By J. Graber
Mail | X: @AzNewsmedia

For a second time, the Goldwater Institute is suing the City of Scottsdale over a ballot proposition designed to pay for maintenance, personnel and capital improvements at the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, the city’s 44 parks and WestWorld.

The institute has filed a suit in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of its clients Robert Stamper and Gretchen Jacobs against the city for trying to enact ballot Proposition 490 without a 60% approval rating at the polls.

The proposition created a new 0.15% sales tax which is expected to raise $1.2 billion over its 30 year life span. It replaces a 0.2 % sales tax scheduled to expire on the last day of June.

The proposition was passed by Scottsdale voters in November 2024 with a 58.25% approval rating. In raw numbers, that was 82,032 voters supporting it and 58,788 voters against it.

But the Goldwater Institute is now claiming a state law passed in 2022, which requires tax increases be approved by a super majority of the of the voters, is relevant to municipal elections as well as state elections.

“It needed broader support, a super majority support, and it didn’t get it,” said Scott Day Freeman, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute.

The City of Scottsdale’s communications department said in an email to the Daily Independent, “The city is disappointed that this challenge was filed more than six months after the city council canvassed the election and declared Scottsdale’s ballot measure to have passed. Scottsdale’s legal team is now working to resolve this matter quickly so that the community improvements this tax will pay for can begin when the new fiscal year starts on July 1.”

The email also said, “The city is confident its ballot item and election result comply with the Arizona Constitution and all applicable election laws:

• The 60% tax approval threshold does not apply to local ballot measures: it is in a section of the constitution that regulates statewide initiatives and referendums, not in the separate section of the constitution applicable to city initiatives and referendums.
• Voter approval of a similar county-wide transportation sales tax was challenged on the same basis in 2024 and subsequently dropped.”

Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky said she is disappointed with the situation.

“As a lawyer, I am sensitive to need to avoid commenting on pending litigation.

I hold the Goldwater Institute in high esteem, but, of course, I am disappointed that we, the city, find ourselves involved in yet another lawsuit related to proposition 490,” she said.

City council members like Councilman Barry Graham and Vice Mayor Jan Dubauskas say they want to get direction from the city’s legal staff before they say they would support fighting the suit, while city Councilwoman Kathy

Littlefield said she wants to challenge it. She initially opposed Proposition 490 but said she wants to defend what the voters have approved.

Councilwoman Solange Whitehead is also up for challenging the lawsuit.

“Voters in every precinct approved Prop. 490,” she said. “The challenge undermines voters but also threatens the safety of every Scottsdale resident by defunding police, fire, park and preserve protections,” Whitehead said. “I think this is an opportunity for this city council to unite in support of our community and ensure Prop. 490 prevails in court.”

City Councilwoman Maryann McAllen said the Goldwater Institute is “grasping at straws” and she doesn’t expect the lawsuit to go anywhere.

“The citizens wanted 490 and we need to continue to uphold all efforts to keep 490 in place,” she said.

City Councilman Adam Kwasman was unreachable because he was observing the Jewish holiday of Shavuot.

In the meantime, the council is scheduled to approve next year’s budget, which assumes funding from the sales tax will be collected, during its June 10 meeting.

It’s not the first time the Goldwater Institute has sued the city over the proposition.

The institute also sued last June on behalf of former mayor Jim Lane, local activist Susan Wood and political activist Yvonne Cahill to keep the measure off the ballot in the first place because they felt the ballot language was misleading.

The city was calling Proposition 490 a tax decrease because it would be less than the current tax of 0.20% currently on the books but didn’t say that tax was ending anyway.

The institute initially lost that suit but ultimately prevailed in the court of appeals.

That led to the city council to hold an emergency afternoon session two days before the deadline to set the ballot language and alter the wording.
The court also ruled the city had to pay $45,461.76 in legal fees.

“With respect to both lawsuits, they have nothing to do with whether or not this tax is a good idea, whether the spending is a good idea,” Freeman said. “It has nothing to do with that at all. It has to do with complying with the law and the constitution, period.”

Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines. J. Graber can be reached at jgraber@iniusa.org.