Arizona judges to consider challenge to election financing

By The Associated Press

04.19.02

Printer-friendly page

Editor's note: The state Supreme Court on May 22 refused to rule on the constitutional challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections system without having the case go through the Court of Appeals first. Clean Elections supporters had asked the high court to dismiss the challengers' appeal, rule on it right away or postpone the case until after this year's election.

PHOENIX — A panel of three Arizona Court of Appeals judges has decided to consider a challenge to the state's "Clean Elections" system for publicly financing state election campaigns, attorneys said yesterday.

Opponents of the elections system are appealing an earlier ruling by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge that upheld the constitutionality of the system's chief financing source: 10% surcharges on fines for crimes and traffic violations.

The opponents claim these surcharges are coerced contributions that violate constitutional free-speech protection.

The appeals court made the decision to consider the challenge on April 17 soon after hearing arguments from challengers and the state, attorneys said.

"The speed of this decision means the judges understand that the deprivation of the fundamental constitutional right to free speech, for any length of time, is an irreparable harm," said Thomas Liddy, Arizona's executive director of the Institute for Justice, a group opposing the system.

Liddy's group had initially hoped to bypass the appeals court by challenging the system in Arizona's Supreme Court. But the state's high court refused last month to hear a special-action appeal.

Tim Hogan, a lawyer for an advocacy group that supports Clean Elections, said he was baffled at the appeals court's decision considering the high court's earlier refusal to hear the appeal.

"Color me confused," Hogan said. "Maybe this court accepted the petition in order to deny relief and put this to bed finally."

The surcharges provide about two-thirds of the revenue for the Clean Elections system, which was created when voters approved a 1998 citizen initiative.

The system provides public financing for candidates who qualify by collecting a specific amount of $5 donations from registered voters. Participating candidates can't accept other contributions.

An earlier ruling by a Superior Court judge upheld the surcharges but overturned another financing source — $100 annual fees imposed on certain lobbyists.

The lawsuit was originally heard in state court in April after being turned away by a federal court a year ago. It was filed on behalf of Rep. Steve May, R-Paradise Valley.

In 2000, the state Supreme Court upheld another challenge to the Clean Elections system. In that case, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce charged that the system violated constitutional separation of powers.

There are 102 participating candidates this year — 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats and two Independents.

On April 16, state Attorney General Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, became the first Arizona gubernatorial candidate to file an application for public Clean Elections funding.

Maine and Massachusetts have similar public financing programs for political campaigns.

Update

Arizona court rejects biggest source for public campaign funds
Appeals panel finds surcharge on traffic tickets, criminal fines 'imposes an unconstitutional restraint on the exercise of free speech.'  06.19.02

Related

Lobbyist fee can't be used to finance state's public elections
Arizona judge finds $100 annual charge imposes prior restraint on free speech.  01.09.02

Public-interest firm renews challenge of Arizona's 'clean-election' plan
Group claims system of publicly funded elections compels citizens to support political speech.  04.30.01