Montenegro, Petersen Prevail in Lawsuit Against Fontes for Ballot Measure Language

A Maricopa County judge has struck down Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ proposed ballot language for Prop 145 in a lawsuit brought by Arizona State Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen, who alleged that Fontes misrepresented the ballot measure, which will preserve school choice funding for military families.

Petersen, the Republican nominee for attorney general, and Montenegro sued Fontes to prevent his misleading ballot measure language from going to voters.

🚨UPDATE: Court has spoken.

We said we’d fight it. We did. We won. @AZHouseGOP 🇺🇸https://t.co/EOpkfDWS8c https://t.co/oSpeLxsMsZ

— Steve Montenegro (@SteveMontenegro) August 7, 2026

In their lawsuit, Montenegro and Petersen accused Fontes of crafting language that intentionally undermines Proposition 145.

They claim that Fontes acted to benefit Proposition 212, which would end the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.

Fontes’ ballot language says a “yes” would amend the Arizona Constitution to “nullify Proposition 212, which imposes spending and income limits” for ESAs. ARS 19-125(D). The judge ruled that the description must state the change to “existing law,” and Prop 212 is not existing law.

Court Ruling:

The Court finds the descriptive title and “yes/no” language for Proposition 145 does not comply with A.R.S. §19-125(D). The reference to Proposition 212 in the title and the “yes/no” language is not a reference to existing law. Therefore, the Secretary of State is enjoined from using the currently proposed title and “yes/no” language on the official ballot.

PROPOSITION 145 AND PROPOSITION 212

Proposition 145 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment adding a new section to Article XI (Education). This proposed new section entitled “Scholarship accounts; confiscation of monies prohibited; voidability of future bills or measures; definitions.”  The proposed section has three operative provisions:

• the Insulation provision, states in summary, that the “State may not confiscate monies from any scholarship account of any student who is a child of a military family” that can be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
• the Anti-Severance provision, states in part, that any “entire bill or measure” enacted into law or approved by the voters is void if any part of it violates the insulation provision.
• the Retroactivity provision makes the Insulation and Anti-Severance provisions retroactive to November 1, 2026.

Important for this matter, the Retroactivity provision of Proposition 145 makes the Insulation and Anti-Severance provisions retroactive to November 1, 2026, two days before the November 3, 2026 election at which the voters will decide whether to approve Proposition 212.

Proposition 212 is an initiative petition intended to reform the Empowerment Scholarship Account program. One of the provisions of Proposition 212 allows the State to recoup ESA funds from participants including children of military families.

Fontes is expected to appeal the ruling.