Republican lawmakers in Arizona are pushing for budget changes that could effectively throw out a voter-approved measure that lets a number undocumented students pay in-state tuition at state universities. This could lead to a constitutional dispute over who has the power to overturn ballot initiatives.
On a party-line vote Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee passed a budget measure prohibiting state colleges from using public dollars to reduce tuition or fees to any student who has not been legally present in the United States. The restriction goes beyond public funding, also barring schools from using private dollars for tuition assistance to this population.
The budget proposal defines ineligible students as individuals present in the United States "without authorization under federal law," foreign nationals paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign nationals who have asked for asylum but have yet to gain approval.
Does Texas have a constitutional right to defy Supreme Court on protecting its border?
In addition, the $17.3 billion budget package requires a 2.5% drop in in-state tuition rates, approximately $314 per year, according to Rep. Matt Gress, a key architect of the plan, with no tuition hikes allowed for the next two years. Critically, the state would not reimburse colleges for their revenue loss.
The plan directly challenges Proposition 308, which Arizona voters adopted by a small percentage of 51-49% in 2022. The ballot proposition made an exception to existing state law, allowing students who had attended Arizona high schools for at least two years, regardless of immigration status, to be eligible for in-state tuition at universities and community colleges.
Arizona's constitution expressly bans politicians from changing or repealing voter-approved legislation unless they "further the purpose" of the original initiative and are approved by three-fourths of both legislative chambers. With a unified Democratic opposition, Republicans lack the required supermajority.
Gress claims that the budget provision does not contradict with Proposition 308, claiming that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients could be considered "lawfully present" in the United States. However, the legal status of DACA recipients remains complicated and contentious.
Republican lawmakers use a recent federal court decision in Texas to justify their strategy. Earlier this month, a federal judge overturned Texas' in-state tuition statute for undocumented students after the Department of Justice launched a lawsuit during the Trump administration, claiming that such advantages violated federal law by favoring non-citizens over out-of-state US citizens.
"Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens," Attorney General Pam Bondi stated regarding the Texas case.
Sen. John Kavanagh, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, suggested that similar provisions could appear in the Senate budget proposal, which is set to be released Friday. The Fountain Hills Republican cited the Texas verdict as potentially overturning Arizona's voter-approved initiative.
Democratic legislators criticized the idea as an unlawful attempt to undermine voter will. Rep. Lorena Austin called the measure "absolutely egregious," and Assistant House Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez described it as "disrespectful to every Arizona voter who voted 'yes' on Prop. 308."
Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton questioned whether non-DACA recipients attend state schools in considerable numbers, arguing that the measure serves solely political goals rather than addressing a serious policy issue.
The uncertainty surrounding DACA's future adds a new element of difficulty. In January, a federal appeals court declared major aspects of the program illegal, although current participants are exempt from DACA enforcement measures for the time being.
In addition to tuition eligibility restrictions, the budget proposal includes provisions that allow institutions to enhance borrowing capacity for projects such as research facilities and Arizona State University's proposed hospital. However, the compulsory tuition reduction without state reimbursement would reduce revenue for the university system.
Gress declined to specify the total financial impact on colleges, but defended the decision as necessary to lower prices for resident students.
The budget measure will be debated and voted on by the whole House on Friday, while Senate Republicans will present their rival proposal on the same day. The conclusion could determine whether Arizona becomes the next state to limit educational advantages for students here unlawfully, or if voter-approved protections win.
