The Arizona Supreme Court handed opponents of Prop 211, the Donor Doxing Law, a significant procedural victory this past Monday, allowing a constitutional challenge to the dangerous donor disclosure law to move forward. Though not part of Center for Arizona Policy’s case, the decision allows a constitutional challenge to proceed on separation of powers grounds.
In its ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that legislative leaders do have the legal right to challenge the law, overturning a lower court’s decision to throw out the case. Justice Clint Bolick, writing for the 5-2 majority, recognized that lawmakers have “inalienable power” within the legislative domain, making their legal claim that Prop. 211 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to an executive agency ready for judicial review.
The Court ruled solely on the standing issue, and did not address concerns about donor privacy in this procedural ruling.
Justice Bolick stated in the ruling, “The legislative power belongs solely to the Legislature and the people. If it is given away, in whole or part, it presents an institutional injury.”
Proposition 211, passed in 2022, requires organizations spending more than $50,000 on campaigns to reveal donors contributing over $5,000. Yet it conveniently exempts powerful left-leaning interests including big tech companies, corporate media, and labor unions from these same requirements.
Last month’s assassination of Charlie Kirk starkly demonstrates why donor privacy matters. When public figures face literal gunfire for their conservative beliefs, what might happen to private citizens whose names and addresses become public through forced disclosure laws?
Former Arizona Supreme Court justice Andrew Gould, told Taylor Seely from AZCentral.com:
“[W]hat this law does is it takes people who want to anonymously express themselves through organizations that will speak on their behalf. It denies them that right. It strips them of their anonymity, and it exposes them to retaliation — from violence, to economic retaliation to social ostracism.”
The effect, Gould said, is people ”will self-censor. They will not contribute. We will have less speech.”
Our own challenge to Prop 211 continues. CAP’s case, argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11th (tragically, one day after Kirk’s murder), still awaits a ruling.
This standing decision allows the legislative constitutional challenge to Prop 211 to proceed to a full review on its merits. The Arizona Supreme Court has returned the case to the trial court for a thorough examination of the separation of powers question.
We respectfully await the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling on our own challenge, with confidence that the justices recognize the gravity of protecting private citizens from becoming targets in our increasingly volatile political climate.
ICYMI
- See how Planned Parenthood is shifting its business with several facilities closing
- See how well-funded doesn’t mean high performance in K-12 schools
- See how prenatal testing leads to eugenics, according to an extensive study
- See actor Jospeh Gordon-Levitt’s video opinion editorial in the New York Times concerning the dangers of AI bots to children and the need to choose protecting children over profits for Big Tech companies