Why is Prop 425 controversial?

One of the hottest fights this campaign season caught us by surprise.

Who would’ve figured that Prop 425, which would raise Pima County’s state-mandated expenditure limit, would raise such a ruckus?

Pima County hasn’t permanently raised its constitutional spending ceiling since the state established the formula back in 1980. And thanks to the complicated way government spending works, voting against Prop 425 could potentially prevent the county from spending all the revenue it collects.

It’s technical, nerdy and not exactly something people argue over at the dinner table — so we assumed it would be a sleeper.

But a coalition of Republicans and Democratic elected officials has formed the No on Prop 425 campaign, arguing the county is asking to raise the ceiling too much and open the door to higher taxes.

Democratic Sen. Sally Gonzales and former Democratic Sen. Luis Gonzales are the faces of the organization, along with former Republican Tucson City Council candidate Jay Tolkoff.

The Goldwater Institute is joining the fray to oppose Prop 425, saying that Pima County is being “deceptive” and “misleading” in its public informational statements about the proposition on the ballot.

But supporters aren’t taking it lying down.

Pima County Supervisor Rex Scott penned an oped in the Tucson Sentinel earlier this month accusing Pima County Republican Party chair Kathleen Winn of using her radio show to spread “hyperbolic statements” about Prop 425.

First and foremost, there is never a great year to ask for permission to spend more money. And secondly, it isn’t a bad idea to ask before your back is against the wall.

Here is the bottom line on why now: The county has been using increasingly complicated financial tools to meet the state-mandated expenditure limit, while multiple counties, cities and towns have successfully increased their spending caps.

The numbers get complicated quickly. A “yes” vote on Prop 425 would add $70 million to the 1979-80 base. And since the limit grows every year with inflation and population, a 1980 dollar buys a lot more spending today.

But in practical terms, it would allow the county to spend roughly $610 million more annually.

But the county projects it would need to spend only $84.1 million above the current limit in fiscal year 2027-28.

This is where the fight comes into play. It wasn’t the ask that triggered the pushback from the community — it was the size of it, Prop 425 critics argue.

County officials could have put a far more modest request on the ballot, like increasing the effective spending limit by $100 million rather than $610 million.

So why does the increase have to be so high? Officials argue coming back to voters every few years is expensive and an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

The Yes on Prop 425 crowd includes the Pima County Democratic Party, Democratic Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva and, notably, the Chamber of Southern Arizona.

The chamber isn’t usually on the same side as the Pima Dems. And it’s worth noting that the chamber has a modest six-figure contract with Pima County for economic development.

The No on Prop 425 camp argues that a proposition designed to keep the county on track financially for potentially decades comes with a pretty big drawback.

While the current Pima County Board of Supervisors can accurately argue that Prop 425 itself won’t raise taxes right now, how long can a promise about low taxes last?

Does it extend to the supervisors’ eventual replacements? Well, of course not. No one is bound by their predecessor’s promises. (Unless it is from a 1969 zoning case.)

Nothing. At least not right away.

The county can keep leaning on the financing workarounds it already uses to stay under the cap for now.

In several years, Pima County would likely have to consider program cuts or continue with debt financing to stay under the limit.

If Prop 425 fails, the county could put another request on the ballot in 2028 — the same time when most, if not all, county supervisors are running for reelection.

Coming back to haunt him: U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani is one of several incumbent Republican congressmen who are struggling to answer attacks — often arson-themed — from their Democratic opponents over the massive cuts to Medicaid, per The Hill. Democrat JoAnna Mendoza said Ciscomani’s support for a rural healthcare fund after he voted to approve the One Big Beautiful Bill was “like bringing a glass of water to a fire you started.” Ciscomani’s rebuttal is that he saved Arizona from even more “devastating” cuts to the Medicaid program. As The Hill noted, Arizona got $167 million from the first part of the rural healthcare program, while the One Big Beautiful Bill is expected to cost Arizona $34.5 billion.

Misplaced priorities: Tucson City Councilwoman Miranda Schubert was on a panel hosted by the Arizona Capitol Times to discuss the economic cost of deportations in Arizona. Schubert pointed to “people being removed from the community” by the Trump administration, which leads to fewer customers for local businesses and fewer taxpayers, as well as families losing their breadwinners and the housing market losing renters and homebuyers. She also noted, among other things, that the city is cutting costs while the federal government spends billions on mass deportations. The money spent on deportations would be enough to build 9.8 million units of affordable housing, she said.

Didn’t get it in writing: Hudbay backed off a promise to make finished copper at its Copper World mine south of Tucson, Tony Davis reports for the Star. Instead, the Canadian mining giant says in a feasibility study that its “Made in America” promise is now a “future upside opportunity.” The change didn’t go unnoticed by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, which sent out a news release saying “Hudbay’s propaganda campaign unraveled” when the company’s promises were put under scrutiny by regulators. Meanwhile, Wall Street is bullish on Copper World. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Japanese trading house Mitsubishi bought a 30% stake in the mine in January. Hudbay now expects to produce 102,000 metric tons of copper a year over its first decade of operation, which is slated to start in late 2029.

Tim’s takes: Voting “no” on ballot measures you don’t understand is generally a safe option, Arizona Daily Star columnist Tim Steller writes. But for those undecided voters, Steller runs down the eight statewide ballot measures, all of which came from Republican lawmakers. His honest takes on the measures include noting that designating drug cartels as terrorists under Prop 317 is “absurd” and saying “nobody knows” how voters are supposed to prove their identity when they vote by mail under Prop 144.

Call and response: We don’t see this often, but Pima County officials answered a couple of questions that came up at call to the public during the Board of Supervisors’ October 13 meeting. A member of the public asked how the county verifies citizenship, and how many overseas and military voters live in the county. County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly wrote a memo explaining the steps to verify citizenship when people register to vote, and what her office does when citizenship isn’t clear. The county has just under 3,000 overseas voters, she said, including 438 who are in the military.

Beyond the Ballot AZ is a weekly show about legendary Arizonans, notable — and sometimes notorious — political events, and the social movements still shaping the arguments we’re having today.

A resource of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, hosted by Executive Director Tom Collins and Director of Voter Education Gina Roberts, who break down what’s happening and how you can actually get involved in it. Same state you’ve been reading about all morning, with a lot more context.

If you need a little Tucson spirit in this dreary election season, we’d like to suggest poet Britt Warner’s new book, which was released earlier this month.

It’s called “In Tucson.” And if that isn’t enough to pique your interest, her social media account has become one of our favorite Tucson-centric doomscrolls.

Take a gander at some of our favorite tweet-sized poems.

And if you like the posts, she’s doing a book reading at Black Eyes Gallery (485 S. Stone Ave.) on Wednesday from 7 to 8:30 p.m.