The legal wrangling over Proposition 206 will continue at the Arizona Supreme Court on one issue only: whether Proposition 206 violated the “Revenue Source Rule” of the state constitution. In a brief order last week, the Court scheduled oral argument for March 9.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 206 in November by a nearly 60% margin. Codified as The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act, it raised the minimum wage to $10 per hour on January 1, 2017 and requires most Arizona employers to provide paid sick leave beginning July 1,2017. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and a host of other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in December against the State of Arizona and a host of other defendants seeking to enjoin its implementation. In December, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge and then the Arizona Supreme Court denied the injunction request.
The plaintiffs claim that the proposition violates the Revenue Source Rule because it will lead to increased costs to the state and it does not identify a revenue source to fund the additional cost, essentially an unfunded mandate. They also claimed that the proposition violates the “Separate Amendment Rule” of the state constitution because the ballot question “cobble[d] together” distinct issues, denying voters the opportunity to vote on the minimum wage and PSL issues separately. As noted above, the Supreme Court will hear argument on the Revenue Source Rule issue only.