Judge rules controversial 'Axon bill' is constitutional. But Scottsdale campus is still on hold

A Maricopa County judge ruled that the Axon bill, which cleared the way for the body camera and Taser manufacturer to build its new headquarters in Scottsdale, is constitutional.

The bill, which passed with bipartisan support last year and was signed by Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, negated a referendum effort by Scottsdale residents that sought to put approval of the headquarters project before the city’s voters.

Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAAZE, the group behind the referendum, then challenged the new law in court.

Critics said the bill was specifically designed to benefit Axon — something the legislation’s sponsor admitted during debate over the bill.

TAAAZE’s attorneys argued that it violates the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits the Legislature from enacting “special laws” that grant special privileges to specific businesses.

But Judge Michael Herrod disagreed and declined to block the law from taking effect, though he acknowledged the legislation — referred to as the “Axon bill” by Hobbs and lawmakers — was passed at the company’s behest after a long lobbying effort.

“Of course, the brightly blinking sign in this case is that the Axon bill was clearly triggered by the zoning situation for Axon and intended to allow Axon to build its international headquarters in Scottsdale,” Herrod wrote.

But, he concluded the letter of the new law does not single out Axon for special treatment.

Instead, it blocks cities with populations of 200,000 to 500,000 people from stopping businesses from building hotels and apartments as part of a new international headquarters, as long as the headquarters meets certain requirements. Those requirements include employing at least 1,000 full-time employees at wages at an above average wage.

“Because the statute can apply in other cities, it is not a special law,” Herrod wrote.

The judge also found that the Legislature identified a legitimate problem it was trying to solve — another consideration when determining whether a bill violates the constitutional prohibition against special laws.

In this case, that problem was the state’s ability to attract businesses and international headquarters.

“The Legislature has made a determination that to address this problem, cities of middle-sized populations are likely candidates to attract such headquarters,” Herrod wrote.

The judge also rejected the argument that, by passing the new law and negating the referendum, the Legislature was undermining the public’s ability to weigh in on the project.

Herrod said TAAAZE or other groups could have used the state’s referendum process to try and put the Axon bill on the ballot for approval, but they did not pursue that option.

Despite the ruling, Axon’s new campus is still on hold for the time being.

That’s because Herrod paused his own order to give TAAAZE the opportunity to appeal. He also blocked Scottsdale from issuing building permits or other applications from Axon while the order is on hold.

TAAAZE Chairman Bob Littlefield, a former Scottsdale councilman and current council candidate, said the group is considering its options, including appealing Herrod’s ruling to a higher court.

“Neighborhoods and voting rights are at stake and that’s why we are looking at all our options including an appeal,” Littlefield said in a statement. “Axon’s lawyers and lobbyists may have won this round, but the fight is not over.”

A second lawsuit filed by the group, which is challenging the agreement signed by Axon and the city after the law passed, is still pending in court and is expected to go to trial in June.