Litigation

Editorial: High Court ?Bushwhacked? AZ Reform

By Peter Hardin

Another Connecticut newspaper, The Hartford Courant, has decried a Supreme Court emergency order blocking distribution of taxpayer matching dollars to publicly funded political candidates in Arizona.

The Courant editorial lamented that “Connecticut-like reform” was “bushwhacked” by the high court in Arizona. Connecticut, too, has a public financing plan, and the editorial raised concern that if the Supreme Court decides to review a challenge to Arizona’s plan and issues a decision, it would have implications for Connecticut.

The editorial contended the high court acted precipitously by issuing its emergency order:

“The court didn’t need to shut down Arizona’s matching grants while it considers what to do. After all, the system has been in place for more than a decade. There is no emergency. The Supreme Court overreached in changing the rules in the middle of the campaign.”

Noting that the incumbent governor, Republican Jan Brewer, will not get $1.4 million in matching funds that she was relying on in a contest with a self-financed foe, the editorial said free speech was dealt a blow:

“The court’s radical fast-track actions give even more advantage to wealth and result in less political free speech, not more.”

At issue in Arizona is a provision that distributes additional taxpayer dollars to publicly-funded candidates if their privately-funded opponent or independent political groups exceed a spending limit set by the state. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the provision last month, and foes are seeking a reversal by the Supreme Court.

You can learn more about the Arizona case in Gavel Grab; or check out Justice at Stake’s issues page for information about public financing of judicial elections.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 18, 2010 (boomark / email).