State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774

Background

Andre Maestas, an ASU student, possessed 0.4 grams of marijuana and held a valid Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) registry card; he was arrested on campus and charged with marijuana possession and obstructing a public thoroughfare.
Maestas moved to dismiss the possession charge as AMMA-compliant and therefore immune from prosecution under A.R.S. § 36-2811(B); the State argued A.R.S. § 15-108(A) bars possession on public university campuses even for cardholders.
The superior court denied dismissal, convicted Maestas, fined him, and placed him on probation; the court of appeals vacated the possession conviction and held § 15-108(A) violated the Voter Protection Act (VPA) as an impermissible amendment to the AMMA.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 15-108(A) amends the voter-enacted AMMA and, if so, whether the amendment complies with the VPA’s requirement that amendments further the initiative’s purposes and secure three-fourths legislative approval.
The Court concluded § 15-108(A) amends the AMMA by adding campuses to the list of locations where possession may be penalized, and although the Legislature obtained the three-fourths votes, the statute does not further the AMMA’s purpose of protecting qualifying patients from criminal penalties.
The Court vacated Maestas’s possession conviction and held § 15-108(A) unconstitutional as applied to AMMA-compliant possession on public college and university campuses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 15-108(A) presents a non-justiciable political question	Maestas: Court can decide VPA challenge; not textually committed to legislature	State: Decision about campuses/federal funding is political and committed to legislature	Justiciable; no textual commitment and manageable standards exist
Whether § 15-108(A) amends the AMMA (triggering VPA limits)	Maestas: § 15-108(A) adds campuses to AMMA’s prohibited locations, so it amends AMMA	State: AMMA already authorizes campus restrictions or §15-108(A) is separate and not an amendment	§15-108(A) amends AMMA by adding campuses to the list of penalizable locations
Whether the amendment complied with VPA (furthers AMMA’s purposes)	Maestas: Amendment undermines AMMA’s purpose to protect cardholders from criminal penalties	State: Legislature got three-fourths votes and statute aligns with federal funding protection, so VPA satisfied	Although legislative approval met, §15-108(A) does not further AMMA’s purposes and thus violates VPA
Whether AMMA’s anti-discrimination provision authorizes criminalization to protect federal funding	Maestas: §36-2813(A) does not authorize criminal laws or require criminalization to preserve funding	State: Provision permits penalties to avoid loss of federal funds; legislature may criminalize to preserve funding	§36-2813(A) does not authorize criminalization by the legislature for federal funding reasons; criminalization is unnecessary to preserve funding

Key Cases Cited

Biggs v. Betlach, 243 Ariz. 256 (discussing standard of review for statute constitutionality)
Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 233 Ariz. 1 (VPA challenges and deference principles)
Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, 229 Ariz. 347 (separation of powers context)
Kromko v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 216 Ariz. 190 (political question doctrine application)
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482 (political questions and justiciability)
Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (AMMA purpose to permit medical marijuana use)
State v. Ault, 157 Ariz. 516 (expressio unius canon: items omitted from list presumed excluded)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (judicial duty to interpret the Constitution)
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (political question doctrine analysis)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (formulation of political question factors)
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (discussion of manageable standards under political question doctrine)