Litigation

Dispute Goes on Over AZ Public Financing Law

By Peter Hardin

A federal district judge recently declared unconstitutional a portion of Arizona’s public financing system for statewide and legislative offices, but it remains in place at least temporarily due to an appeals court order.

In January, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled it was  unconstitutional to furnish additional taxpayer dollars to publicly-funded candidates if their privately-funded opponent exceeded a spending limit set by the state, according to an article in the Arizona Daily Star.

This week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, allowed the system to stay in place at least for now; you can read the order here. The stay permits lawyers for the state and for the Clean Elections Institute to prepare their appeal of Judge Silver’s decision; a hearing is planned for mid-April.

Judge  Silver said the  matching-funds provision violates the First Amendment because it causes candidates without public funding  to limit their own campaigning, fundraising and  spending of their own money, the Arizona Republic reported. You can read her opinion by clicking here.

The 9th Circuit extended indefinitely Judge Silver’s own temporary stay, according to the Associated Press. In June, distribution of matching funds is scheduled in Arizona for candidates who qualify.

An earlier Gavel Grab post has background on the legal challenge in Arizona.

Wisconsin recently became the third state to adopt public financing for state appellate court elections. You can read about its law, and about debates over legality of public financing plans for judicial elections, in Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 05, 2010 (boomark / email).