A Maricopa County judge won’t dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republican lawmakers against a campaign finance disclosure law approved by Arizona voters last year, but he also declined to put the law on pause while the case plays out in court.
Proposition 211, also called the Voters Right to Know Act, was approved by 72% of voters in 2022. The law requires people or organizations that spend more than $50,000 on statewide races to disclose donors who have given them at least $5,000. The same disclosure requirement is in place for groups that spend more than $25,000 in other races.
Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen filed a lawsuitearlier this year against the Voters Right to Know Act, arguing it unlawfully gave the Legislature’s power to other branches of government, namely the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
The Clean Elections Commission is charged with creating rules and enforcement under the new law.
In a ruling issued Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Ryan denied motions to dismiss filed by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Voters Right to Know, the group that backed the voter initiative last year.
Ryan wrote that the lawsuit is on “wobbly ground.” But he ruled Petersen and Toma should be given the opportunity to present their proof to the court.
“The more effective and efficient way to deal with the issue is through the mandatory disclosure process … While Plaintiffs appear to be on wobbly ground, summary judgment or trial would be the more appropriate testing grounds for whether their novel legal theories are factually supported,” Ryan wrote.
But the judge also declined to issue a temporary injunction the lawmakers requested to stop the state from implementing the law while the case winds its way through the court.
Ryan provided a litany of reasons for leaving the law in place, including that the legislature does not have authority to repeal voter-approved laws and that the Voters Right to Know Act “is like other Arizona statutes delegating authority to administrative agencies.”
Ultimately, he wrote, the public interest favored leaving the voter-approved law in place during the trial.
“The public interest weighs heavily in favor of protecting Arizona voters’ constitutionally protected legislative authority, and their interests in being fully informed when choosing their representatives and voting on initiatives and referenda, as expressed in Prop. 211,” Ryan wrote.
