dissenting.
¶ 12 In Citizens for Growth Management v. Groscost, No. CV-00-0259-SA (Martone, J., dissenting), I state my dissatisfaction with the majority’s dilution of the standards set forth in Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe, 192 Ariz. 378, 965 P.2d 770 (1998), in judicially reviewing “impartiality” under A.R.S. § 19-124(B). I do not repeat that here. But this case is a more egregious example of the collapse of our reviewing function. We are doing precisely what we said we would not do in Howe, i.e., deciding “whether we believe the judicial system could itself devise a better analysis.” 192 Ariz. at 383, 965 P.2d at 775.
¶ 13 The analysis by the Legislative Council is followed directly by the fiscal impact summary in the publicity pamphlet. They are meant to be read together. The majority focuses on what was paragraph three of the Council’s analysis and concludes that it is not impartial because it fails to mention the possibility of federal matching funds. But this approach fails to consider the fact that the third paragraph of the Council’s analysis was absolutely true. It contains the Council’s estimate that the revenues from the tobacco litigation settlement would be insufficient and it notes that supplemental funding from other sources would be required. The reader would then have turned to the fiscal impact summary to see the assumptions upon which the Legislative Council relied. The second paragraph of the fiscal impact summary, when read together with paragraph three of the analysis, creates an integrated whole. *79The second paragraph of the fiscal impact summary states that supplemental funding would be required after 2003 “unless federal monies are received.” It further states that “prospects of additional federal funding are uncertain.”
¶ 14 It can be seen that paragraph three of the Council’s analysis and paragraph two the fiscal impact summary are designed to put the voter on notice that the initiative is creating a program that is likely to require more funds than those available from the tobacco settlement, and if those funds are not received from the federal government, the state will have to come up with them.
¶ 15 This, I believe, is full disclosure. It is not misleading. Instead, I believe that the majority’s removal of paragraph three of the Council’s analysis and paragraph two of the fiscal impact summary results in a product that fails to disclose a material contingency. The majority criticizes the fiscal impact summary because “[w]hile mentioning additional federal funding, [it] clearly downplays Arizona’s chances of receiving it.” Ante, at ¶ 5. But there is nothing in paragraph two that downplays Arizona’s chances of receiving federal funds. It says “[t]he prospects of additional federal funding are uncertain.... ” This is the neutrality one would expect in a financial disclosure statement. It contains no opinion, favorable or unfavorable, on the chances of federal funding.
¶ 16 The Legislative Council complied with our order of August 7, 2000, by deleting the third paragraph of its analysis and the second paragraph of the fiscal impact summary. Attached to this dissent is what remained and was published in the Secretary of State’s publicity pamphlet. Arizona Secretary of State, Ballot Propositions and Judicial Performance Review 160 (Nov. 7, 2000). What is left fails to advise the voter of the possibility that the tobacco settlement fund will be inadequate to fund this new mandate. Proposition 204 passed at the general election on November 7, 2000.
¶ 17 So what have we accomplished? If, in the year 2003, federal funds are not available, the people may wonder why they were not told of this contingency. We could have helped prevent this unhappy prospect and others like it by following the standards we set forth in Howe, 192 Ariz. at 383, 965 P.2d at 775. Applying those standards, I would conclude that the Legislative Council’s analysis, including paragraph three, and the fiscal impact summary, including paragraph two, taken as a whole, are “reasonably impartial.” Id. I would conclude that “reasonable minds could conclude that the Council met the requirements of the law.” Id. Thus the Council’s “analysis substantially complies with the requirements of A.R.S. § 19-124(B).” Id. at 384, 965 P.2d at 776. I therefore respectfully dissent.
*80Proposition 204_ 2000 Ballot Propositions
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE-COUNCIL.
In 1998, tna attorneys ganare! ol 49 atalas, Including Arizona, agreed lo settle a lawsuit ttwy had Iliad agalnet'lhe manufacturers oI Intianoo products. Ae a result, the tobacco manufacturers must pay each of those states a portion of the estimated $206 billion settlement seen year ovar tha nsat 25 yean. Arizona's (hare la eattmatad to total approximately $3.2 trillion. Payments are subject to annual adjustments lor Inflation. Tha aattlamant also includes a provisión to reduce payments if the volunta of cigarettes sold In me United States tails. Tha same* manl agreement allows aach slats to datarmlna how it will spend lie there of me settlement.
Proposition 204 would require Arizona to depositan of the monay It receives over the next 25 years from me tobacco litigation settlement In me "Ancona Tobacco Litigation sattlamant fund.* Money In die fund would ba used to Increase the number of people who ere eligible for coverage In the Arizona Heslti Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), which la me elata'e heaim cam tyitam for tha poor. Cumntfy, there ere many eligibility categories mat datatmlna If a person can racafva health care under AHCCCS, Including ona mat requires met e recipient's net Income not exceed approximately 34% of me federal poverty level. If Propoeltlan 204 paseas, paopla who asm up to 100% of tha federal poverty level vril qualify te recorva heaim care under AHCCCS. Future legislatures could change me'eligibility requirements to allow more people to quality to recorva heaim care under AHCCCS but me Legislature and tha AHCCCS administration could not reduce or limit the number of persons who would ba able to enroll In AHCCCS •
Any excess monies m me Arizona tobacco litigation settlement fund would also be used lo ensure that programe that ware previously established by ma passage of e preposition In the 1996 general election would be fully Implemented at funding lévala that when adjusted aach yaar for inflation, would be at least equal to those provided for In that elacllon as tottows:
1. Five mutton dollars tor me Healthy Familias program, which próvidas aanrlcaa to prevent child abuse and neglect and to promota child wellness end proper develepmenL
2. FCur million donara tor tie Arisons Hsalth Education System to provide eeholarshlpe to medical students who agree to practice In areas ol me suue met ere curreniy undctscived by heaim care prelesslonat».
3. Three million dollars tor programe to prevent teenage pregnancy.
4. Two million ddlara tor dbetae control research.
5. Two million dollars tor Health Start a program that alma to reduce me Incidence of low birth weight bables and childhood desasas and to educate families on tie Importance of good nutrition and preventive health core lor their children.
6. One million donara for the Women. Infants end Children Food program.
Under the 1996 proposition, ell of mew programs have had to rely on distributions from lottery revenues. However, this has preven to be an Insufficient source of funding tor thaw programs.
Proposition 204 Flseaj Impact Summary
Proposition 264 allocates monies received from tobacco companies as part of a lawsuit setlfsmanL The state Is expected to receive between $92 mutton and $109 million annually through 2006. By 2025, tha state Is expected to have received $3.2 trillion In total tobacco, setUement revenues. Proposition 264 would use these monies to expand eligibility for me Arizona Heaim Cara Cost Containment System (AHC-CCS), which Is the state's health cars system (or the poor.
A second ballot preposition. Healthy Children, Haaimy Families (Proposition 200), also fully spends the tnhaeco settlement. If both Inillauvas pasa, and Healthy Children, Healthy Families receives more votes than mis Initiative, this Inltfatlva would stllf go Into effect However, me entire projected state cost of the program would need to ba paid from Its general or other revenues.
Sptlllng, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the *for* and ‘against* arguments. General Election November 7,2000 Page 160