ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

In a brief order late Thursday, the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a trial judge that there are insufficient valid signatures on the petitions to put the initiative on the November ballot.

The justices rejected claims by proponents that certain legal requirements for circulators to appear in court did not apply.

The decision is a victory for the hospital industry, which was more concerned about two other provisions in the initiative.

One would have required a 20% raise over four years for virtually all hospital workers. The only exceptions would have been executives and doctors.

Hospitals also opposed a requirement to conform with new infection-control standards, calling them unnecessary.

The initiative also had a fourth provision, which would have enacted some protection for patients against “surprise� medical bills. That situation can occur when someone goes to a hospital in the network of coverage for their insurance, only to find out that a doctor or anesthesiologist there is not part of the same insurance network and wants to be paid in full.

Backers said they submitted more than 425,000 signatures to put the initiative to voters. A review by state and county officials found 285,000 of those to be valid, said campaign spokesman Rodd McLeod.

But following a hearing, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates said even the proponents conceded that 111,337 of the signatures submitted were invalid. Then there were issues of circulators not appearing in court after being subpoenaed, which resulted in Gates disqualifying all the names they collected.

Ultimately, the judge said she found 221,336 valid signatures on the petitions, short of the 237,645 needed to qualify.

The ruling drew an angry reaction from McLeod. “This decision sends a message that it’s nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to exercise their basic constitutional rights,â€� he said, referring to legal procedures that can be used by foes to disqualify signatures. “The court has demonstrated more empathy for millionaire CEOs than for the difficulties that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ families face every day.â€�

But signatures weren’t the only problem. Gates said there also were other reasons to keep the measure off the ballot, including that the required 100-word description that must appear on all petitions was misleading.

The high court justices did not address that issue, saying the lack of signatures was all they needed to consider.

The proposed provisions on pre-existing conditions were designed to have something in place in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ law if and when the U.S. Supreme Court voids the federal Affordable Care Act.

That federal law, known colloquially as “Obamacare,� is designed to require access to affordable coverage even for those who already have health conditions.

State lawmakers earlier this year did approve a measure that Republicans said will provide such protections if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. But Democrats said it lacks a requirement that the offered insurance be affordable.

The initiative’s language on infection control would have required hospitals to comply with certain national standards based on benchmarks set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for certain services, ranging from problems caused by putting in a catheter to MRSA infections caused by a certain type of staph bacteria that is resistant to certain antibiotics.

Hospitals that did not meet the standards would have been subject to oversight by the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Department of Health Services and subject to fines for violations. The section on pay would have required an immediate 5% increase, followed by successive 5% pay increases for the following three years.

With the current voter-mandated minimum wage of $12 an hour for all workers, that would put the minimum for hospital workers at $14.59 when fully implemented. But the increase also would have been mandated for those making much more.

The campaign was financed by the California-based United Healthcare Workers West branch of the Service Employees International Union.