The Arizona State Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in the case Center for Arizona Policy v. Hobbs, which revolves around Proposition 211 and the right of political donors to privacy.
The case, brought by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the protections of the Arizona Constitution, which are stronger than even the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbid Prop 211’s forced disclosure of donors and nonprofits who support or oppose ballot initiatives. The Goldwater Institute cited the Arizona Constitution in a press release, “The state constitution, after all, provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than does the federal constitution—promising both that ‘every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,’ and that ’no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs.’”
In Goldwater’s case summary, the organization warned, “Everyone has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being canceled. Unfortunately, a new measure in Arizona—Proposition 211—tramples on this foundational right. It requires individuals who donate to nonprofits to risk having their private information reported to the government and disclosed to the public. It was sold to Arizonans under the guise of transparency and ‘disclosure.’ But voters weren’t told the full story.”
The AZ Supreme Court will hear @GoldwaterInst’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop 211, a 2022 law that strips donors & nonprofits of their privacy rights if they support or oppose ballot initiatives. https://t.co/aUU8E40rK1
Goldwater Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman explained, “This is a very exciting development. There are few rights more precious to Arizonans than their rights to free speech and to the ballot initiative process. The anti-privacy law undermines these freedoms by telling people that if they dare to support a political position, they have to give up their confidentiality and potentially become a target for retaliation and even violence.”
A lower Arizona court rejected the Goldwater’s arguments under the guise that “having an informed electorate,” in service of the government’s interests overrides campaign donors’ right to confidentiality, claiming that they can simply “opt out of contributing to campaign media spending.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Andrew Gould, disagrees. Back in legal practice with the law firm Holtzman Vogel, and representing the plaintiffs alongside the Goldwater Institute, Gould said, “That’s just not true. Even under the law’s ‘opt-out’ provisions, some donors’ information must still be made public, and donors don’t really have a way of controlling how an organization spends donations, which means they can’t really control whether their information is made public.”
Because the case raises claims based on the Arizona Constitution, the burden of protecting donors’ privacy is even greater than in other states according to Gould who wrote, “Our state constitution provides stronger security for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution does. The authors of the state constitution intended to protect the right to donate to ballot initiative campaigns and the right not to have one’s ‘private affairs’ made public by the government. This law violates both those promises and says that if you donate to a nonprofit group that supports or opposes a ballot initiative, the government’s going to paint a target on your back.”
The Goldwater Institute referenced several serious incidents in the past decade which saw political donors and non-profits become targets for threats, vandalism, and violence from radical political extremists. It noted that donors to California’s anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008 became targets of property destruction and physical assault when they were effectively ‘doxxed’ by the state. A similar incident in 2020 unfolded when a group of non-profit organizations engaged California in a lawsuit after Sacramento published approximately 2,000 documents with donors’ personal identifying information. Inevitably this led to a campaign of violence and harassment by far-left extremists.
The California law that allowed this to happen was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
On January 29, Governor Katie Hobbs appointed Appellate Court Judge Maria Elena Cruz to fill the vacancy of Supreme Court Justice Robert Brutinel. Brutinel announced his retirement in 2024. Cruz emphasized her understanding of those “marginalized because of their color or their gender.”
In a news conference on Wednesday Hobbs told reporters, “I prioritized an appointee who is not only eminently qualified, but also someone who reflects our state and who is committed to making our legal system work for everyday people,” according to AZCentral. “Of course, I was focused on credentials and experience, but also, on appointing a justice who will uplift those who need it most.”
As an attorney, she has argued before municipal, state, and federal courts, and been both a defender and a prosecutor.
Cruz highlighted her heritage while standing with her family during the conference saying, “For many, this day is long overdue. And so today, we celebrate. We celebrate that Arizonans will look at their highest court and see a group that looks more like them.”
She told reporters that she has a “deep respect and loyalty for the rule of law, but also, a perspective that is informed by growing up, living, raising a family and working in rural Arizona.” She also said that she has, “a personal understanding of challenges faced by those who are marginalized because of their color or their gender.”
Hobbs also stressed Cruz as “a Justice who gives a voice to working class people in every corner of our state,” adding the dimension of a class-based distinction to her appointment decision as well.
Appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2017 by then-Governor Doug Ducey, Judge Cruz ruled against the Republican-led Arizona Senate, forcing the release of several sealed records related to audit of the 2020 election returns with the Florida company Cyber Ninjas. The court found that Cyber Ninjas, despite being a third party, was compelled to turn over documentation on how the recount audit was being conducted while it was still underway.
Cruz wrote for the three-judge panel, “Allowing the legislature to disregard the clear mandate of the (public records law) would undermine the integrity of the legislative process and discourage transparency, which contradicts the purpose of both the immunity doctrine and the (law),” according to NBC News. She added, “The requested records are no less public records simply because they are in the possession of a third party, Cyber Ninjas.”
As reported by AZCentral, Cruz noted on her application for the role that she officiated same-sex marriages in Yuma County once they became legal after two justices of the peace refused to do so. She wrote, “I had to stand up … for the law and, regardless of the threat of potential backlash at the polls, I officiated over the first same-sex wedding in our county.” She added, “I always said that any decision I made could be the beginning of the end. A good judge should always be faithful to the law no matter the personal risk.”
With the retention of Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King assured, the effort to nominate the next Justice of Arizona’s highest court is underway after Justice Robert Brutinel announced his retirement on October 31. The pool of possibilities begins with 17 candidates and will eventually be whittled down to three, which Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs will choose from, according to The Center Square.
Applications, which ran through the month of October, were closed on Nov. 1. As the outlet noted, applications held three constitutional requirements; that prospective jurists be attorneys in good standing, under 65-years of age, and a resident of the state for at least ten years.
17 people applied for the Arizona Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice Robert Brutinel. pic.twitter.com/XsP7uwA1j4
The judicial standards lay out that, “The judge shall demonstrate command of relevant substantive law and procedural rules, impartiality, clarity of oral and written communications, judicial temperament and professionalism upholding public confidence in the legal system and demonstrating appropriate respect for everyone.”
“Furthermore, the judge shall have possession of the administrative and management skills and work ethic necessary to be productive and efficient.”
Brutinel was appointed by former Republican Governor Jan Brewer in 2010 and was named to the post of Chief Justice by his peers in 2019. He stepped down as Chief Justice at the end of his five-year term to present-Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer.
“After 42 years as a lawyer and 28 years as a judge, I believe more strongly than ever in the rule of law and that everyone is equal before the law,” Brutinel wrote in a statement on his retirement. “Arizona’s judicial branch is truly committed to the idea that our courts and the law are a positive force for protecting our rights and improving the lives of our fellow citizens.”
“The decision to leave the court has not been easy and I will greatly miss the Court’s interesting and challenging work and particularly all the wonderful people with whom I have had the pleasure of working,” he wrote.
Brutinel’s replacement will be the first Democrat appointee since Justice Scott Bales stepped down in 2019.
Ann B. Ching, a Clinical Professor of Law at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law who served on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Asian American Bar Association (2018-present) and as its President (2023-2024).
Janette C. Corral, a Commissioner of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, and former Maricopa County Deputy Public Defender – Criminal Mental Health.
Maria Elena Cruz, Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One, and former prosecutor in the Yuma County Attorney’s Office.
Nicole C. Davis, a commercial litigation attorney in Phoenix.
Monica N. Bellapravalu Edelstein, a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge assigned to the Criminal Department in Phoenix, a Reserve Assistant Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Air Force at Luke Air Force Base, and former Assistant United States Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix.
D. Andrew Gaona, as noted by The Center Square, Gaona has been known to provide legal advice to the Hobbs administration, and is one of the more likely choices.
Andrew M. Jacobs, a judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One, graduate of the University of Illinois and Harvard Law School, and former research assistant to radical anti-Trump legal Professor Laurence Tribe, who wrote to X after Election Day, “The comprehensive nature of Trump’s victory suggests that alongside the large core of voters thrilled by his misogyny, xenophobia, bullying, and mendacity, many more are at least not repelled by his ever more extreme indulgence in those sadistic pleasures.”
Shalanda M. Looney, an attorney practicing juvenile law with the Gates Law Firm.
Doreen N. McPaul, an assistant legislative attorney working for the Tohono O’odham Nation.
Robert J. McWhirter, a practicing private attorney specializing in criminal law.
Regina L. Nassen, the principal assistant city attorney for the Tucson City Attorney.
Alexander W. Samuels, the principal deputy solicitor general of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
Amy D. Sells, an appellate and civil attorney for the prominent Phoenix law firm, Tiffany & Bosco
Mikel P. Steinfeld, a Supervisor with the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office overseeing the appeals unit.
Barry G. Stratford, a partner at the private firm Perkins Coie. This firm was also home to Clinton-operative Marc Elias and was at the center of election controversy in 2016 when Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, was hired to develop a false-dossier about Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.
William R. Wingard, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge appointed by Gov. Hobbs in 2023.
The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments is moving forward with these candidates, investigating their backgrounds and holding public interviews. Three of them will make the ‘short-list’ of recommendations to Hobbs after taking public comments in a meeting scheduled for Nov. 22.
On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the validity of the 2022 attorney general election results.
Congressman-elect Abraham Hamadeh — formerly Arizona’s Republican attorney general candidate challenging Attorney General Kris Mayes’ 2022 claim to the seat — said in a response to the ruling that the court system had set their challenge up to fail. Hamadeh lost the race by less than 300 votes with thousands of provisional votes not counted.
“The closest race in Arizona history (280 votes with 9,000 uncounted ballots) was sanctioned, delayed, and now won’t be heard by the Supreme Court even though it’s the only case that has had a split decision at the Court of Appeals,” said Hamadeh.
Hamadeh said that he knew many of the justices involved in his case personally, and that their ambition to advance in their careers had compromised them where it mattered. He noted that he would do the opposite with his newly won seat: champion Arizonans’ interests to “Make America Great Again” in Congress.
“I will never forget when the people were counting on them to deliver justice they remained silent, became controlled opposition, and were complicit in the corruption — their legacy will be remembered as cowards,” said Hamadeh.
The closest race in Arizona history (280 votes with 9,000 uncounted ballots) was sanctioned, delayed, and now won’t be heard by the Supreme Court even though it’s the only case that has had a split decision at the Court of Appeals.
Hamadeh filed his appeal over a year ago, last September. One of the issues that came about in Hamadeh’s attempt to challenge the election was delays to rulings. Provisional votes were discovered late according to response delays from counties.
Issues argued in court pointed to a significant number of undervotes and misread ballots, a total believed to be, at minimum, hundreds of votes greater than the lead Mayes had on Hamadeh.
In her time as attorney general, Mayes has focused her office’s energies on the prosecution of those who contested the 2020 election results on behalf of President Donald Trump. Like the attorneys general of other states, she is currently going after the Trump electors for that election.
Just before Election Day, Mayes also announced that she had tasked her office with investigating Trump over his remarks at a recent rally.
While in Arizona at an event with personality Tucker Carlson last week, Trump had said that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney wouldn’t be eager to thrust America into another war if she actually fought in one. Trump said that Cheney ought to face down the guns of war before advising the U.S. enter another war.
“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” said Trump. “Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face — you know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building.”
Later, on Truth Social, Trump said that Cheney lacked “the guts” to fight.
“It’s easy for her to talk, sitting far from where the death scenes take place, but put a gun in her hand, and let her go fight, and she’ll say, ‘No thanks!’” said Trump.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who Trump defeated in a landslide this week for the 2024 presidency, pushed to have the public believe that Trump should be disqualified from the race over his remarks.
“This must be disqualifying. Anyone who wants to be president of the United States, who uses that kind of violent rhetoric, is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president,” said Harris.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Two Arizona State Supreme Court justices survived competitive challenges to their retention to the judicial bench.
On Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King won their retention elections. Both individuals had faced heightened challenges to their future service on the court.
Justice Bolick received 58.36% of the vote to retain, while Justice King obtained 59.43% to retain.
Bolick issued a statement after the outcome of his race was known, saying, “I am honored to have the opportunity to serve on the USA’s best state supreme court for another three years. I am beyond grateful for your votes, your support, and your prayers. This was so important to win to preserve an independent judiciary in AZ, and it appears we did so decisively. I couldn’t have better friends and colleagues!!”
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry posted a statement of support for the results of these two elections. Its account wrote, “Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists.”
Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists. pic.twitter.com/8cihoqgA28
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This was Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
