Arizona voters will get to decide in November if they want to curb “dark money” in politics and provide more debt protections through two ballot measures.
It looks like they’ll also get the last word on a list of changes to state election laws.
In separate orders late Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court said petition circulators who gather signatures for money are required to register with the Secretary of State’s Office for each petition campaign for which they work. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said that did not happen in any of the three ballot measures.
But Brutinel pointed out that the Secretary of State’s Office provided no procedure for those already registered to circulate other petitions to submit new registrations. He said that made it physically impossible for circulators to comply with the law.
More to the point, Brutinel said knocking the petition drives off the ballot for a problem that circulators and organizers did not create — and could not fix — “would unreasonably hinder or restrict’’ the constitutional right of the people to propose their own laws. So he and his colleagues agreed the signatures gathered by those who did not register anew should count.
That conclusion was enough to clear the way for the dark money and debt measures to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.
But on the third measure, the business-oriented Free Enterprise Club still has other last-minute arguments it could present to the justices to convince them it lacks the 237,645 valid names needed to qualify.
The go-ahead for public votes on the initiatives is a major setback for business interests which oppose changing Arizona laws to require greater financial disclosure of who is putting money into political campaigns; providing individuals more protection from creditors; and making it easier to register and vote.
Arguments and rulings
In seeking to keep them off the ballot, attorneys Thomas Basile and Kory Langhofer, who represented foes of the measures, pointed out state law requires anyone who is a paid circulator to first register before gathering signatures. The same requirement exists for out-of-state residents.
That requirement, they argued, exists for each petition they want to circulate and for each election.
They said that did not occur for many circulators and so the signatures they gathered were not valid or could not be counted.
Brutinel said the lawyers are legally correct. But the justices refused to void the signatures.
“Any circulators’ lack of compliance with (the law) does not invalidate the signatures gathered by these circulators on the record or circumstances before us,’’ he wrote.
Brutinel pointed out the online portal set up by the secretary of state to register circulators does not allow any individual to submit more than one affidavit.
“By also refusing to accept manual submission of a hard copy affidavit, the secretary of state rendered it impossible for circulators to successfully submit a registration application as required ... if they had already registered to circulate other petitions,’’ he wrote.
That would make it unfair and improper to keep a measure off the ballot for failing to comply with a law that could not be complied with, he said.
The Arizona Supreme Court
The three initiatives, put on the ballot through petition drives, would make major changes in state laws.
‘Dark money’
What’s dubbed the Voters’ Right to Know Act is designed to eliminate exemptions in state campaign finance laws.
Those statutes require public disclosure of who is spending money to influence candidate elections and ballot measures. But state lawmakers crafted an exception for “social welfare’’ organizations, which are free to run commercials seeking to influence the outcome but can hide the names of their donors.
The initiative seeks to deal with that by requiring the disclosure of true sources of donations of more than $5,000 on political campaigns. Former Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is leading the effort, said those dollars would have to be traced back to the original source and could not be “laundered’’ through a series of groups.
Scot Mussi, president of the Free Enterprise Club, calls it “an unconstitutional measure designed to silence and harass private citizens, and nonprofit groups from exercising their First Amendment rights.’’
Debt, including medical debt
The measure on debt, if approved by voters, would increase the amount of equity someone could have in a home to keep it from being seized in bankruptcy to $400,000, up from $250,000. It would also mandate annual cost-of-living increases in that figure, rather than waiting for state lawmakers to marshal the votes for future changes.
Current law also allows individuals to keep up to $6,000 in household furniture, appliances and consumer electronics. That would increase to $15,000, also with inflation adjustments.
The protected equity in a motor vehicle would go from $6,000 to $15,000 for most individuals, with the figure rising from $12,000 to $25,000 for any debtor or family member with a physical disability.
Separately, the measure would cap the amount of someone’s wages that could be attached. Another provision would specifically limit the amount of annual interest that could be charged on medical debt to no more than 3%.
Michael Guymon, president and CEO of the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, argued that the initiative would restrict the ability of Arizonans to access credit and loans.
“This is because lenders will have little or no ability to recoup money from people who don’t pay their debts,’’ he said in a statement against the plan.
Election laws
The election measure would allow people to register and vote at the same time, including on Election Day. Also, people would be registered to vote automatically when they get an Arizona driver’s license unless they opt out.
The proposal also would reinstate the state’s permanent early voting list, which automatically provides mail-in ballots for anyone who opts in.
Lawmakers voted to repeal that last year, replacing it with a system that stops the early ballots from coming for those who do not use them for at least two election cycles, though those voters still would be able to vote in person. Backers of the initiative said that is not fair for those who may not be regular voters, turning out only when there are issues or candidates on the ballot of interest.
Also gone if the initiative is approved would be the law that makes it a crime to take someone else’s voted early ballot to a polling place unless that person is a relative, member of the same household or a caretaker.
The initiative also would roll back decisions by lawmakers to increase the amount of money that individuals and political action committees can give to candidates, a figure currently set at $6,250. They would be capped at $1,000 for local and legislative candidates and $2,500 for statewide races.
Conversely, candidates who forego special interest donations would be entitled to additional public dollars. That particular provision drew criticism from Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
“Public dollars should be used for real priorities like public safety, education, and transportation, not junk mail and spam phone calls,’’ he said in an opposition statement.
