No injunction, but no dismissal: Arizona anti-dark money case will proceed
Republican legislative leaders on Friday lost their attempt to temporarily block a new law that requires more transparency in campaign spending.
But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Ryan also denied a request from attorneys for the state and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to drop the lawmakers' complaint altogether.
The mixed judgment means provisions of Proposition 211, the so-called "anti-dark money" measure, will move forward for now. But so will the lawmakers' complaint that the new law is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers clause, among other things.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 211 with 72% support in November 2022. It aims to identify the original source of large-dollar contributions to candidate and issue campaigns. Those contributions and their donors to date have often been masked by being put into nonprofit organizations, often with hazy names that disguise who is behind the campaign spending.
The voter-approved law empowers the Clean Elections Commission to map out the rules that will guide enforcement of its provisions.
But Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, and House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Glendale, argued the law gave too much power to the commission. They contended the commission's rulemaking was wrongfully exempted from some administrative oversight ― an argument Ryan found had no basis in previous court rulings or the separation-of-powers argument.
Ryan rejected their request for a preliminary injunction. He noted the people, through the initiative process, have the same lawmaking authority as the Legislature.
"An injunction would prevent the People's legitimate exercise of legislative authority from being given effect, and would prevent voters from learning the sources of money behind large-dollar election advertising; that is a hardship to the public," Ryan wrote in his 12-page ruling.
Ryan also rejected the motion to dismiss the lawmakers' complaint. That legal maneuver was sought by the commission, the Arizona secretary of state, the state attorney general and the People's Right to Know, the committee that crafted and campaigned for Proposition 211.
He said a trial, or a motion for summary judgment, would be better ways to resolve their complaints, even as he suggested the plaintiffs "appear to be on wobbly ground."
During a court hearing on Dec. 12, Ryan said that as soon as he issues his orders, he would stay their enforcement until Jan. 12 to give the losing party a chance to appeal.
It was a recognition that the contentious case is bound to be headed to an appeals court.
As of Friday afternoon, there was no stay issued.
Information sought: A dark money group paid for Gov. Katie Hobbs' security. She's asking for more transparency
Reach the reporter at maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com or at 602-228-7566 and follow her on Threads as well as on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: @maryjpitzl.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Judge issues mixed findings in AZ election spending transparency case
