All she wanted to do was get together with some of her neighbors to protest and advocate defeat of a municipal bond election in Fountain Hills, Arizona. Four years later, her case wound up gutting Arizona election law when on Dec. 4, 2014 a federal judge in Phoenix ruled a critical definition in the law to be unconstitutionally vague and too broad in scope.
U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg did not invalidate the entire statute, just the definition of "political committee." He might as well have nixed the whole thing because so much of Arizona election law proceeds from that definition.
Until Judge Teilborg's ruling is either overturned on appeal or the situation that prompted the ruling is fixed by the legislature, the state of Arizona along with its counties and municipalities can no longer require reports of contributions and expenditures or require disclosure of who gave the money. The void affects candidate committees, political action committees, independent expenditure committees, initiative and referendum committees and others involved in Arizona's political process.
Repairing Arizona elections law will be a top issue in the 2015 session of the Arizona Legislature. More below the fold.
In 2011, Dina Galassini didn't like the looks of a municipal bond proposal in Fountain Hills. She gathered a group of like-minded neighbors together to do a street corner protest. The Town of Fountain Hills told her "not so fast", you need to register as a political committee before you do anything like this again. Galassini sued and her case was taken on by the Institute for Justice, a right wing libertarian public interest law group.
The case wound through federal court, culminating with the ruling Dec. 4, 2014. The ruling applies only to the definition of "political committee", but since the definition of political committee affects practically every other aspect of Arizona elections law, the effect of Teilborg's ruling is profound.
Here is what was axed from the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS 16-901):
"19. "Political committee" means a candidate or any association or combination of persons that is organized, conducted or combined for the purpose of influencing the result of any election or to determine whether an individual will become a candidate for election in this state or in any county, city, town, district or precinct in this state, that engages in political activity in behalf of or against a candidate for election or retention or in support of or opposition to an initiative, referendum or recall or any other measure or proposition and that applies for a serial number and circulates petitions and, in the case of a candidate for public office except those exempt pursuant to section 16-903, that receives contributions or makes expenditures of more than two hundred fifty dollars in connection therewith, notwithstanding that the association or combination of persons may be part of a larger association, combination of persons or sponsoring organization not primarily organized, conducted or combined for the purpose of influencing the result of any election in this state or in any county, city, town or precinct in this state. Political committee includes the following types of committees:
(a) A candidate's campaign committee.
(b) A separate, segregated fund established by a corporation or labor organization pursuant to section 16-920, subsection A, paragraph 3.
(c) A committee acting in support of or opposition to the qualification, passage or defeat of a ballot measure, question or proposition.
(d) A committee organized to circulate or oppose a recall petition or to influence the result of a recall election.
(e) A political party.
(f) A committee organized for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
(g) A committee organized in support of or opposition to one or more candidates.
(h) A political organization.
(i) An exploratory committee."
Institute for Justice attorneys call it "gobbledygook." Indeed. Those lawyers who pursued the case on Galassini's behalf suggest rewriting the law so that it is easy to understand and exempts groups and individuals that spends less than $500 on political activities.
Those legislators and elections law specialists who must clean up the mess are already dividing into two camps. One camp advocates just fixing the definition. The other camp sees a chance for a complete elections law overhaul. Either way, something has to be done fairly quickly and during this legislative session. The ruling not only affects statewide elections, it affects county and municipal elections. Both Phoenix and Tucson will conduct elections in 2015.
The state's lawyers asked the judge to stay the ruling pending appeal to the 9th Circuit. There's no decision from the judge on that request yet.
The net effect of all of this: without a new, constitutionally acceptable definition of "political committee," nobody giving money to Arizona politicians or to causes or to political action committees or to independent expenditure committees, will be required to register or to disclose income and expenses, or to disclose the identity of donors.
Arizona politicians are going to need front-end loaders. Shovels won't be large enough to handle the cash that'll come pouring through the breach until this is fixed.