Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona
236 Ariz. 84
| Ariz. | 2014Background
- Arizona amended A.R.S. § 15-1441(I) in 2010 to add two at-large governing-board members and shorten terms from six to four years for community college districts located in any county with population at least three million.
- Only Maricopa County meets that threshold; the amendment therefore applies only to Maricopa and was set to produce two at-large seats in the 2014 election.
- Plaintiffs (six Maricopa registered voters) challenged the amendment as an unconstitutional special law under Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 19, seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin the election of the at-large seats.
- The superior court upheld the statute; the court of appeals reversed, finding the classification unlawfully non-elastic because it was unlikely other counties would reach the threshold within a reasonable time.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify the special-law test and decide whether § 15-1441(I) is unconstitutional; it affirmed the superior court and vacated the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 15-1441(I) is an unconstitutional special law under Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 19 | Gallardo: The population-based classification is a special law because it effectively applies to only Maricopa and is not elastic — other counties are unlikely to enter the class within a reasonable time | State/County: The statute has a rational basis, a legitimate inclusive classification, and is elastic because any county that attains (or loses) the population threshold can enter (or exit) the class | The statute is not a special law: it satisfies Republic Investment’s three-prong test (rational basis, inclusiveness, elasticity); elasticity does not require a temporal/probability showing that others will join soon |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic Inv. Fund I v. Town of Surprise, 166 Ariz. 143, 800 P.2d 1251 (1990) (articulates three-part special-law test: rational basis, inclusiveness, elasticity)
- Petitioners for Deannexation v. City of Goodyear, 160 Ariz. 467, 773 P.2d 1026 (App. 1989) (discusses classification legitimacy and elasticity principles)
- Bravin v. Mayor of Tombstone, 4 Ariz. 83, 33 P. 589 (1893) (early discussion of closed classes and limits on elasticity)
- Long v. Napolitano, 203 Ariz. 247, 53 P.3d 172 (App. 2002) (approves use of county population as proxy and addresses underinclusiveness claims)
- League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 213 Ariz. 557, 146 P.3d 58 (2006) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo; presumption of constitutionality applies)