ESA voucher decisions could cost Arizona GOP lawmakers political control

Dr. Curtis Finch

Submitted photo/DVUSD

Voters are fed up with an unaccountable school-choice environment and a $1 billion voucher program. I hate to be the canary in the coal mine, but the November ballot may be about much more than vouchers. It may be about whether elected officials listen when taxpayers and voters keep saying, enough is enough.”

Tell Us What You Think

What are your thoughts on Education Savings Account vouchers, also known as ESAs? Tell us in 300 words or less at yourvalley.net/letters, or email your comments, name, address and contact number to AzOpinions@iniusa.org.

OPINION — I’ve seen this before.

When the main character, Neo, sees the same black cat walk by twice in the original movie “The Matrix,” he asks his colleagues, “Do you ever have déjà vu?” His partners instantly know something is wrong. Déjà vu is usually not a good thing. In the political world, we see it all the time.

When a political idea doesn’t get traction the first time, legislators often put the bill back into the legislative pipeline the following year — most of the time knowing it probably won’t make it through, but a veto or committee dismissal counts for political points. So, they repeat the process anyway, year after year, often to oblige a constituent, campaign donor or party leadership.

A déjà vu moment in recent Arizona history was the voters’ overwhelming 3-to-1 rejection of Education Savings Account vouchers, also known as ESAs, in 2018. However, the Republican Party kept trying. Year after year, they pushed the issue forward until they finally found the one vote they needed to get their voter-rejected voucher package across the line in 2022: Representative Joel John, a decision he regrets to this day.

Now, history is repeating itself.

This month, hundreds of citizens rallied against the $1 billion ESA voucher system. They believed the data showed vouchers are very vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse -  and collected more than 420,000 voter signatures in just 14 weeks to get reforms on the ballot, Proposition 212.

A team of well-financed lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court to remove Prop. 212 from the ballot. They knew that if it made the ballot, it would win overwhelmingly. After reviewing a 10% sample of the 400,000 signatures, a three-judge panel ruled that the effort was estimated to fall 10,000 signatures short of the 250,000 needed.

Here’s why Arizona voters should pay attention: I was a superintendent in Michigan for 18 years, and I watched as Republicans secured control of the state House of Representatives and Senate, state Supreme Court majority and governorship during a decade-long run in the early 2000s. That came after a four-decade Democratic reign.

Once in power, the Republican legislature in Michigan copied Florida’s voucher, charter and private-school program models, with few accountability measures. I warned Michigan’s leadership that if they didn’t put some guardrails around these programs, that abuse, fraud and waste would prevail — and eventually, taxpayers would hold them accountable.

They didn’t listen.

Today, Republicans in Michigan hold only the Senate. They lost political control after going against the voters on voucher, charter and private-school accountability and transparency.

That same process is playing out here in Arizona. Voters are fed up with an unaccountable school-choice environment and a $1 billion voucher program.

I hate to be the canary in the coal mine, but the November ballot may be about much more than vouchers. It may be about whether elected officials listen when taxpayers and voters keep saying, enough is enough.

Déjà vu, Arizona.

Dr. Curtis Finch is Deer Valley Unified School District superintendent. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.