Photo by Jim Small | Arizona Mirror
The Arizona Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear key portions of a challenge to the state’s landmark campaign finance disclosure law aimed at ending anonymous political spending, potentially impacting rules meant to shine light on who spends money to influence voters.
The high court will consider whether Republican legislative leaders have the right to challenge “dark money” disclosure rules created by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission under Proposition 211, the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” which voters overwhelmingly approved in 2022. The court will also determine if a provision limiting legislative oversight can be separated from the rest of the law.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen filed a lawsuit in 2023 to block implementation of Prop. 211, which requires disclosure of the original sources of contributions exceeding $5,000 used for campaign spending. The law defines this “dark money” as “the practice of laundering political contributions, often through multiple intermediaries, to hide the original source.”
A trial court judge ruled in December 2023 that the Republicans did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the act is unconstitutional and that it hamstrings the powers of the legislature. But an appellate court disagreed with part of the trial court’s conclusion, ruling in June that one section of the law unconstitutionally restricted the Legislature’s power. However, it also ruled that the offending statute could be removed without throwing out the entire voter-approved measure, keeping disclosure requirements intact.
The Court of Appeals also ruled legislators lacked standing to challenge the Commission’s rules for enforcing dark money disclosure, finding that delegating authority to create such rules doesn’t prevent the Legislature from passing related laws. The court pointed to other areas like election administration where legislative delegation hasn’t prevented future lawmaking.
The appeals court determined any limitations on legislative power come from other sources — namely the state constitution’s Voter Protection Act and a separate provision restricting oversight — rather than from the Commission’s rulemaking authority itself.
Those rules establish key mechanisms for enforcing the disclosure requirements. One allows donors to opt out of having their money used for campaign spending even after an initial 21-day notice period. Another clarifies when activities like polling and research trigger disclosure requirements. A third creates a system for the Commission to issue advisory opinions that provide legal protection to those who follow them.
Toma and Petersen argue the entire law should fall if any part is unconstitutional, even though it included what’s known as a “severability clause” that explicitly says courts cannot toss the whole law if a portion of it is deemed unconstitutional. They also maintain legislators should be able to challenge the Commission’s authority to create these rules.
The case presents significant questions about legislative oversight of voter initiatives. If the Supreme Court sides with legislative leaders, it could potentially strike down the entire dark money disclosure law. A narrower ruling might just reaffirm the Legislature’s oversight powers while leaving disclosure requirements in place.
The Clean Elections Commission and other defenders of the law argue its core purpose of revealing the sources of political spending can function even if legislators retain some oversight authority.
Prop 211 passed with 72% voter approval. The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments in the case, Toma v. Fontes.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
This post was originally authored and published by Jim Small from AZ Mirror via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
