The Yellow Sheet reports that the Attorney General’s Office submitted a 19-page petition to the Supreme Court. In it, the state argues that case law conflicts with the lower court’s decision. The state claims that the ruling is “inconsistent with the state Constitution, which the AG insists authorizes the Legislature to enact laws regarding city elections and recognizes a statewide interest in uniform elections,” according to the Yellow Sheet.
The state argues that the court’s conclusions are prone to “constitutional challenges to many state statutes that regulate city elections.”
For years, the powers-that-be in Tucson and Phoenix have sought to suppress the vote by holding the elections in odd years. At the request of residents, Arizona lawmakers passed the measure which was expected to increase turnout and decrease costs.
The cities have fought hard to keep the status quo.
In their opinion of April 6, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court held in Tucson v. Arizona that the City of Tucson could continue holding partisan municipal elections despite a state law that prohibited them. The court ruled that the Arizona Constitution grants cities the power to determine their election method and state law could not infringe a city’s chosen framework.
The court noted that Tucson residents would effectively continue to be disenfranchised. The court found, “The State finally observes that Tucson’s method of electing council members has resulted in candidates winning in the general election who did not receive the most votes in the ward from which they were nominated. The State contends that if a council member represents a particular ward, the State has an interest in assuring the person has the support of a majority of the ward’s voters.”