2015 legislation, case law update & politics of elections karen osborne, director, maricopa...

2015 LEGISLATION, CASE LAW UPDATE &

POLITICS OF ELECTIONS

Karen Osborne, Director, Maricopa County Elections

Christina Estes-Werther, General Counsel, League of Arizona Cities and Towns

AMCA Summer 2015 Conference Thursday, July 30, 2015

SB 1184 (LAWS 2015, CH. 83)MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS; BALLOT; DISCLOSURE (GRIFFIN)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. § 9-826)

For a municipal election to approve a bond, sales tax or property tax measure, the publicity pamphlet must include the following: For a bond approval, an estimate of the annual levy of

property taxes sufficient to pay the debt on the bonds. For a sales tax levy, the amount of the tax increase. For a property tax levy, an estimate of the tax for a single-

family residence valued at $100,000, commercial property valued at $250,000, and vacant land valued at $100,00.

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: Senate 2/16/15 (29-0-1); House 3/24/15 (33-

23-4) Signed by Governor Ducey 3/30/15

SB 1287 (LAWS 2015, CH. 187)BALLOT CONTENTS DISCLOSURE; PROHIBITION (YEE)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. §§ 16-515, 16-1018) Decriminalizes the act of a voter who takes an image of

the voter’s own ballot and posts on the internet or other electronic medium (and by posting, the voter consents to retransmittal).

Prohibits the taking of photographs or videos within the 75-foot limit.

It continues to be a Class 2 misdemeanor to show another voter’s ballot.

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: Senate 2/23/15 (29-0-1); House 3/25/15 (59-


HB 2109 (LAWS 2015, CH. 48)BALLOT; FORM; SECONDARY PROPERTY TAXES (MITCHELL)


For a bond election, a bond to be repaid with secondary property taxes must include ballot language that specifies it is a “bond approval, yes” or “bond approval, no” and the following statement:

A “YES” VOTE SHALL AUTHORIZE THE ___GOVERNING BODY TO ISSUE AND SELL $___ OF ____BONDS OF THE DISTRICT TO BE REPAID WITH SECONDARY PROPERTY TAXES.

A “NO” VOTE SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE THE ____ GOVERNING BODY TO ISSUE AND SELL SUCH BONDS OF THE DISTRICT.

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: House 2/24/15 (24-0-0); Senate 3/18/15 (17-12-1) Signed by Governor Ducey 3/23/15

HB 2214 (LAWS 2015, CH. 105)MAJORITY VOTE CALCULATION; MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (PETERSEN)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. § 9-821.01) Changes how a city or town may calculate the majority votes

cast for a candidate. Codifies the formula in the session law contained in Laws 2014,

Chapter 256 (H.B. 2126).

Before the session law enactment in 2014, a city or town tabulated the total of all votes based on the mayoral candidates. This bill codified a formula that calculates the total of votes cast based on the offices to be filled at that election (avoids unnecessary runoff elections and saves money).

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: House 2/12/15 (58-0-2); Senate 3/23/15 (28-0-2) Final Read: House 3/24/15 (55-0-5) Signed by Governor Ducey 4/13/15


New Calculation Formula

A.R.S. § 9-821.01(D)

1) Calculate the total number of actual votes cast for all candidates for an office;

2) Divide the sum by the number of seats to be filled for the office; and

3) Divide the number by 2 and round to the highest whole number.


Step 1 Calculate the total number of actual votes cast for all candidates for an office:

Candidate 1 (3,999)

Candidate 2 (7,683)

Candidate 3 (15,830)



Total Actual Votes 51,225

Example: FIVE candidates for THREE open city council seats

Source: House of Representatives Summary of H.B. 2214 dated March 24, 2015


Step 2 Divide the sum by the number of seats to be filled for the office

Divide 51,225 by the 3 council seats = 17,075

Step 3 Divide the number by 2 and round to the highest whole number

Divide 17,075 by 2 = 8,537.5, which is rounded up to 8,538.

Election Result: Candidates 3, 4 and 5 are elected to the three city council seats (received the majority of votes cast and the highest number of votes equal to the number of seats to be filled for the office).

Example: FIVE candidates for THREE open city council seats

Source: House of Representatives Summary of H.B. 2214 dated March 24, 2015


What happens if more candidates receive a majority of votes cast than there are seats to be filled?

A.R.S. § 9-821.01(E)

The candidates who receive the highest number of votes equal to the number of seats to be filled for the office from among those candidates who receive a majority of votes cast are declared elected.


In the primary election, what happens if there is not a candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast?

Or the number of seats to be filled for the office is more than the number of candidates who receive a majority of votes cast?


A.R.S. § 9-821.01(F) Candidates who did not receive a majority of votes cast

advance to the general or runoff election if the number of candidates is equal to twice the number of seats to be filled and the candidates received the highest number of votes for the office.

If more than one candidate received an equal number of the highest votes for the office, then all candidates receiving the equal number of votes advance to the general or runoff election.

Candidates equal in number to the seats to be filled for the office who receive the highest number of votes at the general or runoff election are elected.

If two or more candidates receive the equal number of votes (higher than any other candidate), the candidate elected is determined by lot.

HB 2407 (LAWS 2015, CH. 285)REFERENDUM AND RECALL PROVISIONS (STEVENS)

PROVISIONS (Title 19) Revises requirements for initiative, referendum and

recall. Specifies that referendum and recall are subject to strict

compliance. (A.R.S. § 19-101.01)

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: House 3/4/15 (36-24-0); Senate 3/31/15 (21-

8-1) Final Read: House 4/1/15 (35-24-1) Signed by Governor Ducey 4/13/15


Referendum - Signatures and Verification (A.R.S. § 19-112) The full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure

for circulation for signatures for any local matter must be: The copy of the measure signed or enacted into law by

the mayor with its proposed text in full; AND the original and any amended texts; OR

If a local matter was enacted without an ordinance or resolution, the official minutes approved by the governing body signed by the clerk.

Referendum signatures that are collected with any copy that is not a facsimile of the full and correct copy of the local measure is INVALID.

The circulator affidavit shall not be modified and any petition that contains a partially completed affidavit or an affidavit that has been modified is INVALID.


Initiative & Referendum - Procedures for Filing (A.R.S. § 19-121) For petitions in local matters, the political committee

that is the proponent of the petition and that files the petitions shall organize the signature sheets and group them by circulator (solely responsible for compliance).

The local filing officer may return as UNFILED any signature sheets that are not so organized and grouped.


Initiative & Referendum – Removal of Petition Sheets

(A.R.S. § 19-121.01(A)(1)) Sheets not attached to a copy of the COMPLETE title and

text. Sheets not bearing the CORRECT petition serial number

in the lower right-hand corner of each side. Sheets containing a circulator’s affidavit that is not

completed or signed or that has been MODIFIED. Sheets where the circulator is required to be registered

with the Secretary of State and was not properly registered AT THE TIME THE PETITIONS WERE CIRCULATED.


Initiative & Referendum – Removal of Signatures

(A.R.S. § 19-121.01(A)(3)) The date the petitioner signed is BEFORE the date of

the filing of the statement of organization for the political committee that is filing the petition.

The date the petitioner signed is AFTER the date on which the circulator affidavit was completed and notarized.

Any person seeking to establish a different date for the petitioner’s signature bears the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption.


Initiative & Referendum – Disqualification of Signatures by County Recorder (A.R.S. § 19-121.02) If a petitioner’s signature is determined to be invalid

after a comparison is made between the signature and handwriting on the petition and the petition signer’s voter registration file.

If the person circulating the petition was a justice of the peace or a county recorder at the time the person circulated the petition.


Initiative & Referendum – Disposition of Petitions by Determining Total Number of Valid Signatures (A.R.S. § 19-121.04) Subtract all signatures removed under petition sheet

review (A.R.S. 19-121.01(A)(1)) [formerly removed sheets containing a defective circulator’s affidavit].

If the number of valid signatures is less than 100% the filing officer retains the original signature sheets until after the conclusion of any litigation regarding the measure or the time has expired to file an action.

Filing officer’s receipt to the proponents amended to reflect the changes in law.


Initiative & Referendum – Court Action (A.R.S. § 19-122) A court action contesting the validity of an initiative or

referendum measure can only be made as outlined in statute – no separate actions can be maintained seeking to enjoin the filing officer from certifying or printing the official ballot for the election.

Jurisdiction is held by the superior court in the county where the city or town is located.


Initiative & Referendum – Registered Circulators (A.R.S. § 19-118)

Formerly out-of-state circulators for local measures were not required to register with the Secretary of State.

Expanded registration of out-of-state circulators to local measures. Continues to require paid circulators, for statewide ballot

measures, must register at the State.

Where to Register? Some ambiguity due to the stricken language –

consensus that all out-of-state circulators register at SOS.


Recall - Application for Recall; Recall Petition

(A.R.S. §§ 19-202.01, 19-203) On receipt of the application and petition, the filing officer marks

with an official date and time of receipt and assigns the serial number.

The application and petition must be submitted as a single document to the filing officer.

Any changes to the text or general statement require the applicant to file a new application, a new official serial number and must receive the new time-and-date-marked text from the filing officer.

Signatures collected with any copy of the recall text that is not a facsimile of the time-and-date-marked copy with the complete text that is not identical to the filing officer’s version are INVALID.

Signatures obtained on a prior recall petition are INVALID.

HB 2415 (LAWS 2015, CH. 286)CAMPAIGN FINANCE; CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS (STEVENS)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. §§ 16-901(7), 16-905) Redefined “election” to mean that the general election

includes the primary election. Eliminated the separate accounting requirements for the primary

and general election accounts, retroactive to November 4, 2014, the date of the 2014 general election.

Returned to the single committee accounting requirements in effect prior to the 2013 enactment.

Increased contribution limits based on an election cycle, rather than each election.

“Election cycle” is defined as the period beginning 21 days after a general election and ending 20 days after the next successive general election for a particular elected office for purposes of candidate campaign committees and contribution limits.


PROVISIONS For local candidates, contributions increase as follows:

From $2,500 per election to $6,250 per election cycle from an individual or single political committee.

From $5,000 per election to $12,500 per election cycle from a certified political committee (Super PAC).

A new provision allows partnerships to contribute up to $6,250 for local candidates. The contribution must be allocated to the individual partners and are subject to the limits on the individual’s contribution to that candidate.

Individuals are able to contribute personal monies from a revocable trust.

All contribution changes are retroactive to November 4, 2014.


PROVISIONS Section 8 contains several session law enactments allowing the

transfer of monies between accounts and committees (four scenarios).

1) Candidates with Existing Candidate Campaign Committees Intending to Seek Elected Office in 2016 or 2018

Surplus monies in 2014 primary or general election accounts, or both AND candidate does not want to dispose of surplus according to A.R.S. § 16-915.01. Candidate shall transfer monies to a NEW 2016 or 2018 candidate

committee without amending the Statement of Organization. If the candidate has amended their SOO before the effective date

(July 3, 2015), the filing officer shall take reasonable measures to assist candidates and committees to come into conformance with this act.


2) Candidates with a ZERO BALANCE in both the 2014 Primary and General Election accounts

Must file a termination statement for that committee with the filing officer.


3) Candidates with DEBT remaining in the 2014 primary or general election account or both and do NOT TRANSFER the debt to a new 2016 or 2018 committee

Candidate may accept contributions to retire debt for 2014 committee using contribution limits in effect for the 2014 election cycle.

This does not affect the candidate’s contribution limits for a 2016 or 2018 committee.


4) Candidates with DEBT remaining in the 2014 primary or general election account or both and TRANSFER the debt to a new 2016 or 2018 committee Contributions to retire the transferred debt are counted

against the contribution limits for the new political committee for the contributor and for that candidate.


9-1) Final Read: House 4/1/15 (32-27-1) W/O Emergency

Clause Signed by Governor Ducey 4/13/15

HB 2589 (LAWS 2015, CH. 291)CAMPAIGN FINANCE; ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (STEVENS)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. § 16-916.02) Allows a political subdivision to participate in the State’s

campaign finance system subject to legislative appropriation and the State’s development of an electronic filing system compatible with local elections.

If the system is developed and a city or town desires to opt in, notice must be given to the Secretary of State thirty days before the first report is due for the calendar year, and a fee will be assessed on the municipality as determined by the Secretary of State.


HB 2595 (LAWS 2015, CH. 292)LATE FILINGS; CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS (MESNARD)

PROVISIONS

Presidential Candidate Nomination Paper Filing (A.R.S. § 16-242) Changes the filing date from 90-120 days before the PPE to

100-130 days before the PPE. Reduced the number of signatures from 1,000 to 500. To gain ballot status in lieu of the petition requirements, a

candidate must file within the prescribed period evidence that the candidate’s name is on the ballot in at least two other states (reduced from 20 states).

JTED Signature Requirements (A.R.S. § 16-322) Reduces the signature requirement for a candidate in a single

member district if JTED board members are elected from single member districts from 1% to one-half of 1%.


PROVISIONS

Early Voting Distribution (A.R.S. §§ 16-542,16-558.01) Extends the distribution of early ballots from 26 days

before the election to 27 days before the election. Requires the early ballots to be distributed no later than

24 days before the election if the request is made on or before the 31st day before the election.

If a request for a ballot is made within the 27 days before the election, the ballot must be mailed within 48 hours after receipt of the request.


PROVISIONS

Filing of Campaign Finance Reports (A.R.S. § 16-918) Amended when a late fee accrues on a political committee

for filing a late campaign finance report. Specifies that a late penalty accrues until the day the late report is filed and requires the filing officer to accept the late report unless penalties have been assessed pursuant to an enforcement matter.

The filing officer may notify the appropriate enforcement officer that a committee has failed to file a report on the thirty-first day after the filing deadline.

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: House 2/25/15 (56-1-3); Senate 3/30/15 (28-1-1) Final Read: House 4/2/15 (57-1-2) Signed by Governor Ducey 4/13/15

HB 2608 (LAWS 2015, CH. 293)ELECTIONS; ACTIVE REGISTERED VOTERS (MESNARD)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. § 16-322) Reduces the required number of signatures for the

following offices: United States Senate (removed 3-county requirement) Statewide Office (removed 3-county requirement) Representative in Congress Legislature County Office or Superior Court Judge Justice of the Peace or Constable

No changes to signature requirements for city offices!





Codifies current practice by clarifying various terms (registered voters, persons who are registered to vote, voters registered) refer only to ACTIVE REGISTERED VOTERS for purposes of calculating signature requirements for: Candidate nomination petitions; Mailing and distributing election-related notices, pamphlets or

ballots (such as the sample ballots, publicity pamphlets, and informational pamphlet for bond elections and exceeding expenditure limitation);

Providing voting machines at precincts; Furnishing ballots at the polls and for bond elections for street and

highway improvement; Determining qualification for political parties’ continued

representation; and Choosing political party officers for precinct and legislative district

committees.



For purposes of candidate nomination signature requirements, defines “qualified signer” as a qualified elector who is: A registered member of the party from which the

candidate is seeking nomination; A registered member of a political party that is not

entitled to continued representation on the ballot; or Registered as Independent or No Party Preference.

These are active and inactive voters!

HB 2613 (LAWS 2015, CH. 296)POLITICAL ACTIVITY; PUBLIC RESOURCES; LIMITATION (PETERSEN)

PROVISIONS (A.R.S. § 9-500.14) If a bond, budget override and other tax-related election is called, a

city or town is prohibited from using public resources to influence the outcome of that election.

“Public resources” includes the use of city-focused or town-focused promotional expenditures that occur after an election is called and through election day.

Does not prohibit “routine city or town communications” which means messages or advertisements that are germane to the functions of the city or town that maintain the frequency, scope and distribution consistent with past practices or are necessary for public safety.

Prohibition applies to counties, school districts, community college districts, state and special taxing districts.


HB 2649 (LAWS 2015, CH. 297)CAMPAIGN FINANCE; POLITICAL COMMITTEE; DEFINITION (UGENTI)

History: Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills In 2011 Dina Galassini sued the Town of Fountain Hills alleging that her

inability to protest a municipal bond measure without first registering as a political committee was unconstitutional.

In July 2014 Ms. Galassini and the Town entered into a consent judgment. In December 2014 the U.S. District Court found the political committee

definition unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth. The State had previously intervened to defend the constitutionality of the statute and appealed.

Pending appeal the Legislature enacted H.B. 2649 in response to the court’s decision to revise the definition of political committee by correcting the grammar and overall structure (vagueness); and distinguish active political groups engaging in the political process from smaller, informal organizations for the purpose of clarifying the registration and reporting requirements (overbreadth).

In June 2015 the State moved to dismiss the appeal due to the changes in H.B. 2649.


PROVISIONS Redefined “Political Committee” (A.R.S. § 16-901(19))

The large block style run-on sentence was removed and the new definition is a listing of committee types.

Categories unchanged include a candidate’s campaign committee, a separate segregated fund, a political party, a political organization, and an exploratory committee.

Removed two types of committees from the definition: an independent expenditure committee and a committee organized to support or oppose one or more candidates. *

Categories involving ballot measures or recall were revised to apply only to an association or combination of persons that circulates petitions. Therefore, the definition no longer includes a group supporting or opposing a ballot measure or recall. *

*These former committee types may still be defined as a political committee under new criteria created in the legislation.


PROVISIONS Redefined “Political Committee” (A.R.S. §§ 16-

901(19)) The new subsection (f) states that registration as a

political committee is required if: An association or combination of persons is

organized, conducted or combined for the primary purpose of influencing the result of any election; and

Knowingly receives contributions or makes expenditures of more than five hundred dollars in connection with any election during the calendar year.


PROVISIONS Redefined “Political Committee” (A.R.S. §§ 16-901(19), 16-902.01)

Upon meeting the criteria, the group must file a Statement of Organization with the filing officer within five business days after meeting the definition of a political committee.

Removes the $250 threshold and for groups that do not intend to spend or receive more than five hundred dollars, the five hundred dollar threshold statement is not required. Under the new definition of political committee, registration or reporting is not required until more than five hundred dollars is spent or received and all the other criteria are met in subsection (f).

Removes the requirement for an independent expenditure committee to be registered at the time of distribution, placement or solicitation of campaign literature or advertisement. Does not change the requirement that the literature or advertisement include the “paid for by” disclosure.

BILL STATUS OVERVIEW Third Read: House 3/11/15 (36-21-3); Senate 3/31/15 (18-11-1) Final Read: 4/2/15 (38-21-1) Signed by Governor Ducey 4/13/15

CASE LAW UPDATEGalassini v. Town of Fountain Hills

Current status State has moved to dismiss the appeal and vacate the

judgment (asking the court to set aside the order). Clean Elections Commission voted to instruct its legal

counsel to take action (possibly motion to intervene in the case and pursue the appeal).

Ms. Galassini has requested the court to deny the State’s motion to vacate due to concerns that 1) H.B. 2649 was not retroactive and if the decision is vacated, enforcement actions based on the old definition of “political committee” may resume; and 2) the time for appeal on judgment with Town has passed.

CASE LAW UPDATECity of Tucson, City of Phoenix v. State of Arizona, Ken Bennett In 2012 the Legislature amended A.R.S. § 16-204 to require municipal candidate

elections to be held during the primary election or general election in even-numbered years, effectively banning municipalities from holding candidate elections in odd-numbered years (known as off-cycle elections).

The cities of Tucson and Phoenix (intervenor) sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the State arguing that the Arizona Constitution did not grant the legislature authority to preempt their charters, which mandated candidate election dates that conflicted with the 2012 legislation. The trial court granted judgment to the cities and the State appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction enjoining the State from requiring the cities of Tucson and Phoenix to comply with the candidate election scheduling requirements in A.R.S. § 16-204, as amended. The Court found that the legislation affected the method and manner of selecting the cities’ governing officers, which is a matter of local concern and the State did not provide evidence to demonstrate that the statute implicated a statewide interest. Therefore the law was preempted by the charters. The State appealed.

On April 7, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review. Therefore the permanent injunction remains in effect.

CASE LAW UPDATEArizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission In April 2012 the Independent Redistricting Commission received

approval for new congressional and legislative maps through the 2020 election.

In June, 2012 the Arizona Legislature filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging that “legislature” in the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution refers only to the elected legislators and prohibits a citizen commission from drawing the congressional map.

In February 2014 a three-judge panel denied the Legislature’s request for a preliminary injunction against using the maps and granted a motion to dismiss. The Legislature appealed.

In June 2015 the United States Supreme Court held that the Elections Clause allows the use of citizen commissions to adopt congressional districts

CASE LAW UPDATEHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Registered voters brought an action challenging the IRC’s

legislative district map alleging that IRC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to adhere to the requirement that districts must be apportioned based on population (“one-person, one-vote”).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the IRC underpopulated Democrat-leaning districts and overpopulated Republican-leaning districts for partisan reasons.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court held that the population deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and that even though partisanship played some role in the design of the map, the Fourteenth Amendment challenge fails.

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the case and oral arguments will likely be heard in December or January.

CASE LAW UPDATEKobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) In 2004 Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires

documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Since 2005, Arizona has asked the EAC to add language to the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions indicating a documentary proof of citizenship requirement.

In 2013 Arizona and Kansas sued the EAC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, when EAC deferred any decision due to a lack of quorum.

The EAC was ordered to issue a decision and denied the states’ requests in January 2014. Kansas and Arizona pursued litigation and the district court ordered EAC to add the subject language to the Federal Form finding that the National Voter Registration Act did not preempt state laws requiring proof of citizenship, and that the EAC had a nondiscretionary duty to grant the petitions.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the order and reversed the district court’s decision.

In June 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied review.

CASE LAW UPDATECommittee for Justice and Fairness v. Arizona Secretary of State In 2010 the Committee for Justice and Fairness (“CJF”)

financed a television advertisement before the general election that attacked then-candidate Tom Horne, who was running for Attorney General. The Secretary of State issued a reasonable cause notice to the Attorney General’s Office for failure to register and disclose.

To avoid conflict when Mr. Horne was subsequently elected as AG, Maricopa County Attorney's Office handled enforcement.

In May 2011 MCAO issued an order requiring CJF to register as a political committee and comply with Arizona's campaign finance reporting and disclosure laws.

CASE LAW UPDATECommittee for Justice and Fairness v. Arizona Secretary of State An Administrative Law Judge recommended MCAO's order

be upheld but in October 2012 the superior court reversed and vacated the recommended order and MCAO’s Final Decision holding that the ad was not express advocacy and the disclosure requirements were unconstitutional.

In August 2014 the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the court’s order that the disclosure requirements were unconstitutional and reversed the decision. The Court found that CJF's advertisement is “express advocacy” as defined in A.R.S. § 16–901.01(A) (2)(a) and qualifies as an independent expenditure designed to influence the 2010 Attorney General election. As a political committee, CJF must comply with Arizona's political committee registration and disclosure requirements.

CJF appealed; the Arizona Supreme Court denied review.

CASE LAW UPDATELegacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission In 2014 the Legacy Foundation Action Fund (“LFAF”) ran an

television advertisement criticizing the work of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and its president, Mesa, Ariz. Mayor Scott Smith, who was also a candidate for governor.

A complaint was filed by Smith’s campaign that LFAF had failed to register and disclose the ad as an independent expenditure. The Secretary of State’s Office did not find reasonable cause; however, the Clean Elections Commission determined that the ad qualified as an “independent expenditure” against Smith and fined the group $95,000 for failing to disclose pursuant to Arizona campaign finance laws.

In November 2014 CCEC found reasonable cause to believe that LFAF’s ads, which ran from late March to early April, were express advocacy, not issue advocacy, and voted to impose a $96,000 fine against the Legacy Foundation Action Fund for failure to disclose.

CASE LAW UPDATELegacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission LFAF appealed and in March 2015 the Administrative

Law Judge reversed the order finding there was no express advocacy. The ALJ decision is non-binding and CCEC continued with enforcement.

In June 2015 LFAF appealed to superior court and the Secretary of State motioned to intervene but the superior court granted CCEC’s request to dismiss since LFAF missed the deadline to file the appeal.

LFAF filed a special action challenging CCEC’s authority to regulate independent expenditures.

CASE LAW UPDATE

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Bennett In 2011 House Bill 2107 modified the voter

registration form to require the two largest political parties to be listed while including a blank line for other party preference options.

On December 29, 2011, the Arizona Libertarian Party and the Arizona Green Party filed a complaint in U.S. District court against the Secretary of State alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

CASE LAW UPDATEArizona Libertarian Party v. Bennett In March 2013 the court granted the State’s

motion to dismiss and found the State’s interests in regulating the election processes outweigh the reasonable nondiscriminatory burden that results from the modified registration form.

Plaintiffs appealed and in April 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order and held that the State imposed a de minimus burden on the parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the State was able to demonstrate that its action was rationally related to a legitimate state interest, which is ensuring that election officials correctly register voters as members of parties of their choosing.

CASE LAW UPDATEDebra Arrett, Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower (Oro Valley) In December 2014 the Town of Oro Valley approved the purchase

of El Conquistador Country Club Golf and Tennis facilities. A referendum on the proposed purchase was circulated and

submitted for review. The petitions were processed and rejected in January 2015 due to the failure of the petitions to contain the assigned official serial number in the appropriate location among other reasons.

Plaintiffs filed an action challenging the rejection of the petitions and in February, the Pima County Superior Court denied relief. The Court finds that the official serial number had been assigned and provided to the plaintiffs as required by law and plaintiffs failed to comply with the plain language of the applicable statute, and the petitions were not legally sufficient under A.R.S. § 19-111(B).

Plaintiffs appealed. In March, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision and found that plaintiffs failed to strictly comply with § 19-111(B), which requires the serial number issued for the referendum petition to appear on both sides of each petition sheet and found the defendant acted properly.

CASE LAW UPDATEPeoria Citizens Committee v. Rhonda Geriminsky, Melcor Developments On March 26, 2014, the Peoria Citizens Committee

(“Committee”) filed petitions with the city clerk to oppose a passage of a rezoning ordinance.

The clerk followed the process outlined in the Constitution and state law and determined that the referendum petition contained 2,358 valid signatures – 76 less than the minimum of 2,434 and issued a Failure to File Receipt indicating the referendum did not have sufficient signature to be placed on the ballot.

The Committee filed a special action challenging the determination.

Melcor intervened and also filed a separate action challenging the legal sufficiency of the referendum petition.

In May 2015 the court held a consolidated evidentiary hearing after a series of orders, ultimately found the petition was legally sufficient and must be placed on the ballot.

Appeals and cross-appeals filed. Primary issue: Application of strict compliance standard

POLITICS OF ELECTIONS

UNDERSTANDING YOUR ROLE Impartiality, Neutrality, Objectivity - WHY???

What if you are called to testify in court?

PUBLIC SERVANT – NOT POLITICAL! Public officers roles and responsibilities (AG handbook,

personnel policies) Use of public resources to influence an election –

prohibition! (AG opinion issued/withdrawn – expecting new opinion)

Working in a political environment Navigating the work environment Incumbent seeking advice/assistance – have to treat

same as other candidates

QUESTIONS?

2015 legislation, case law update & politics of elections karen osborne, director, maricopa...

Documents