Lawsuit filed to challenge unconstitutional public pension reform law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I told you back in April when the anti-union Arizona Republic was advocating for a package of public pension fund reform bills in the anti-union Tea-Publican Arizona legislature that the plan was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional Public Pension Reform Bill Moves Towards Passage:

If Brewer signs the bill as expected, the legislation could face a legal challenge because the Arizona Constitution does not allow state-pension benefits to be diminished or reduced, said Jim Mann, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Mann said that if public-safety officers had to pay more for their pensions and if cost-of-living raises were lowered, that could be interpreted as a diminished benefit. Lawmakers who oppose the bill also called it unconstitutional and said the state should honor its labor contracts.

Well, there you have it you geniuses at The Arizona Republic. This requires a referendum vote by the voters of Arizona to amend the Arizona Constitution. You cannot do this by mere legislative fiat, nor propagandizing by Arizona's largest conservative newspaper. Once again, this is legislation designed to be a full employment bill for the lawyers of the Goldwater Institute. This is legislative malpractice.

Arizona Constitution, Article 29, Sec. 1. Public retirement systems:

Section 1. A. Public retirement systems shall be funded with contributions and investment earnings using actuarial methods and assumptions that are consistent with generally accepted actuarial standards.

B. The assets of public retirement systems, including investment earnings and contributions, are separate and independent trust funds and shall be invested, administered and distributed as determined by law solely in the interests of the members and beneficiaries of the public retirement systems.

C. Membership in a public retirement system is a contractual relationship that is subject to article II, section 25, and public retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.

On Thursday, the unions filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the pension reform bills enacted into law by the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature. They are on solid legal ground (despite the anti-union screeds certain to follow in the Arizona Republic). Unions sue Arizona over plan to make public employees pay more for pensions:

Three unions have filed suit challenging the decision by lawmakers to force more than 210,000 public employees to pay a bigger share of their pension costs.

A provision in the budget adopted for the new fiscal year that begins July 1 requires employees of the state, public schools, counties, some cities, community colleges and universities to pay 53 percent of the annual cost of keeping the Arizona State Retirement System solvent. That is the first time since the system was formed four decades ago that there has not been an equal match.

Legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court contend that the shift violates a provision in the Arizona Constitution which says that membership in a public retirement system is contractual relationship and "benefits shall not be diminished or impaired."

"When you alter the contribution and suddenly you're paying more as opposed to the employer, what was the matching 50-50 is now 53-47, what you're really doing is reducing the benefit," said Andrew Morrill, president of the Arizona Education Association. "You're having to pay more to get the same benefit. You're reducing the net benefit that participant is going to get."

The lawsuit asks a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to declare the change illegal.

Former Arizona Daily Star political reporter and House GOP press flak Daniel Scarpinato, who doesn't know diddly-squat about constitutional law nor does he care, speaking for House Speaker Andy Tobin, defended the move which is designed to generate $41.3 million this current budget year for the state. That includes not only the direct savings to state government by reducing its obligations but also a requirement for schools and colleges to pass on the amount they would save to the state.

"The Legislature has had to make some very difficult decisions given the seriousness of our budget crisis," he said. "This was one of those. And we're confident it will be upheld in the context of what the state has had to face."

A partisan flak offering an uninformed legal opinion. That's just great. Difficult budget choices does not give the legislature carte blanche to ignore the Arizona Constitution whenever it wants as much as authoritarian Tea-Publicans would like to believe this is true. Their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law makes them a lawless legislature. As I said above, "this is legislation designed to be a full employment bill for the lawyers of the Goldwater Institute. This is legislative malpractice."

So much of what the legislature has done is now being challenged in court that their so-called balanced budget is but a sick joke. The courts are going to unravel much of their illegal and unconstitutional actions, at further legal expense to the state, because this lawless legislature believes that they are above the law.