- LaWall campaign's use of TUSD print shop may cross legal lines
- Fackchecking Kelli Ward's claim about McCain’s life expectancy
- Live weather radar
- Poll: Clinton vs. Trump a toss-up in Arizona
- FBI detects breaches of Arizona, Illinois state voting systems
- Fight to remain silent: People often waive Miranda rights5
- What are your rights at U.S.-Mexico Border Patrol checkpoints?3
- As insurers leave Arizona, Obamacare consumers face higher costs this fall2
- By Joe Arpaio's logic, it's time to make an example of him1
- Win tickets to 'West Side Story' at the Loft1
Updated Aug 14, 2013, 2:58 pm Originally posted Aug 14, 2013, 9:52 am
A judge has nixed a state law that would have required Tucson and Phoenix to change the year in which their city councils are elected, issuing a permanent injunction blocking the Legislature's attempt to require charter cities to move their elections to even-numbered years.
The 2012 state law would have required the cities to move from odd- to even-numbered years for city elections beginning in 2014.
Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner agreed with attorneys for the two cities in a ruling filed Tuesday, writing that state law cannot override election laws specified in city charters.
Marner ruled that the law would be a "significant intrusion" into the cities' ability to run their affairs, and that setting election dates was not a "matter of paramount statewide concern" that would justify the Legislature mandating a change.
Under the state Constitution's "home rule" provision, Tucson and Phoenix "are empowered with the ability to determine the manner and means by which their governing officials are elected," Marner wrote.
There are 89 municipalities in Arizona with city charters — documents that legally establish city governments, akin to a city constitution.
"Charters are a constitutional grant of local control," City Attorney Mike Rankin said Wednesday. "There's no way to comply with that state law and comply with our charter."
The Republican-backed bill was pushed by those contending that the shift would increase voter turnout. Opponents maintained it was an infringement on local control, and that city elections would be lost in the shuffle of even-year state and federal contests.
Support TucsonSentinel.com today, because a smarter Tucson is a better Tucson.
Marner's ruling pointed to evidence of significant undervoting for local candidates who appear at the end of long ballots when they are elected along with federal and state candidates.
Tucson's elections are held in odd-numbered years under the City Charter, with three of the five City Council seats being filled in this November's election. The other two ward offices, and the mayor's office, are up for election in 2015.
If the law had taken effect, it was unclear how the terms of local officials would have been changed to conform with a different election cycle. Rankin said that terms could not be cut short, but that officials could serve longer than their elected term, remaining in office "until their successors are elected."
If state officials appeal the decision, the city will "continue to argue the same position," Rankin said.