Public-funding foes ask high court to overturn Arizona elections system
By The Associated Press
01.11.03
PHOENIX — Challengers to Arizona's public campaign-finance system are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it as violating constitutional protections for free speech.
The petition filed Jan. 9 in Washington by the Institute for Justice on behalf of state Rep. Steve May contends that the Clean Elections system violates the rights of people who fund the system through surcharges on criminal and traffic fines.
"Arizona has joined authoritarian regimes that make political participation mandatory," said Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice. "We ask the Supreme Court to reaffirm the principle that in a free society, political participation must be voluntary."
The 10% fine surcharges provide approximately two-thirds of the system's funding. Other funding sources for Clean Elections include contributions from taxpayers and $5 contributions that candidates solicit from voters to qualify for public funding.
The Clean Elections system was authorized by Arizona voters in 1998 and first used to fund candidates in 2000 for legislative and Corporation Commission seats. It was used this year by candidates for virtually every state office, including governor.
May, a Paradise Valley Republican who lost a re-election bid and leaves office Jan.13, contested a surcharge on a parking citation, arguing the surcharges infringe on payers' free-speech rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court on Oct. 11 unanimously upheld the funding system, ruling that it was constitutional. That ruling removed a legal cloud over continued public funding for candidates in the 2002 general election.
The state high court's ruling overturned a decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals that held the surcharges violated free-speech rights.
A lawyer for the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the state agency that administers the system, expressed confidence Jan.9 that the U.S. Supreme Court would turn aside the petition filed on behalf of May.
Assistant Attorney General Todd Lang said the U.S. Supreme Court had more pressing campaign-finance cases on its plate, and he noted that the Arizona court's ruling was unanimous. "This is a clear-cut case," he said.
The Arizona Supreme Court's October ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 upheld use of public money for campaign financing and the Arizona system does not violate other U.S. Supreme Court rulings on mandatory contributions because the system does not promote any particular message.
Also, U.S. Supreme Court rulings against various mandatory fees imposed on groups to promote political speech do not apply to the Arizona system because surcharge payers have not joined for a common purpose, the Arizona court's ruling said.