Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan, 429 P.3d 70

HCR 2007 is a legislatively referred amendment to Arizona’s Citizens Clean Election Act (CCEA) placed on the November 2018 ballot by the legislature. It would (1) bar candidates from transferring Clean Elections funds to political parties and (2) subject the Citizens Clean Elections Commission’s rulemaking to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC).
Plaintiffs Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan (former and current CCEA commission members) sued under A.R.S. § 19-161 seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing HCR 2007 on the ballot, arguing it violates Arizona’s single subject rule (Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 13).
The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding (based on Kiley) that the single subject rule does not apply to measures referred to voters under the people’s initiative power; plaintiffs appealed.
Defendants (State, Secretary of State, and legislative leaders as intervenors) argued the challenge was premature because HCR 2007 is not an “act” until approved by voters and therefore not yet subject to the single subject rule.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether a pre-election procedural challenge is ripe and (2) whether the single subject rule applies to legislatively referred measures and (3) whether HCR 2007 complies with that rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-election procedural challenge is ripe	Hoffman: single subject challenge may be heard before election under §19-161	State: challenge is premature because HCR 2007 is not an "act" until approved by voters	Ripeness: challenge is not premature; §19-161 permits pre-election procedural review
Whether single subject rule applies to legislatively referred measures	Hoffman: single subject rule should constrain legislature when referring measures	State: Kiley means single subject applies only to legislative acts but not to referendum/initiative context	Single subject rule applies to measures enacted by legislature and referred to voters under art.4, pt.1, §1(3)
Whether HCR 2007 violates single subject rule	Hoffman: provisions (party transfers ban; GRRC oversight) are unrelated and constitute log-rolling	State: both amendments relate to the CCEA and are reasonably related	Held: HCR 2007 meets the single subject standard; both provisions reasonably relate to the general subject of the CCEA
Whether alleged effect on Commission independence matters for single subject analysis	Hoffman: GRRC oversight undermines Commission independence, making provision distinct	State: policy concerns are for voters, not single subject analysis	Held: policy wisdom/impact irrelevant to single subject inquiry; voters decide policy

Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Kiley, 242 Ariz. 533 (2017) (single subject rule applies to acts enacted by legislature; does not address initiative/referendum petitions)
Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, 196 Ariz. 516 (2000) (single subject rule applies only to legislative acts)
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485 (1991) (people’s power to refer extends only to legislative acts, not bills under consideration)
Saggio v. Connelly, 147 Ariz. 240 (1985) (measure must enact something to be considered legislation)
Litchfield Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 79 v. Babbitt, 125 Ariz. 215 (1980) (strong presumption of constitutionality; single subject must be liberally construed but not rendered nugatory)
Sample v. Sample, 135 Ariz. 599 (App. 1983) (multiple statutes affecting a general subject satisfy single subject if reasonably related)
Iman v. Bolin, 98 Ariz. 358 (1965) (single subject rule applicable only to acts of the legislature)
Barth v. White, 40 Ariz. 548 (1932) (same)
League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 213 Ariz. 557 (2006) (pre-election challenges permitted for procedural defects)
Save Our Vote, Opposing C-03-2012 v. Bennett, 231 Ariz. 145 (2013) (policy wisdom of a ballot measure is for voters, not courts)