Citizens Clean Elections Lawsuit Filed

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

He is gone, but still a pain in the ass. Jonathan "Payday" Paton, now serving as appointed Viceroy of Tucson, is the man behind the effort to defund Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections, effectively voiding the law without actually asking voters directly to repeal it. The legislative referendum SCR 1025 is purposefully deceptively titled “Stop Public Money for Political Candidates Campaigns Act.”

"Payday" Paton devised this deceptive strategy for an earlier version of this bill that he pushed in 2010. He openly admitted that his purpose was to deceive and dupe the public, because he knows Arizonans will not vote to repeal Citizens Clean Eelctions, a program which has broad public support. Jonathan Paton attempts to kill Citizens Clean Elections:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 on Monday to effectively kill public financing of elections — but not entirely. Public financing of elections all but dead | The Sierra Vista Herald. If approved, SCR 1043 would technically leave the Citizens Clean Elections Act approved by voters in 1998 in place. But it would leave no money in the fund for candidates in the 2012 election.

Sen. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, a foe of public financing, conceded that he fears the public, confronted with a measure that asks to repeal the “Clean Elections” system, would not see it the way he does.

This bill, said Paton, gets around that political problem.

Not so fast. This slippery lobbyist failed in his attempt to impose his will on City of Tucson elections with "Paton's Law," recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals. This slippery lobbyist may have been equally sloppy in crafting the “Stop Public Money for Political Candidates Campaigns Act” referendum.

Supporters of Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections filed suit on Friday to block a public vote to kill the system, saying the proposal is legally flawed. Clean Elections supporters sue to block ballot measure:

In legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, attorney Paul Eckstein said the proposed constitutional amendment is billed as barring the government from providing public subsidies to candidates for public office. But he said the language approved last month by lawmakers for the 2012 ballot would constitutionally bar government agencies from collecting or spending public funds for "campaign support,'' a phrase that is not defined.

The problem with that, Eckstein said, is it could be interpreted as barring not only direct contributions to a candidate's race but also other functions of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, including its sponsorship of debates and voter education. And that, he said, means the proposal would do two different things, violating a requirement that constitutional amendments address only a single subject.

If the courts don't buy that argument, Eckstein has a backup.

The ballot proposal, if approved, would affect not only the state's public financing system of election, approved by voters in 1998. It also would kill an even older program in the city of Tucson where candidates who agree to limit what they collect from private donors can get matching public dollars.

Eckstein pointed out the measure, if approved, would "sweep'' any leftover funds set aside for candidate financing into the state treasury. That would cover not only cash in the state Clean Elections fund but also city tax dollars.

"This question presents a subject that should be decided by voters separately,'' he argued.

Of course, "Payday" Paton who is chairing the repeal effort, said the lawsuit is in some ways not a surprise.

"It sounds pretty obvious they don't want to face us in November on the ballot because they know they're going to lose,'' he said. Paton said he is consulting with campaign attorneys and feels "pretty confident'' that the challenge will fail.

Famous last words from a slippery lobbyist who thought "Paton's Law" would withstand a legal challenge. A lawyer he's not.

The purposefully deceptively titled “Stop Public Money for Political Candidates Campaigns Act” is at the heart of this lawsuit:

Much of what makes the repeal effort subject to legal challenge is that the legislators who crafted the ballot measure purposely chose not to try to repeal the 1998 law. Such a ballot measure would be legal.

But many lawmakers conceded that voters, confronted with the question of eliminating the "Clean Elections'' program, would vote "no.''

Instead, they decided to leave the law intact, but instead propose a constitutional amendment barring the use of public funds for campaigns, effectively voiding the law without actually asking voters to repeal it.

In doing that, however, they also put the question of Tucson's public financing system into play. And they had to spell out how any leftover dollars would be spent, opening the door to a legal challenge.

This is not the first time supporters of Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections have gone to court to short-circuit a repeal effort.

A similar proposal was knocked off the ballot in 2004. Judges concluded that measure actually had two separate issues — repeal of public funding and halting the other functions of the Clean Elections Commission like candidate debates — which violated Arizona's "single subject" rule and made it an unconstitutional question to refer to voters.