|
|
From Elections to Tattoos
What do elections and tattoo parlors have in common? They have recently been the subject of court cases in two Arizona cities for which the League has been
asked to file amicus briefs.
As has been discussed in a previous issue of Connection, one of the services the League provides is to file an amicus brief on behalf of a city or town
that is involved in an appellate case. An amicus brief is filed by a person or entity who is not a party to a case, but who may be impacted by its outcome. For
example, if a city or town is involved in a suit and the decision by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court could affect not just that city or town, but could
affect cities and towns statewide, the city or town may ask the League to file an amicus brief on its behalf.
Elections
The League recently filed a brief in the Arizona Supreme Court in support of Tucson in a case that goes to the heart of the constitutional protections that
charter cities have against the Legislature meddling in matters that are a matter of local concern. In April, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld this important
right against an attempt by the Legislature to prohibit Tucson from holding partisan elections and using its modified ward election process. The Court of Appeals
correctly stated that the bill passed by the Legislature in 2009 interfered with Tucson's authority to control its own affairs and reiterated that the
relationship of voters to their municipality is purely a local matter.
As expected, the losing party at the Court of Appeals asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case. On December 6th, the Court heard from both parties
during oral arguments held at the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale. The State of Arizona was represented by Attorney General Tom Horne and
Tucson was represented by Dennis McLaughlin from the Tucson City Attorney's Office. As is typical in appellate court cases, the Supreme Court justices asked many
questions during the almost hour-long hearing and it was difficult to gauge how the court might rule. The League's amicus stressed that a ruling against Tucson
in this case would have statewide implications and strongly argued that the constitutional protections afforded to charter cities must not be eroded. The Court
said it would issue a ruling in due course.
Tattoos
In November, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a ruling that should be of concern to all cities and towns. The Court held that the act of tattooing is "pure
speech" protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its Arizona equivalent. It went further, however, and said that because tattooing
is constitutionally protected, operating a tattoo parlor is also pure speech. The Court ruled that Mesa's denial of a council use permit to a tattoo parlor
violated the prospective permittees' First Amendment rights.
Mesa is appealing the Court of Appeals ruling and asking the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case. The League is going to file an amicus urging the Supreme
Court to hear the appeal. The outcome of this appeal could have wide-ranging ramifications for cities and towns when they make decisions as to the appropriate
location of various types of business. As Mesa states in its petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case: "Land use regulation of a variety of
businesses, from the photography laboratory to the art school or artist's studio, from t-shirt printing, to any other activity that contributes to the creation of
a form of personal expression, will be called into question..."
The League will keep you informed about both of these cases. |
|
League of Arizona Cities and Towns
1820 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602-258-5786
Fax: 602-253-3874
http://www.azleague.org
|
|
|
