291 P.3d 342
Ariz.2013Background
- Arizona Proposition 121 proposed an Open Top Two primary replacing taxpayer-funded partisan primaries and altering party-related election provisions.
- Proposition 121 would replace Article 7, Section 10 with a new Section 10 detailing top-two primaries and related rules, applying to offices within the state but excluding presidential and non-partisan elections.
- The measure was challenged under the separate amendment rule of Article 21, Section 1, which requires multiple amendments to be vote-for/vote-against separately.
- The trial court enjoined placement of Prop. 121 on the ballot, finding a separate-amendment violation due to Section 10(G)’s prohibition on public funding for party activities being separable from other provisions.
- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding Prop. 121’s provisions are topically related and sufficiently interrelated to satisfy the separate amendment rule, and also held the petition description complied substantially with statutory requirements.
- Voters ultimately rejected Proposition 121 in the November 2012 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 121 violates the separate amendment rule | Gray, et al. contend Sec. 10(G) is a separate amendment | Bennett argues all provisions share a common purpose and are sufficiently interrelated | Prop. 121 does not violate the separate amendment rule |
| Whether the petition description complied with § 19-102(A) | Opponents claim the 100-word description is incomplete/misleading/advocacy-based | Secretary argues description substantially complies and disclaimer cautions completeness | Description substantially complied; not a fatal defect |
| Whether Prop. 121’s provisions are topically related and sufficiently interrelated | Opponents claim disjoint goals undermine interrelatedness | Supporters say all provisions address equal treatment in elections and open competition | Provisions are topically related and sufficiently interrelated |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona Together v. Brewer, 214 Ariz. 118 (2007) (establishes topicality and interrelatedness test for separate-amendment rule)
- McLaughlin v. Bennett, 225 Ariz. 351 (2010) (multifaceted amendments evaluated for common purpose and interrelation)
- Korte v. Bayless, 199 Ariz. 173 (2001) (multifaceted amendments may be valid if they share a common principle)
- Clean Elections Inst., Inc. v. Brewer, 209 Ariz. 241 (2004) (distinguishes related provisions when evaluating separate-amendment violation)
- Wilhelm v. Brewer, 219 Ariz. 45 (2008) (descriptive petition information reviewed for substantial compliance)
- Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmerl, 200 Ariz. 486 (2001) (treats party governance and election-related provisions in evaluating amendments)
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (federal perspective on primaries and party involvement in elections)