McComish v. Bennett
Encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona
voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections
Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. If outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive. The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano
, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer
, who was elected Governor in 2010.
filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission
. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages – otherwise known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the “goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.” According to the Goldwater Institute, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it “seeks to equalize funding.” But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Goldwater Institute that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit
unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached." In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Goldwater Institute files preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Goldwater Institute
asks 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Goldwater Institute files emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Goldwater files emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States
.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision. Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.
August 17, 2010: Goldwater Institute makes formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.
March 28, 2011: Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.
June 27, 2011: Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections
Clean elections
"Clean Elections" is a term used to describe a particular system of government financing of political campaigns, in which the government provides a grant to candidates who agree to limit their and private fundraising efforts and limit their campaign-spending.- In the United States :Clean Election...
Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. If outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive. The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano
Janet Napolitano
Janet Napolitano is the third and current United States Secretary of Homeland Security, serving in the administration of President Barack Obama. She is the fourth person to hold the position, which was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A member of the Democratic Party, she was the 21st...
, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer
Jan Brewer
Janice Kay "Jan" Brewer is the 22nd and current Governor of the U.S. state of Arizona and a member of the Republican Party. She is the fourth woman, and third consecutive woman, to hold the office...
, who was elected Governor in 2010.
Lawsuit
The Goldwater InstituteGoldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute is a Phoenix, Arizona-based conservative public policy research organization established in 1988. The president is Darcy A. Olsen. The Goldwater Institute advances public policies with emphasis on lower taxes, limited government spending, school choice, and a reduction in...
filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Arizona. Court is held in the cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott. The district was created on June 20, 1910, by 36 Stat. 557...
. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Sections 319 and of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on a candidate's First Amendment rights.-Background:Section 319 of the Bipartisan...
. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages – otherwise known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the “goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.” According to the Goldwater Institute, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it “seeks to equalize funding.” But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Goldwater Institute that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit
Ipse dixit
Ipse dixit is a Latin phrase meaning he himself said it. The term labels a dogmatic statement asserted but not proved, to be accepted on faith in the speaker....
unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached." In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
Case Timeline
August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Goldwater Institute files preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Goldwater Institute
Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute is a Phoenix, Arizona-based conservative public policy research organization established in 1988. The president is Darcy A. Olsen. The Goldwater Institute advances public policies with emphasis on lower taxes, limited government spending, school choice, and a reduction in...
asks 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Goldwater Institute files emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Goldwater files emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision. Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.
August 17, 2010: Goldwater Institute makes formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.
March 28, 2011: Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.
June 27, 2011: Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.