.R.S. § 12-1831

et seq.), Plaintiffs are entitled to, and request, a judicial determination and declaratory

judgment that the Initiative Petition does not comply with the constitutional and statutory

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requirements for placement on the ballot.

88. Plaintiffs have an interest in the proper construction and strict application of

Arizona statutes and constitutional provisions requiring strict compliance with: (1) the

statutory prohibition on paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected;

and (2) the requirement that a 100-word summary accurately describe an Initiative’s

principal provisions without generating voter confusion.

89. There is an actual and justiciable controversy, and such judgment or decree

will terminate the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to this proceeding as required

by A.R.S. § 12-1836.

90. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief providing that the

Initiative Petition is legally insufficient and that the measure may not be certified for

placement on the statewide election ballot for the November 2020 general election.

COUNT II (Injunctive Relief)

91. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior allegations.

92. “Any person may contest the validity of an initiative…[and] may seek to

enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from certifying or printing the official ballot

for the election that will include the proposed initiative or referendum and to enjoin the

certification or printing of the ballot.” A.R.S. § 19-122(C).

93. In addition, the Court may issue an injunction where: (1) it appears that the

party applying for the injunction is entitled to the relief demanded and that such relief

requires the restraint of a prejudicial act; (2) when it appears that a party is about to do an

act in violation of the rights of the applicant which would render judgment ineffectual; or

(3) in all other cases when the applicant is entitled to an injunction under the principles

of equity. A.R.S. § 12-1801.

94. Because the Initiative Petition does not comply with applicable

constitutional and statutory provisions, the Secretary of State’s certification of the

measure will irreparably injure the Plaintiffs and the Arizona electorate if placed on the

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

November 2020 ballot.

95. The balance of equities and considerations of public policy strongly support

the issuance of injunctive relief.

96. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief enjoining the

Secretary of State from certifying and placing the Initiative on the ballot for the November

2020 general election in the State of Arizona.

COUNT III (Mandamus Relief)

97. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior allegations.

98. The Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel government officials to

perform an act which they have a legal duty to perform, where there is not a plain,

adequate, and speedy remedy at law. A.R.S. § 12-2021.

99. The Secretary of State has a non-discretionary legal duty to reject petition

signature sheets and signatures included in the Initiative Petition to the extent they fail to

strictly comply with one or more applicable constitutional or statutory provisions, as

detailed above.

100. The failure of the Secretary of State to reject the Initiative Petition would

result in the Secretary of State proceeding without or in excess of their legal authority,

and would result in a determination by the Secretary of State which is arbitrary and

capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

101. Plaintiffs lack a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law to compel the

Secretary of State to perform the non-discretionary legal duties imposed upon her by

statute.

102. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief requiring the Secretary of State

to disqualify all petition signature sheets and signatures that do not strictly comply with

governing laws and to reject the Initiative as legally insufficient.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. Declare that the Initiative Petition fails to strictly comply with applicable

statutory and constitutional requirements for initiatives and should not be referred to the

ballot for the November 2020 general election in the State of Arizona for each of the

following independent reasons:

1. The Initiative Committee paid circulators on a signature quota requirement

or otherwise paid a bonus on the number of signatures, in violation of A.R.S. § 19-

118.01(A), thus rendering all of the applicable signatures invalid. As a result of the

foregoing, the Initiative Petition contains fewer than the 237,645 valid signatures required

to refer the Initiative to the ballot.

2. The Initiative Petition violates A.R.S. §§ 19-102(A) and § 19-121(A)(1)

because the 100-word summary is fraudulent and inaccurate and creates a significant

danger of confusion or unfairness.

B. Enter an injunction prohibiting the Secretary of State from certifying and

placing the Initiative on the ballot for the November 2020 general election in the State of

Arizona;

C. Enter other injunctive relief that is necessary and appropriate to ensure

compliance with the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions;

D. Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to fully and

effectively discharge her non-discretionary legal duties to reject all petition signature

sheets and signatures in the Initiative Petition that do not otherwise strictly comply with

all applicable Arizona Constitution provisions and Arizona Revised Statutes;

E. Enter an order awarding Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and nontaxable expenses

incurred in this action under A.R.S. §§ 12-348, 12-2030 and 19-118(F); the private

attorney general doctrine established in Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 160 Ariz.

593 (1989); and any other applicable law;

F. Enter an order awarding Plaintiffs their taxable costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-

341 and 12-1840; and

G. Award such other relief as the Court deems necessary, proper, and just.

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated this 10th day of July 2020.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Dominic E. Draye (w/permission)

Dominic E. Draye 2375 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

By: /s/ Brett W. Johnson Brett W. Johnson Eric H. Spencer Colin P. Ahler One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23456789

10

11

12

13141516

17

1819

2021

2223

24

2526

2728

STATE OF ARIZONACOUNTY OF MARICOPA

VERIFICATION

� ss.

I. I, Jaime A. Molera, am a qualified elector residing in Arizona and Chair ofArizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy.

2. I have read the forgoing Verified Complaint for Special Action, Injunctive,Declaratory, and Mandamus Relief, know the contents thereof: and

3. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to thebest ofmy knowledge.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2 0. � A

/

"

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

MEMO

February 10, 2020 TO: Andrew Gaona Roopali H. Desai FROM: Michael E. Braun

Executive Director

RE: Text review; Invest in Education Act (I-27-2020) Pursuant to section 19-111.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, the staff of the Arizona Legislative Council has reviewed the text of the above-referenced initiative. We have limited our consideration to potential errors in the drafting of the text of the proposed language, confusing, conflicting or inconsistent provisions within the text of the proposed language and conflicts between the text of the proposed language and other state or federal laws. This review is predicated on the form and style used by our office in preparing bills and other legislative proposals for members of the Arizona Legislature and contained in the Arizona Legislative Bill Drafting Manual 2019-2020 [available electronically at: www.azleg.gov]. We have not reviewed the form of the proposed measure to determine if it complies with the required form for initiative petitions. The information contained in this review does not constitute legal advice and no attorney/client relationship is created by providing this statutory review. We have not undertaken to perform a comprehensive analysis of the potential legal issues presented by the measure. Pursuant to section 19-111.01, subsection C, Arizona Revised Statutes, you may accept, modify or reject any recommendations contained in this review in your sole discretion. Comments 1. The short title and findings sections are moved to the end of the measure pursuant to our drafting style. Accordingly, the marked-up copy shows the sections as they would be numbered in a properly arranged measure. 2. In sections 15-1281 and 15-1282, we suggest removing ", DO NOT REVERT TO THE STATE GENERAL FUND," since this language is redundant and unnecessary in light of the specific exemption from section 35-190, A.R.S.

3. 15-1281. Referencing the name of an act is discouraged and does not conform with our drafting style; accordingly, in subsection B, paragraph 5 we have deleted this language in the marked-up copy. In subsection D, paragraph 3, second sentence, it is not clear to us whether the "except that" phrase regarding a full-time mentor is a limit or an affirmative obligation, or both.

4. 15-1283. In subsection B, paragraph 3, subdivision (b), we believe additional language is needed after the "(b)" designation to indicate the use or uses of grants received from the career training and workforce fund relative to "school counselors." In subsection B, paragraph 3, subdivision (d), item (ii), we are unclear whether the reference to "post-high school career school" is intended to be to a postsecondary educational institution. 5. 15-1284. In subsection D, we note that, pursuant to section 15-271, A.R.S., the auditor general is already vested with the authority to determine the accounting system for school districts. Accordingly, we question whether "AND" is intended instead of "IN CONJUNCTION WITH" if the intent is to have the approval of both entities. 6. 15-1285. Paragraph 1 attempts to exempt the additional support for education prescribed by the initiative from the aggregate expenditure limitation in Constitution of Arizona, article IX, section 21, by excluding it from local revenues. However, article IX, section 21, broadly defines local revenues and prescribes limited exceptions to the broad definition. The additional support for education comes within the broad definition of local revenues and, except for any private grant monies, does not qualify for any of the exceptions. Therefore, paragraph 1 is likely invalid. 7. 15-1655. In subsection F, first sentence, after the first "of" we suggest adding "MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-1281, SUBSECTION D, PARAGRAPH 5 AND" to reflect the additional transfer of monies to the Arizona teachers academy fund pursuant to that section. 8. 43-1013. We note that the language in subsection B is inconsistent with the process outlined in section 42-1116, A.R.S., which provides that the state treasurer does not have access to the tax monies until after they are deposited by the Department of Revenue. Accordingly, we suggest having the Department separately account for the surcharge revenues and depositing the monies in the Student Support and Safety Fund. 9. Section 6. This provision, drafted in the initiative as temporary session law, appears to have ongoing application. Consider building its requirements into a corresponding A.R.S. section. 10. Please see the attached edited, marked-up copy of the submitted text for our additional recommendations, which include:

a. Adding recommended statutory improvements that are suggested in the Annual Report on Defects in the Arizona Revised Statutes and State Constitution compiled by our office. These comments are marked in existing statutory text and are indicated with an encircled "AR".

b. Revising section headings as needed to more clearly reflect the content of the sections.

c. Omitting serial commas in conformity with our drafting style. d. Placing definitions subsections at the end of a section and adding "; definitions"

to the respective section heading.

Invest in Ed - Exhibits to Complaint 4841-9919-6098 v.1.pdf19-111.01 Invest in Education (I-27-2020).pdf19-111.01 text review; Invest in Education Act (I-27-2020)19-111.01 - editing keyI-27-2020 Measure