This story originally provided by AZ Central
August 12, 2004
Supreme Court knocks Clean Elections off ballot
Paul Davenport
Associated Press
The state Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that an initiative to
dismantle Arizona's "Clean Elections" system for publicly
funding candidates' campaigns be kept off the November ballot.
The justices upheld a trial judge's ruling that Proposition 106, the
so-called "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians" initiative,
violated the Arizona Constitution's ban on including more than one
subject in a proposed constitutional amendment.
Arizona voters approved a system in 1998 that allows public funding
for campaigns of candidates for governor, legislative seats and
other state offices. It provided funding to candidates in 2000 and
2002.
Initiative supporters had appealed Judge Margaret Downie's order to
the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court announced its decision in a brief order and said
it will issue an opinion later to explain its legal reasoning for
its decision.
Opponents argued that the initiative violated the single-subject ban
by both prohibiting public funding of candidates and depriving the
state agency overseeing the system of funding for its other
functions, including voter education and regulating campaign
finances.
The opponents' July 1 lawsuit also said the initiative should be
kept off the ballot because it used politically charged terms and
wasn't impartial. Downie rejected that argument.
Initiative supporters denied that the it violated the single-subject
ban. They argued that a separate constitutional provision mandating
enforcement of voter-approved laws would require the Legislature to
appropriate money for the commission's other functions.
Clean Elections supporters who opposed the initiative hailed the
ruling but said they regard it as only one battle in a continuing
war.
"The big money special interests will be back," said
opposition campaign manager Michelle Davidson. "They still hope
to turn back the clock to the days when all candidates had to rely
on special interest money."
Nathan Sproul, a spokesman for initiative supporters, said it was
unfortunate that the Supreme Court had prevented the issue from
reaching voters this year.
"This fight is a long way from being over," Sproul said.
"We have every intention that in the not too distant future
that ... the voters will have an opportunity to vote on this."
The Supreme Court on Thursday also declined to hear a separate
lawsuit filed by initiative opponents challenging the description
that would have appeared in the state's official voter publicity
pamphlet.
The Secretary of State's Office said Aug. 6 that initiative
supporters had filed enough valid voter signatures to qualify the
measure for the ballot.
Supporters of the Clean Elections law say public financing reduces
the influence special interests gain through traditional campaign
funding, while opponents argue that public money shouldn't be used
to finance politicians' campaigns.
Traffic and criminal fine surcharges fund most of the campaign
system, in which candidates can voluntarily participate.
Participating candidates must collect a set number of $5
contributions from voters to qualify for the public funding.
Participating candidates can also receive matching funds if
nonparticipating political rivals spend more money.
Through 2002, the system distributed $14.6 million to 198
candidates. In 2002, participants included Democratic Gov. Janet
Napolitano, candidates for the Legislature and all statewide
offices.
Maine also has a widely used public campaign financing system, while
North Carolina and New Mexico are launching limited versions.
Vermont's system is tied up in the courts and Massachusetts
abolished its last year.
Initiative supporters said they planned to raise and spend $1
million, including nearly $500,000 already spent for paid petition
circulators to collect signatures. Preliminary campaign finance
reports indicate the campaign raised numerous $10,000 contributions
from developers and other business figures and groups.
The opposition campaign said it planned to raise and spend more than
$2 million, much of it coming from national groups. Preliminary
reports by a group helping fund the opposition campaign list at
least $166,000 in contributions, including $91,000 from the Arizona
Advocacy Network, a liberal-oriented activist group.
The Clean Elections system has withstood several court challenges.
One attacking the matching funds provision is pending.
---
On the Net:
Arizona Supreme Court: http://www.supreme.state.az.us
Citizens Clean Elections Commission: http://www.CCEC.state.az.us
|
|
|
