Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain
234 Ariz. 322
| Ariz. | 2014Background
- In 1998 Arizona voters enacted the Citizens Clean Elections Act (CCEA) creating public funding for statewide and legislative candidates and reducing contribution limits for nonparticipating candidates to "twenty percent less than the limits specified in § 16-905."
- § 16-905 (adopted earlier by voters) sets campaign contribution limits and is periodically adjusted for inflation by the Secretary of State under § 16-905(H).
- The CCEA’s § 16-941(B) ties nonparticipating candidates’ limits to eighty percent of the § 16-905 limits "as adjusted by the secretary of state pursuant to § 16-905, subsection H."
- In 2013 the legislature amended § 16-905 to raise contribution limits (H.B. 2593). The Citizens Clean Elections Commission sued, arguing § 16-941(B) fixed nonparticipating limits at 1998 amounts and thus the legislative increases violated the Voter Protection Act.
- The superior court denied a preliminary injunction; the court of appeals reversed holding § 16-941(B) fixed 1998 amounts; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 16-941(B) prescribes a formula or fixes limits.
- The Arizona Supreme Court held § 16-941(B) provides a formula (eighty percent of § 16-905 limits as adjusted), vacated the court of appeals opinion, and affirmed denial of the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 16-941(B) fixes contribution limits at 1998 dollar amounts or instead prescribes a formula tying nonparticipating limits to § 16-905 (including future amendments and inflation adjustments). | Commission: § 16-941(B) fixed limits at eighty percent of the § 16-905 amounts as they existed in 1998; therefore legislative increases to § 16-905 cannot alter CCEA limits without complying with the Voter Protection Act. | Bennett / Intervenors: § 16-941(B) uses a percentage reduction applied to § 16-905 and expressly references the Secretary of State’s adjustment; it is a formula that moves with amendments and inflation to § 16-905. | Court: § 16-941(B) is ambiguous but most reasonably read as a formula—eighty percent of the § 16-905 limits as adjusted—so legislative increases to § 16-905 affect nonparticipating limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) (U.S. Supreme Court invalidating CCEA matching-funds provision on First Amendment grounds)
- Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 233 Ariz. 1 (2013) (discussing operation of the Voter Protection Act)
- Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467 (2009) (principle that courts must effectuate voters’ intent in initiatives)
- State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Nelson Machinery Co. v. Yavapai County, 108 Ariz. 8 (1971) (canon regarding statutes adopting other statutes by reference)
- Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 441 (1998) (permitting consideration of ballot materials and publicity pamphlets in initiative construction)