Why the voucher fight in Arizona will be different this time

No cap will mean a more robust yes campaign

In 2016, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill making all students eligible for a voucher to attend a private school. Voucher opponents referred the measure to the 2018 ballot, where voters defeated it overwhelmingly, by a 65%-35% margin.

This year, the Legislature passed another bill (House Bill 2853) making all students eligible for a private school voucher. Voucher opponents vow to refer it to the ballot again, and the common wisdom is that it will again be overwhelmingly rejected.

However, there are two reasons why this electoral fight, should it happen, may be different.

The first, and most important, is that voucher supporters, who were largely passive in 2018, are likely to mount a full-throated campaign in favor this time.

Because of the state Constitution’s voter protection provision, the 2018 ballot measure (Proposition 305) presented a dilemma for voucher proponents. The voter protection provision provides that what voters approve at the ballot box cannot be changed by the Legislature, except with a three-fourths majority in both chambers and only to further the intent of what voters had approved.

While making all students eligible for a private school voucher, the 2018 measure had a hard cap of 30,000 on the number of vouchers that could actually be granted. Because of the voter protection provision, if Proposition 305 passed, that number could only be increased with a three-fourths vote in both chambers. And arguably not even then, since the cap could easily be regarded by a court as part of the intent of voters. 

So, the 2018 measure had universal eligibility, but not universal access. As a result, the campaign in favor of vouchers was underfunded and tepid. Some voucher supporters even opposed the measure.

HB 2853 contains no cap. So, it provides both universal eligibility and access. If voucher opponents refer this measure, voucher supporters are likely to engage fully with a decently funded yes campaign that was missing in 2018.

Still, making up a 65%-35% deficit is a daunting task. However, voucher supporters think the political climate is at least somewhat more favorable this time around. Disappointment with school closures during Covid and ongoing curriculum controversies, the feeling goes, has made a wider segment of the public more receptive to school choice proposals and arguments.

That may be, but there are two structural vulnerabilities with HB 2853 that will make it more difficult to take advantage of that improved political climate with swing voters.

There are those firmly opposed to vouchers philosophically and those firmly supportive philosophically. (I’m in the latter camp.) To win a rematch, supporters will have to sway those skeptical but open to an argument for universal vouchers.

The biggest problem with making that argument to those voters on behalf of HB 2853 is the decision to remove the testing requirements from the bill. The bill as introduced included the requirement that voucher students take the state academic assessment test or some other standardized test, with publicly reported aggregate results. The bill as passed and potentially before voters includes no testing or assessment requirement at all.

This will be a hard sale to swing voters. If taxpayers are paying the tab, they have an interest in the quality of education being purchased. The original testing provision in HB 2853 was the least that could reasonably be expected.

The second vulnerability is more wonkish and is likely to be more of a background factor, but a factor nonetheless. 

The state has two programs to subsidize private school attendance. The current vouchers, called Empowerment Scholarships, are limited to students in certain circumstances, such as being disabled or attending schools rated D or F. In addition, there are tuition tax credits available for contributions to organizations that also provide tuition assistance to students attending private schools.

If vouchers are universal, there really isn’t a good argument for tuition tax credits, which were always bad tax policy in support of good education policy. 

Phasing them out would also have permitted the argument that universal vouchers would pay for themselves. The legislative budget staff estimates the additional cost of universal vouchers to the state’s general fund to be around $125 million a year when up and running. The state’s general fund loses north of $200 million a year in the tuition tax credits.

If the tuition tax credits disappeared, there would be a greater uptake on the Empowerment Scholarships. But the effect on the state’s general fund would be a wash or perhaps even a net gain. Combining universal vouchers with a phase out of tuition tax credits would blunt the argument that vouchers take money away from the public schools. 

If there is a referral, the electoral fight will be more robust than in 2018. But, unfortunately, HB 2853 doesn’t contain the optimal product to win that fight.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.