On Friday, Kathryn Hackett King, a member of the Arizona Board of Regents and University of Arizona College of Law graduate, was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Kin’s appointment by Governor Doug Ducey fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Andrew Gould.
Gould is currently running in the Arizona Attorney General’s race.
King’s appointment to the court now leaves a vacancy on the Arizona Board of Regents
King is the fifth woman in Arizona history to serve on the Supreme Court.
King is currently a partner at Burns Barton PLC. The focus of her practice is the representation of private and public employers in employment litigation and related civil matters. King is a member of the Arizona Women Lawyers Association and a mentor for the Latina Mentoring Project.
King began her private practice career at Snell & Wilmer LLP, where she practiced in the areas of employment law and commercial and business litigation.
From 2015 to 2017, King served as Deputy General Counsel to Ducey, according to the Governor’s Office. King clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Ryan from 2007 to 2008.
King graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Political Science and minoring in History. She obtained her law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
“Kate’s strong belief in the separation of powers and experience serving in all three branches of government will serve the people of Arizona well,” Ducey said in a released statement. “I have witnessed her intelligence and wisdom firsthand, and I know she is well-respected in the legal field.”
The Arizona Supreme Court explained Thursday why it ruled last year that the name of rapper turned presidential candidate Kanye West would not be printed on 2020 General Election ballots in the state.
West announced back on July 4, 2020 that he was running as an Independent candidate for president. His multi-million dollar effort resulted in less than 66,500 votes in the 12 states where his name was on the ballot, along with another 4,000 as write-in votes in a handful of other states.
Questions were later raised as to whether West’s candidacy was simply a publicity endeavor or if he was seeking to draw votes away from Joe Biden in favor of then-President Donald Trump, as the two men had been friends for several years. But in early September, West’s Arizona campaign team submitted 57,892 signatures on nominating petitions to secure a spot on ballots across the state.
A registered voter challenged West’s candidacy in Maricopa County Superior Court where a judge declared the signatures invalid because West’s electors -those voters who would have cast Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes if West won- never filed required paperwork before the signatures were collected.
The judge also ruled West did not personally qualify to be on ballots in Arizona as an Independent candidate because he was a registered Republican in Wyoming.
West lost his emergency direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, which issued an order at the time enjoining Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs along with the 15 county recorders from listing West and his electors on 2020 General Election ballots. But the public did not learn the legal reasoning behind that decision until Thursday.
“West was required to provide the Secretary (of State) with a letter designating the names of his vice-presidential running mate and his eleven presidential electors, a statement signed by each consenting to their designation, and a nomination paper on behalf of each elector,” Justice Bill Montgomery wrote in the opinion. “Additionally, the electors were required to submit nomination petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot.”
The justices, however, determined the Maricopa County judge who heard the case last September erred in ruling that West’s Republican Party affiliation was a factor for keeping his name off the ballot. The statute about party affiliation cited by the judge only applied to the 11 Arizonans who wished to be listed as West’s electors on the ballot, Montgomery wrote.
But that error did not change the fact West was ineligible in Arizona to be on the ballot for president due to failing to secure enough valid nominating petition signatures.
“Given the dispositive effect of West’s electors’ failure to qualify for the ballot, we do not address his other arguments regarding the process for challenging nomination petitions, naming indispensable parties, and the application of laches to plaintiffs,” Montgomery wrote. “We affirm the trial court’s order.”
The Arizona Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next month in a case that involves whether the Cochise County Board of Supervisors violated one or more state laws in appointing one of their own to a coveted court position in 2019 without asking if anyone else was interested in the job.
During the June 3 hearing, the justices must decide whether the legal challenge of then-supervisor Pat Call’s appointment to the Sierra Vista Justice was brought forth by someone who had standing to do so. An appointment that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has described in two legal briefs as “unlawful.”
The case centers on the February 2019 appointment of Call as justice of the peace for Cochise County’s busiest justice court, where more than half of the county’s felony prosecutions start. On the day of his appointment, Call took part in public discussions about how to fill the position and even suggested the board forego forming a committee to seek candidates.
He also took part in a non-public, executive session after which the other two supervisors – Ann English and Peggy Judd- immediately voted Call in as justice of the peace. There was no advance notice of Call’s interest in the position nor that he was being considered for appointment. There was also no opportunity for public comments.
Call served as justice of the peace from March 1, 2019 through Dec. 31, 2020. He did not stand for election in last November.
Brnovich has been harsh in his criticism of the supervisors’ actions and he has argued in legal briefings that a judge could still impose sanctions on Call, English, and/or Judd. He has also weighed in on who has standing to bring complaints involving Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest statute.
One of those people with standing, Brnovich argues, is David Welch, a Sierra Vista resident who had a misdemeanor case pending in the justice court in February 2019. Welch sued in Cochise County Superior Court just days after the supervisors’ vote in an attempt to void Calls’ appointment due to alleged open meeting and conflict of interest violations.
Welch’s lawsuit was dismissed by an out-of-county judge for a lack of standing to bring the challenge. The judge also said that even if a private citizen had standing, any errors or liability connected to the February 2019 vote were resolved when English and Judd ratified Call’s appointment the next month.
Ratification is a legal process allowing a public body to reaffirm an earlier vote that may have run afoul of Open Meeting Law. But as Brnovich pointed out to the Arizona Court of Appeals, there is nothing in the ratification process which automatically indemnifies a public official from a violation of state law.
He also pointed out there is no ratification process in Arizona’s Conflict of Interest statute, under which public officers like Call are required to announce “a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency” and then refrain from participating in such decision “in any manner.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the lower court judge’s ruling on standing, finding that Welch, as a taxpayer within the legal boundaries of the Sierra Vista Justice Court, could challenge the appointment. The court of appeals also found Welch had “sufficiently pleaded violations of Arizona’s open-meeting and conflict-of-interest statutes.”
Normally that would have sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings on the merits of Welch’s case. However, Cochise County officials sought review from the Supreme Court and on May 17 the attorney general filed his second amicus brief about the “unlawful” appointment, the remedies available to a court, and his concern with a taxpayer status threshold for determining standing.
Brnovich points out that standing is already defined in Open Meeting Law as any person “affected by” an alleged violation. Utilizing taxpayer status for status would likely preclude some individuals affected by a violation from being able to assert a claim, he argues. An example is Arizona’s open enrollment policy which allows students to attend a school in one district even if they live in another district’s legal boundaries.
“If a school board were to engage in secret decision-making or other alleged OML or conflict of interest violations, out-of-district parents could be left without standing—even though they would be affected by such violations—because they are not taxpayers of the district,” the brief states.
The attorney for more than 100 bars and saloons across Arizona is declaring victory in a decision issued Wednesday by the Arizona Supreme Court that a recent executive order by Gov. Doug Ducey resolved a dispute about restrictions placed on some liquor license holders which shuttered many businesses for months.
The March 24 order dismissed an appeal filed by attorney Ilan Wurman on behalf of his clients who own Series 6 and Series 7 liquor licenses who alleged Ducey’s executive orders, specifically EO 2020-43 were unlawful. The lawsuit had also challenged operational guidelines issued Aug. 10 by the Arizona Department of Health Service (ADHS).
Most Series 6 & 7 licenses are used to operate smaller, family owned bars which were disproportionally impacted by Ducey’s executive orders last year. EO 2020-43 kept many closed while other liquor-serving establishments were allowed to remain open.
The supreme court’s order notes Ducey issued a EO 2021-05 on March 5, rescinding capacity or occupancy limits in place under a previous executive order. However, EO 2021-05 did not come right out and say all other executive orders related to operation of liquor-related businesses, such as EO 2020-43, were obsolete.
The supreme court took care of that, Wurman says, in its order finding that the bar owners’ appeal of a legal challenge against Ducey is now moot because EO 2021-05 will govern in the event of conflict with other executive orders and removes any distinctions between how Series 6 & 7 licensees and other businesses can operate.
According to Wurman, the supreme court’s order is “a huge win” for his clients.
“A case is moot if the Plaintiffs have obtained all the relief they seek,” he said. “The Court’s ruling is that the new EO (2021-05) rescinds any contrary guidelines that limit capacity. Further, they interpret it to prohibit discrimination against series 6s. Therefore, bars can now open and operate on the same terms as anyone else.”
As a result, Wurman is advising his clients that they can “open up 100 percent.”
“That is the only interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order that would actually render this case moot,” he said, adding that if Ducey, ADHS, or the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control disagrees with how the Supreme Court evaluated EO 2021-05, “it is incumbent upon them promptly to issue new guidance clarifying what restrictions still apply specifically to bars.”
The Arizona Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear oral arguments on April 20 in an attempt to quickly address whether a lower court judge should have put Proposition 208 on hold pending a trial on the measure’s constitutionality.
“Small business owners are already leaving the state due to this poorly crafted measure, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and stop this illegal law from going into effect before more damage is done,” Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, said after the announcement.
Prop 208 mandates a 3.5 percent surcharge tax on income above $250,000 (single filers) or $500,000 (joint filers) in addition to whatever regular income tax is due. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Senate President Karen Fann, House Speaker Russell Bowers, and others impacted by the surcharge are asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the measure approved in November with less than 52 percent of the vote.
Attorneys affiliated with the Goldwater Institute, including Timothy Sandefur, are among those representing the plaintiffs. He welcomed Thursday’s news that oral arguments will be held in less than seven weeks on the plaintiff’s previously rejected request for a temporary restraining order.
“Today’s order shows that the Supreme Court understands how important these constitutional challenges are,” said Sandefur, the organization’s vice-president of litigation. “Rather than having the case go through the slower procedures for appeals, the Court announced that it will hear the case right away.”
In February, Judge John Hannah of the Maricopa County Superior Court refused to put Prop 208 on hold pending a trial on several constitutional challenges. His ruling requires the Arizona Department of Revenue to prepare to collect the surcharge, although the judge noted the funds could be refunded if Prop 208 is later invalidated.
Among the legal issues is whether a tax surcharge is simply a tax increase in disguise, and if so, whether it can be enacted without the same two-thirds majority required when the legislature wants to hike taxes. That two-thirds requirement was added to the Arizona Constitution in more than 20 years ago.
“But you can’t override the Constitution except by a constitutional amendment, and Proposition 208 isn’t a constitutional amendment,” said Sandefur, who appealed Hannah’s denial of the restraining order to the Arizona Court of Appeals per normal court rules. He also took the unusual path of simultaneously seeking expedited consideration from the Supreme Court.
Among those who encouraged the Supreme Court to hear the matter was Gov. Doug Ducey, who campaigned against Prop 208 as a “crippling” tax increase with no guarantee of much of the funds would reach teachers. Estimates that $800 million or more in additional annual K-12 funding would be generated under Prop 208 have been recently called into question in light of post-COVID income impacts.
The oral arguments proceeding will be closed to in-person attendance, but a livestream will be available via www.azcourts.gov/AZSupremeCourt/LiveArchivedVideo.
