Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Constitutional provisions enacted by the voters through initiative or
referendum can only be repealed by the voters through another
initiative or referendum. At least, this is how it is supposed to work.

The ballot referendum proposed by the Arizona Legislature in 1979 to
amend the Arizona Constitution to impose a "resign to run" law was
approved by the voters at the 1980 general election. Article 22, Section 18
of the Arizona Constitution provides "Except during the final year of
the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office,
whether holding by election or appointment, may offer himself for
nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office."

The "resign to run" law was undermined a few years ago by an
incorrectly decided court decision in the case of John Huppenthal, which
has become known as the "Huppenthal Rule": candidates can file an
exploratory committee and collect money and signatures before
"officially" declaring their candidacy. Back in the day, the courts actually enforced the "resign to run" law, see Conrad Joyner v. Rose Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523 (1983). Somehow, the court decided to carve out an exception for Mr. Huppenthal.

Earlier this year, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) sponsored HB2157, which
effectively nullifies what little remained of the "resign to run" law
through legislative legerdemain, without referral of the measure to the
voters. Under his bill, an elected official will only be considered a candidate for
another office after filing his or her nominating papers for that office. This is known as "the exception swallowing the rule of law."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last November, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 115, a citizens initiative by the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) that would have given the governor more say in appointing judges to the state’s appeals courts and the superior courts in its three largest counties. The CAP assault on the independence of the judiciary.

Not to be deterred, our "Sun King" Tea-Publican legislature enacted HB 2600 earlier this year to get what they and the CAP demanded, despite the will of the voters. "Screw the voters! I am the law!"

The Arizona Constitution cannot be
amended by a simple legislative act, it must be amended by approval of the voters. So four members of the commission that nominates judicial candidates for
the state’s appellate courts filed a special action in the
Arizona Supreme Court, asking the high court to throw out the law on the
grounds that it is unconstitutional. Effort targets judicial picks.

Today, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down HB 2600 as unconstitutional. The larger issue which remains is our lawless legislature's creeping encroachment on the independent judiciary on behalf of the CAP.

The full opinion is
Here, Dobson et al. v. State of Arizona ex rel Appeals Court Appointments, CV-13-0225-SA.

Highlights from the opinion below the fold:

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just in time for Constitution Day next week, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is alarmed by the shocking degree of civic ignorance among Americans. (Note to Sandra: You were the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore; see Article II, Section 1, just sayin'. "Regretting" your vote in hindsight does not absolve you of your sin. After Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O'Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore.)

In a speech in Boise, Idaho last week, Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Boise, laments 'alarming degree of public ignorance':

Two-thirds of Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court justice, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told the crowd that packed into a Boise State ballroom to hear her Thursday.

About one-third can name the three branches of government. Fewer than one-fifth of high school seniors can explain how citizen participation benefits democracy.

"Less than one-third of eighth-graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and it's right there in the name," she said.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Baseball sage Yogi Berra was right! "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to
Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County
Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

On September 12, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs/appellants, rejected the cross-appeal by counsel for the initiative committee, and remanded the case back to Pima County
Superior Court Judge James Marner with instructions to grant the injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs to prevent Prop. 201 from being printed on ballots:

Having considered the briefs filed by the parties and the oral arguments
before this court in this expedited election appeal, see Ariz. R. Civ.
App. P. 8.1, this court has determined that the trial court erred in
rejecting the plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees’ challenge as to the
validity of certain signatures obtained by circulators of City of
Tucson Initiative Petition 2013-1004. We further conclude the
cross-appeal raises no issues warranting relief. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is
remanded to the trial court which is directed by 2:00 p.m., September
12, 2013, to enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees and to enter an injunction
pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C). A written opinion will follow. 

That mandate for injunction does not yet appear on the Pima County Superior Court docket for this case.