SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v.

) ) HONORABLE JOHN REA, JUDGE OF THE ) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) ARIZONA, in and for the County ) of Maricopa, ) ) Respondent, ) ) QUALITY EDUCATION & JOBS ) SUPPORTING I-16-2012, a ) registered Arizona Political ) Committee, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) REP. ANDREW TOBIN, Chairman of Legislative Council; SEN. STEVE PIERCE, Co-Chairman of Legislative Council; SEN. ANDY BIGGS, Member of Legislative Council; SEN. LINDA GRAY, Member of Legislative Council, SEN. LORI KLEIN, Member of Legislative Council; SEN. STEVE YARBROUGH, Member of Legislative Council; REP. STEVE COURT, Member of Legislative Council; REP. DEBBIE LESKO, Member of Legislative Council and REP. STEVE MONTENEGRO, Member of Legislative Council Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-12-0273-SA Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-010912

O R D E R

FILED 08/17/2012

The Court, by a panel consisting of Vice Chief Justice Bales, Justice Pelander, and Justice Brutinel, has considered the briefs of the parties and amicus curiae and the record in this special action. After consideration, the Court rules as follows: The Court has and accepts jurisdiction to decide this matter.

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-12-0273-SA Page 2 of 3 Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe, 192 Ariz. 378, 965 P.2d 770 (1998). Pursuant to A.R.S. 19-124, the Legislative Council must write an "impartial analysis" of each initiative measure that will appear on the general election ballot for inclusion in the publicity

pamphlet the Secretary of State sends to registered voters before the election. The proponents of the Quality Education and Jobs

Initiative, I-16-2012, challenged the impartiality of the Legislative Council analysis in superior court. After a hearing, Judge John

Christian Rea ruled that three of the grounds raised were valid and ordered the Council to delete or revise three specific parts of the analysis. The analysis is generally accurate, provides the information

required by A.R.S. 19-124(B), and meets that statute's impartiality requirement with the three exceptions of (a) not noting that the proposed new tax increase would go into effect when the earlier, temporary tax increase expires; (b) not accurately describing the limitation on the Legislature's prerogative to adjust the sales tax base, which would only limit such adjustment as it affects the amount collected and distributed under the one percent sales tax the

initiative enacts, but not any other part of the sales tax; and (c) emphasizing that the initiative "fails to define who qualifies as a 'resident'" for student scholarship award purposes.

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-12-0273-SA Page 3 of 3 We hold that Petitioners have not shown that Judge Rea acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and/or abused his discretion in

determining that the Council's analysis in those three respects was not impartial and ordering that the challenged portions be deleted or revised. See Healthy Arizona Initiative PAC v. Groscost, 199 Ariz.

75, 13 P.3d 1192 (2000); Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, 199 Ariz. 71, 13 P.3d 1188 (2000). petition for special action. issue in due course. We therefore deny relief on the

An opinion explaining this order will

DATED this ____17th___ day of August, 2012.

_____________________________ SCOTT BALES Vice Chief Justice

TO: Michael E. Braun Kenneth C. Behringer Michele J. Hanigsberg Patricia A. Probst Anthony Tsontakis James E. Barton Michele L. Forney Paul F. Eckstein David A. Gaona John Christian Rea Michael K. Jeanes