Arizona Proposition 320: Require large school districts to spend 60% of operating money on direct instruction
What it does. Proposition 320 would require each school district with at least 7,500 students, or that operates a school in a county with a population of at least 500,000, to spend at least 60 percent of its operational spending on direct instructional expenses, with the auditor general defining “direct instructional expenses” and “operational spending.” Beginning in fiscal year 2027-2028, a district below 60 percent would have to raise that share by at least one-half of one percent per year until it complies. A district that does not comply would lose 25 percent of its classroom site fund allocation for each year of non-compliance, up to 100 percent after four or more years, unless a waiver is granted; the withheld money would go to compliant districts the following year. The measure is a state law, so under Proposition 105 (1998) it could later be changed only by a three-fourths vote of each house of the legislature, or by initiative or referral to the ballot. [1]
Official ballot question. Referred to the people by the Legislature relating to school district budgets. Amending Title 15, Chapter 9, Article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes by adding Section 15-917. Requires certain school districts to spend at least sixty percent of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses as defined by the Auditor General; reduces certain state funding for non-compliant districts. [1]
If you vote yes
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring school districts with 7,500 or more students in any county or that operate in a county with 500,000 or more people to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses; (2) requiring the state Auditor General to define “operational spending” and “direct instructional expenses”; (3) requiring non-compliant school districts to gradually adjust their spending each year until they are in compliance; and (4) requiring the state Department of Education to reduce funding from the state Classroom Site Fund by 25% each year for non-compliant districts, subject to limited waivers that the state Superintendent of Public Instruction may authorize. [1]
If you vote no
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws governing school district budgets. [1]
What it would cost
Arizona law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff to summarize the fiscal impact of each voter initiative, and the JLBC states that “This requirement excludes legislatively referred propositions.” This measure was referred by the legislature, so the official pamphlet has no JLBC fiscal summary for it. The Legislative Council analysis in the pamphlet does not include a cost estimate, and we did not find another official one. [2] [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Victor Riches of the Goldwater Institute writes that “the percentage of funds used for classroom instruction has dropped to just 52%,” and that the Auditor General “found that Arizona’s teachers would make $7,500 more per year if schools hadn’t diverted available funds away from the classroom.” [1]
Rep. Matt Gress says: “We have over 3,000 teacher vacancies. … And yet we’re spending more money outside of the classroom year after year after year. We have to reverse that.” [3]
Arizona Women of Action writes that “Teachers will gain competitive pay, essential supplies, and the ability to focus on inspiring students,” and that “Families will see their tax dollars invested wisely in their children’s education.” [1]
Strongest case against
School nurse William Graham writes that “To comply, some districts could be forced to reduce funding for nurses, counselors, psychologists, support staff, or other critical services,” and that “Local school leaders and communities are best equipped to determine how resources should be allocated.” [1]
Will of the People says that “Prop 320 asks voters to approve penalties now and let a political appointee write the rules later,” and that districts would face “tough choices between firing nurses, counselors, school safety and other support staff, or massive across-the-board funding cuts.” [3]
Former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda says: “You’re punishing the growing counties with this mandate that’s not defined. Stop sending referrals to the people to just make a political point.” [3]
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 320. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $20,000
Committee
- Pay Teachers First PAC $20,000
Major donors
| William Smead | $20,000 |
Donors shown gave 100% of this side’s total.
Independent spending by other groups (2)
Spent separately, not given to a committee; not included in the total.
| Goldwater Institute (in October 2026) | $15,000 |
| Arizona Free Enterprise Club (in October 2026) | $4,640 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $886,338
Committees
- Will of the People $871,000
- No on Prop 320 PAC $15,338
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Arizona Proposition 142, Arizona Proposition 144, Arizona Proposition 318, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Progress Arizona | $281,000 |
| Future Freedoms | $150,000 |
| Arizona Education Association | $75,000 |
| UFCW Local 99 | $75,000 |
| Lynn Schusterman | $70,000 |
Independent spending by other groups (6)
Spent separately, not given to a committee; not included in the total.
| Save Our Schools Arizona PAC (in October 2026) | $2,588 |
| LD4 Democrats (from July through September 2026) | $916 |
| Worker Power PAC (in September 2026) | $609 |
| Democrats of the Red Rocks (DORR) (from September through October 2026) | $483 |
| Legislative District 20 Democratic Committee (in September 2026) | $461 |
| D14 Democrats (in September 2026) | $20 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 24, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Arizona Secretary of State, See the Money.
Sources
- 2026 General Election Guide: Legislative Council analyses, ballot language, and voter-submitted arguments for and against — Arizona Secretary of State (2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet; copy hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission) (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Ballot Initiatives (page on fiscal analyses of November 2026 ballot propositions) — Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff (Official legislative fiscal office, 2026-08-19)
- Arizona Proposition 320 (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.