(The Center Square) – Arizona Republican lawmakers may challenge a voter-approved campaign finance law, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-2 decision.
Arizonans passed Proposition 211, which requires public disclosure of the sources of political donations exceeding $50,000 for statewide campaigns and over $25,000 for local campaigns. Arizona residents voted 72% to 28% in favor of the measure.
One month after Prop. 21 was passed in November 2022, the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and two anonymous individuals filed a lawsuit against the proposition, arguing it was unconstitutional.
In June 2023, a Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit and did not order a preliminary injunction against the new Arizona law.
Two months later, state Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, and state Rep. Ben Toma, R-Peoria, filed a lawsuit challenging the law. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge allowed the lawsuit against Proposition 211 to continue without issuing a preliminary injunction.
The Arizona Supreme Court said in January it would take up this case.
The plaintiffs in this case argued the new law violated the Separation of Powers clause outlined in the Arizona Constitution because it granted the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission the authority to establish rules governing the implementation of this law. The commission is part of the state’s executive branch.
Furthermore, GOP elected officials said the proposition would remove the Arizona Legislature’s authority by allowing state agencies to override state statutes.
They also said an initiative can’t remove the Legislature’s legislative powers enshrined in the Arizona Constitution.
The defendants in the case, who include Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Attorney General Kris Mayes and the commission, argued the commission did not take any actions that interfered with the Legislature’s powers.
The Separation of Powers clause was not being violated because the commission was given the authority to enforce the law, similar to when the Legislature gives other executive agencies the authority to implement new laws, the defendants said.
They also said since Prop. 211 was voter-approved, it could not be weakened or eliminated by the Legislature.
In its opinion this week, the state Supreme Court said the plaintiffs could challenge the law regarding separation of powers, but it did not decide whether the law was unconstitutional.
“We hold that the legislative leaders have standing to challenge the initiative. However, we also hold that it is premature to determine the question of severability until a ruling on the constitutionality of the challenged provisions, which is not yet before us,” the court said.
