A fight over Tucsonβs election system brought by the Public Integrity Alliance and a group of Republican voters was again heard before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Late last year, a panel of three 9th Circuit judges ruled 2-1 ruled that Tucsonβs election system is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, known as the βone man, one voteβ rule. The city, however, won a new hearing with a panel of 11 judges, which happened Tuesday.
Kory Langhofer, an attorney with the alliance, argued the cityβs system violates constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically in question is the cityβs decision to hold ward-only primary elections and at-large general elections.
For example, you get to vote in the primary based on which ward you live in, and then you get to vote for the other City Council seats in the general election.
This system, he argues, excludes some voters in the primary election based on the ward in which they live. The city has a staggered system, holding ward-only primaries every four years.
The city has argued the system is fair, asserted Dennis McLaughlin, an attorney for the city.
βWe have a hybrid system because we want to effectively achieve two goals. We want to have a local voice in our election system for electorates. But we want all of our citizens to vote for all of their representatives,β he told the court.
Langhofer argued the city should have either a ward-only or at-large elections, but not a hybrid.
The current system, he argued, is unfair to Republican candidates.
βAllowing them to treat them as two different elections gives them too much power to discriminate against minorities β whatever that minority group that is within their district,β Langhofer told the court. βIf you can control the geography of the primary election, you can control the outcome of the election.β
Several judges were skeptical, using their own experiences in their home districts as examples where everyone was treated fairly.
No decision was made.
