In another twist in Arizona’s endless skirmish over school funding, Proposition 145 is off the November ballot after a Maricopa County judge ruled that it combines two distinct constitutional changes into one ballot question. Prop. 145’s proponents are appealing, and the Arizona Supreme Court must now decide whether to restore it.

Republican legislators crafted Prop. 145 as a countermeasure to the citizen-initiated Proposition 212. Nonprofit organizations and public-sector unions back Prop. 212, also known as the Protect Education Act, which would impose new limits and oversight requirements on Arizona’s universal Empowerment Scholarship Account program.

The initiative would set a $150,000 household-income cap for many applicants, require certain unused funds to be returned annually, restrict eligible purchases and add fingerprinting, background-check, reporting and safety requirements for participating private schools and educators. Supporters describe it as an accountability measure; opponents say it would reduce access and limit how families use ESA funds.

Prop. 145 would prohibit the state from “confiscating” money from qualifying scholarship accounts held for children of military families. It also provides that if a future law violates that protection, the entire law is void and a court may not preserve its remaining provisions.

That no-severance clause is the source of the constitutional dispute.

Tony Napolitano, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represents two intervenors defending Prop. 145 in the appeal, says the two subsections form one coherent policy: a protection backed by a bright-line consequence. Under that interpretation, a law either leaves the protected accounts alone or the whole law falls.

“The idea is to let the voters choose,” Napolitano said. “That’s what this case is about.”

The Protect Education, Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona and voter Linda May Lyon brought the challenge. Napolitano characterized the initiative’s campaign as driven by nonprofit and public-sector union interests. The challengers’ attorneys argue that the military-family protection in Subsection A would already be enforceable as part of the state Constitution.

In their view, Subsection B adds something much broader: the power to invalidate otherwise lawful portions of Prop. 212—or any future law—because one provision conflicts with the military-account protection. They also contend that the Legislature used the popular cause of protecting military families to carry a separate and more controversial change to the courts’ traditional power to preserve constitutional portions of a law.

Prop. 145’s supporters say its two parts create one strong protection. Its opponents—and the trial judge—say the first part protects military families while the second uses that protection as the trigger to erase much broader laws.

Judge Joseph Kreamer agreed that the two sections connect on the surface, but ruled that’s not sufficient interrelation under Arizona’s Separate Amendment Rule. The rule intends to ensure that voters can consider distinct proposed constitutional changes separately rather than being forced to accept one to obtain another.

Kreamer found that Subsection A creates a substantive protection for a specific category of scholarship accounts, while Subsection B makes a broader structural change affecting courts, lawmakers and entire future laws. He rejected a separate claim that Prop. 145’s title was legally inadequate.

The appeal therefore turns on a narrow but consequential legal question: Is Subsection B merely an enforcement mechanism, or is it a separate constitutional change requiring its own vote?

Napolitano said the Legislature intended to create not merely a protection for military-family scholarship money, but a trigger invalidating any entire law that crossed that line.

If the lower-court ruling stands, Proposition 145 will remain off the ballot. If it’s reversed, voters could face both Prop. 145 and Prop. 212 in November. Napolitano said final briefs are due August 11 and that the court should decide before the August 20 ballot-printing deadline.