Arizona Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court decision that the challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections law will not be on the ballot this year. Details below.
Here is the background. In 1998 AZ voters passed (51.2% to 48.8%) the Clean Elections law, providing for public funding of elections to candidates who forego large private donations. This year Proposition 106 proposes to overturn that law. Supporters of 106 gathered signatures to put it on the Nov. ballot.
That effort hit a big roadblock when, 2 weeks ago, Judge Margaret Downie of the Maricopa County Superior Court said the initiative, as written, violates the provision of the state's constitution limiting amendments to a single subject. Apparently 106 proposes to ban the Citizens Clean Election Commission from giving public dollars to candidates but also takes away the commission's automatic funding of other activities, such as sponsoring debates. Her decision was immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Yesterday the AZ Supreme Court upheld Judge Downie's decision, saying that the wording of Prop 106 does violate the state constitution. They ordered Prop 106 removed from the Nov ballot. Supporters of 106 promise to bring it back in 2006.
Interestingly, the major sources of funding for Prop 106 come from whom ? Well, you guessed it, business interests who are described by Clean Elections supporters as special interests that want to get influence in the legislature by deciding who gets campaign dollars. In particular, it is funded largely by house builders, real estate developers and insurance companies.
In its first big test, two years ago Janet Napolitano (D, clean election candidate) beat Matt Salmon (R, private donations) for governor. After this result a coalition of mostly conservative Republicans decided to ask the voters to reconsider the Clean Elections law. It has thus far survived 7 court challenges, too.