U.S. Supreme Court Deals Arizona's Clean Elections Matching Blows

On the final day of its 2010-11 term, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt Arizona Clean Elections system of financing for state political campaigns matching blows on Monday. 

The justices, on a 5-4 split decision (opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts), issued an opinion in the consolidated cases of McComish (State Sen. John) v. Bennett (Secy of State Ken) and Arizona's Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, holding that the matching funds provisions of the Clean Elections law passed by Arizona voters in 1998 violate the First Amendment.  The decision overturns the 9th Circuit, but vindicates District Court Judge Roslyn Silver.

The split was along expected lines: Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in the majority.  Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.

Here is a link to the opinions; we will hopefully have some analysis shortly.  (Thanks to http://www.scotusblog.com/ for their fine live coverage of the Supreme Court!)

(BONUS Supreme Court coverage: Led by Justice Scalia, the Court holds that California's law restricting the sale of violent video games also violates the First Amendment.






We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Clean Elections In "The Final Four"; Opinion To Come Down On Monday

The eagerly-awaited U.S. Supreme Court opinion on a core of Arizona's Clean Elections campaign financing system will almost certainly be issued this coming Monday.  The Supreme Court issued six opinions earlier today, leaving only the Clean Elections case and three others to be decided.

The nine Justices traditionally adjourn at the end of June for the summer, and the 27th is the last scheduled day for handing down opinions; it would be highly unusual for the decision not to be announced Monday morning.  Opinions announced near the ends of Supreme Court terms are much more likely to be difficult, divided decisions, often with multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.

The twin cases of Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett and John McComish v. Bennett challenge the matching funds provisions of the Clean Elections law that was passed by Arizona voters in 1998.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28.


The Supreme Court is just about at the end of its 2010-11 Term, and has not yet

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

READ: U.S. Supreme Court Decision On Arizona Tax Credits Opens Up Way For Government To Help Any Private Organization

Here is a copy of the 5-4 Opinion handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today on the constitutionality of Arizona's private school tuition tax credit program.  The Court decided that the taxpayer plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to file the legal action;  the Justices thus sidestepped a ruling on the substance of the law which permits taxpayers - individuals and corporations - to designate some of their taxes to private schools.

Reading the syllabus of the Court's opinion is a quick way of getting to the crux of the opinion.  I recommend paragraph (c) of that syllabus (page 3 of the pdf document linked above).  It is clear that the majority (Justice Kennedy writing) believes that the tax credit gives the choice to send money to private schools to the individuals, and that governmental choices are the only ones that taxpayers can challenge.

There is no syllabus for the dissenting opinion (written by Justice Kagan), so looking at her conclusion is the easiest way to understand the dissent. About the majority opinion, Kagan writes: "The Court’s opinion thus offers a roadmap—more truly, just a one-step instruction—to anygovernment that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge."

"Silliness" is how attorney for the plaintiffs, Paul Bender, describes the ruling to the Arizona Republic reporter.  It is too late for Arizona legislators to propose new bills (though they can still offer strike-everything amendments), but it will be interesting to see what the reaction will be at the state Capitol. 

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar "Honor(ed) To Learn From Justice Scalia" Yesterday

A mini-brouhaha reached its peak yesterday when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a presentation to a group of (mostly) Tea Party Congresspeople.  New Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R-CD1) was among the few dozen who were there, and noted afterward that "It is an honor to learn from Justice Scalia."

Scalia was invited by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to address her Constitutional conservative seminars - in conjunction with the House Tea Party Caucus - and has received criticism from some quarters for speaking to an overtly conservative group of Representatives and for doing so behind closed doors.  Bachmann did say that all members of Congress were welcome (apparently, three Democrats did attend) and that she plans to invite all Supreme Court Justices to also speak with her group.

Following the session, Gosar stated: "“It is an honor to learn from Justice Scalia. The Constitution is an important part of our country and should be incorporated into the lawmaking process.”  He indicated that he is also glad that many Members, when submitting bills, are citing which part of the Constitution authorizes the bill.






We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

More, In-Depth Analysis Of Today's Oral Argument On Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law

Following up on my earlier post of the official transcript of today's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Arizona employer sanctions law - as well as the Associated Press analysis of the arguments - here is a wonderful firsthand account from what has become the definitive news source on the Supreme Coutr: SCOTUSBlog.com.

Lyle Denniston believes it is virtually certain that Arizona's law will be upheld, either on a 5-3 or 4-4 vote .(Justice Kagan recused herself due to her previous position as Solicitor General.)  If it is a tie vote, the law is upheld because it does not overturn the 9th Circuit's decision, but it cannot be used as a "national rule".

Denniston believes that Justice Kennedy is the possible difference between precedent status and the sister-kissing decision.  He finds Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor  prepared to vote to reverse. (He believes the latter might need some persuading.)

Barring whatever NPR's Nina Totenberg files this afternoon, this is likely to give you the best "you are there" perspective on this morning's arguments.  At least until the court releases the audio.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

You Be The Justice; READ: Transcript of Oral Argument Before Supreme Court On Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law

Today, the Supreme Court (of the U.S.) heard oral arguments on the legal issues surrounding Arizona's employer sanctions law - the law that permits the suspension of business licenses of companies knowingly hiring workers in the United States illegally.  The Associated Press reporter who attended the argument concluded (in his or her lede) that the Court "appeared likely" to uphold the law.

I have not yet had a chance to review the transcripts to see if I reach the same conclusion.  But, I know that most who occasionally view this blog are interested in this case and in checking out the transcript.  Here is a link to the Supreme Court's official (subject to final review) transcript. 

Although the PDF is 68 pages long, (1) it reads quickly, as most depositions/transcripts/etc do; and (2) starting on page 57 of the document is a sort of "word index", which allows you to quickly find the page and line number that you might be looking for. For example, if you wanted to find questions asked by Justice Breyer, look up "Breyer".  (Court-watcher unsurprising fun fact: Justice Thomas is not indexed.)

If you find things that you think the rest of us should check out, please comment below and we can start our own useful index!


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT: Affirms Death Sentence For Armed-Robber-Turned-Executioner

The Arizona Supreme Court today unanimously affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Mike Peter Gallardo.  Gallardo was attempting to rob a Phoenix house on a December afternoon in 2005, was surprised to find 20-year old Rudy Gallardo there, and proceeded to execute him.

Gallardo was convicted and sentenced to death in June 2009, and the mandatory appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court was argued earlier this month in front of law students at the University of Arizona.  The opinion makes it apparent that further federal appeals are likely to occur before any execution of the 53-year old Gallardo will take place.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: SCOTUS To Decide What AZ Case; Clean Elections Money Went Where; Stanton Campaign Fund Drained By Who

Work certainly piled up over the holiday weekend, yet there is some interesting news that has surfaced during it.  Three stories worth note (and reading):

1) The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will determine the constitutionality of the matching funds provision in Arizona's Clean Elections laws.  AP's Paul Davenport reports.

2) Monica Alonzo from Phoenix New Times reports today on the apparent draining of possible Phoenix mayoral hopeful Greg Stanton's city council campaign fund. 

3) Alyssa Newcomb from Cronkite News Service reported yesterday (in the Arizona Republic) on some of the things that legislative candidates spent their Clean Elections monies on.  My thought while reading the first part of the article: all items with value after election should be donated to non-profits (started brainstorming processes); turns out Clean Elections Commission is considering such a solution (with state being the non-profit).

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Conservative Group's Appeal To Limit Disclosure Requirements

There is little doubt that conservative groups are feeling pretty cocky about their chances before the current Supreme Court.  How else to explain this appeal to (further) limit what groups have to disclose; the Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal yesterday.

On second thought, maybe it is not much of an indicator.  The appellant, SpeechNow.org, is a conservative group that is dedicated to fighting any restrictions on electioneering - including McCain-Feingold and the currently-shelved DISCLOSE Act.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Removing Prop. 108 (Card Check) From Ballot

(see yesterday's post for more background, link to Aug. 4 news report from Howard Fischer regarding decision)

As promised, the Arizona Supreme Court issued their unanimous opinion (Justice Hurwitz wrote a separate concurring opinion) this morning.  The 19-page opinion can be read in its entirety here.

Defenders of the ill-fated Proposition 108, which tried to linked together secret ballots in all elections for public elections with secret ballots in union representation elections, were done in by the distinction between "interrelatedness" and "topicality".  The so-called money quote from the opinion written by Justice Pelander:

Although S.O.S. Ballot argues that Proposition 108’s



two provisions establish a fundamental right to a “secret


ballot” for public elections and union representation, those


contexts are quite different and wholly unrelated. The type of


“facial relatedness” S.O.S. Ballot urges would reduce that


component of the “interrelatedness” test to a mere repetition of


the topicality requirement. (paragraph 12, pages 8-9)

The Justices were not impressed with the arguments that the two secret ballot provisions were similar to the two separate marriage-related provisions in the Arizona Together initiative in; the connection between the latter was that the first defined marriage and the second made it "exclusive in terms of legal status."

Defenders of Prop. 108 also argued that the proposition should remain on the ballot because plaintiffs waited too long to file the legal action and left the legislature with no time to modify the proposal.  The Court denied that defense, and pointed out that, in fact, the Governor and Legislature WERE able to convene a special session and put Prop. 113 (with only the union election measure) on the ballot.