Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera
230 Ariz. 202
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Escamilla sought to disqualify Cabrera from the San Luis City Council ballot under § 38-201(C) for English-language proficiency; Cabrera was tested and found unable to read, write, and comprehend English sufficiently to perform as a council member.
- The superior court precluded Cabrera from the ballot after an evidentiary hearing and construed the statute to require sufficient English proficiency to conduct office duties, not merely literacy.
- Cabrera appealed under a special action, arguing the case should have been a petition for injunctive relief rather than a special action; the court denied this, citing precedent approving special actions for ballot qualification challenges.
- The appellate court addressed (i) jurisdiction under Rule 3(b) and § 16-351, (ii) timeliness of the trial court’s order, (iii) the fluorished standard of English proficiency, (iv) the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony, and (v) the constitutional challenge to the English-language requirement.
- Arizona law requires English proficiency to conduct the duties of public office, derived from the Enabling Act and the Arizona Constitution, and § 38-201(C) must be read consistently with those higher-law requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case was properly brought as a special action | Escamilla | Cabrera | Yes; proper under Rule 3(b) and § 16-351 |
| Whether the ten-day decision deadline is jurisdictional | Escamilla | Cabrera | Not jurisdictional; no prejudice shown; expedited review required |
| Whether § 38-201(C) requires sufficient English proficiency to conduct office duties | Escamilla | Cabrera | Cabrera disqualified; statute requires functional English proficiency |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted expert testimony on English proficiency | Escamilla | Cabrera | Yes; Rule 702 satisfied and testimony supported trial court’s finding |
| Whether the English-language requirement violates constitutional rights | Cabrera | State may set qualifications | Not unconstitutional; no right to seek office; requirement serves public-interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Mandraes v. Hungerford, 127 Ariz. 585 (1981) (petition and order to show cause approved for ballot challenges)
- Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453 (1984) (deadline interpreted as directive, not jurisdictional)
- Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505 (2008) (non-jurisdictional deadlines require prejudice analysis)
- Shirley v. Superior Court (Minyard), 109 Ariz. 510 (1973) (presumption in favor of candidate eligibility)
- Gladden Farms, Inc. v. State, 129 Ariz. 516 (1981) (Enabling Act preempts conflicting statutes; English proficiency tied to public duties)
- McCarthy v. State ex rel. Harless, 55 Ariz. 328 (1940) (presumption of eligibility for public office)
- Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 441 (1998) (statewide language as a public-officer concern; not applicable here)
- Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) (state may prescribe qualifications for officers; not a right to run implies barriers)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) (ballot access factors; qualifications permissible)