City of Tucson v. State
229 Ariz. 172
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Arizona Constitution empowers charter cities to adopt charters and govern local matters under home rule (art. 13, § 2).
- Tucson operates a 1929 charter with ward-nominated council members elected citywide in a partisan at-large general election, creating a hybrid system.
- In 2009, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 9-821.01 to bar partisan elections and to restrict ward-based primaries with at-large general elections.
- Tucson challenged the amendments as not applying to charter cities; SALC intervened.
- The trial court and court of appeals split, with the appellate court reversed in favor of Tucson; this Court granted review to decide whether § 9-821.01 displaces Tucson’s charter.
- The core question is whether charter-city home rule supersedes state election controls for local municipal governance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9-821.01 displaces Tucson’s charter method of electing council members. | Tucson — charter governs local elections and § 9-821.01 conflicts with charter. | State — § 9-821.01 serves statewide election interests and can apply to charter cities. | No; charter autonomy prevails over § 9-821.01(B)-(C) for purely local municipal concerns. |
| Does Strode v. Sullivan control whether Tucson may maintain ward-based primaries with at-large general elections? | Strode limits state displacement of charter provisions; Tucson should be free to choose local electoral method. | State can regulate statewide election matters; Strode does not bind on this point. | Yes; Strode controls and charter cities retain local control over election structure. |
| Do VRA or statewide interests override Tucson’s home-rule election design? | No; neither VRA nor statewide concerns compel displacement of Tucson’s charter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strode v. Sullivan, 72 Ariz. 360, 236 P.2d 48 (1951) (charter autonomy; local interest in who governs and how chosen precedes statewide control)
- City of Tucson v. Walker, 60 Ariz. 232, 135 P.2d 223 (1943) (charter protections limit state interference in purely local matters)
- Triano v. Massion, 109 Ariz. 506, 513 P.2d 935 (1973) (municipal elections are local concern; residency vs. district rules within charter context)
- Jacobberger v. Terry, 320 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. 1982) (state statute mandating district-based elections displaced Omaha’s charter)
- Casuse v. City of Gallup, 746 P.2d 1103 (N.M. 1987) (state law preemption of charter provisions in some contexts)