City of Tucson v. State
226 Ariz. 474
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- City of Tucson sued after 2009 amendments to A.R.S. § 9-821.01, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; trial court granted summary judgment for state.
- Tucson's charter ch XVI § 2 incorporates general state election law governing primaries and nominations, suggesting partisan primaries are permissible.
- Charter ch XVI § 7 is a gap-filling provision to apply general state election laws where the charter is silent; it does not incorporate § 9-821.01.
- Issue is whether the charter’s local control over municipal elections supersedes § 9-821.01(B)-(C) and whether the matter is local or statewide in scope; court reverses based on local concern.
- Court remands with instruction to enter summary judgment in favor of the city, reversing the trial court’s grant to state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the charter supersedes the statute | Tucson argues charter provisions control. | State argues statute governs statewide interests. | Charter supersedes where local. |
| Whether the issue is local or statewide concern | Local concern—municipal elections. | State asserts statewide interest in elections governance. | Local concern; §9-821.01 does not apply to Tucson. |
| Whether §9-821.01(B) conflicts with the charter | Prohibition on partisan elections conflicts with charter. | Statute aligns with state interests but doesn’t supersede local autonomy. | Conflict exists but local concern controls; charter prevails. |
| Whether §9-821.01(C) advances a statewide interest such as VRA bailout | Statute furthers statewide interests in fair elections. | State interests insufficient to override charter. | Not controlling on Tucson; §9-821.01(C) does not apply to Tucson. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strode v. Sullivan, 72 Ariz. 360 (1951) (local control over municipal elections; method and manner are local concerns)
- City of Tucson v. Tucson Sunshine Climate Club, 64 Ariz. 1 (1945) (local vs statewide concern; legislative intent deference limited)
- Jett v. City of Tucson, 180 Ariz. 115 (1994) (local interest in municipal governance recognized)
- City of Tucson v. Walker, 60 Ariz. 232 (1943) (home rule charter autonomy in municipal affairs)