PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court once again slapped down legislators’ efforts to tell Tucson — and all the state’s charter cities — when they can schedule their elections.
In a 5-1 ruling Wednesday, the justices voided as unconstitutional a 2018 state law requiring cities to select their mayors and council members to coincide with statewide elections.
Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the majority, said the Arizona Constitution clearly gives cities that have adopted their own charters “autonomy over matters of purely municipal concern.’’ When cities run local elections fits that definition, she said.
Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich argued election dates are not simply local matters. When turnout in local elections is low, it adversely affects the fundamental right to vote, he said.
Timmer said that claim is off base.
“The attorney general points to nothing about off-cycle elections that erects barriers to voting or treats voters unequally,’’ she wrote.
She said it’s irrelevant even if low voter turnout at off-cycle elections is the result of “disinterest’’ in municipal issues. “That does not deprive those voters of their constitutional right to vote,’’ Timmer said.
Wednesday’s ruling ends the latest bid by state lawmakers to exert their will on Tucson and other charter cities.
But it may not be the last.
“Fixated on overriding” local voters
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, a Chandler Republican, has sponsored various efforts to curb cities’ power to set their own election dates.
He told Capitol Media Services he now is looking at putting a measure on the 2022 ballot to amend the Arizona Constitution and mandate consolidated elections. Such a measure, if approved by voters statewide, would trump Wednesday’s court ruling.
Tucson Mayor Regina Romero had a simple response.
“Good luck with that,’’ she said. “It’s sad that Rep. Mesnard is more fixated on overriding the will of Tucson voters instead of addressing the needs of his constituents in his Maricopa County district.’’
Mesnard wasn’t apologetic. “I think it’s OK for the state as a whole to determine what’s good for the state as a whole,’’ he said.
Romero disagreed, saying city residents have determined this is none of the business of those who don’t live there.
“Tucsonans have repeatedly affirmed that that our local elections belong in odd years, which allows for city-focused campaigns and robust public discourse on local issues that would otherwise be overshadowed by federal and state elections on even years,” the Democratic mayor said.
Previous effort also struck down
The dispute started in 2012 when legislators said cities must hold their elections at the same time voters choose federal, state and county officials.
But that was struck down by the state Court of Appeals, which said lawmakers had no statewide interest in interceding in what charter cities decide is a local matter.
The 2018 revision sought to get around the earlier ruling with a declaration calling it “a matter of statewide concern’’ to boost voter turnout. It directed that cities must scrap their election dates if turnout at a local-only election was 25% less than in the most recent statewide election.
The Tucson turnout in 2019 was 39.3%, versus 67% of Tucson voters who cast ballots in 2018.
But the city refused to change its election date — voters rejected a ballot measure that year to conform to a statewide schedule. The City Council set the 2021 primary vote for Aug. 3 this year, with the general election on Nov. 2.
So Brnovich, at Mesnard’s request, asked the state’s high court to put city elections on an even-year cycle.
The attorney general acknowledged that the Arizona Constitution, adopted in 1912, allows any city with at least 3,500 residents to “frame a charter for its own government.’’ But he said those rights fall when preempted by state law like the one Mesnard pushed through in 2018.
“We respect the decision,” AG says
Timmer, however, said the statewide preemption on local laws applies only when a city’s actions get into areas of statewide interest.
By contrast, she said, when a city conducts its elections is strictly a question of how a community structures its government. And she said cities may have legitimate reasons for conducting off-cycle elections.
One issue, she said, is the possibility of “voter fatigue,’’ where discussion of local issues gets buried during a statewide election. The city has a right to weigh those considerations, she said.
“The justices ruled elections are a matter of purely local concern,’’ Brnovich said in a prepared statement. “We respect the decision and appreciate the guidance the court has provided.’’
Only Justice Clint Bolick dissented from Wednesday’s opinion. He said the Arizona Constitution specifically limits the power of charter cities to those issues not precluded by state law. That includes the 2018 law, he said.
