Case Date: 07/07/2022Case Number: 1 CA-CV 21-0275Question Presented: Whether the forced sale of a Tempe condominium under A.R.S. § 33-1228, which allows a supermajority of condominium unit owners to approve the termination of a condominium complex, even over the objection of other condominium unit owners is an unconstitutional taking of private property in violation of Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 17?Decision: A.R.S. § 33-1228 is constitutional as applied only if the condominium purchaser agrees to the statute at the time of purchase.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
ARIZONA ADVOCACY, et al. v. STATE, et al.
Case Date: 09/29/2020Case Number: 1 CA-CV 19-0489Question Presented: Whether 1) A.R.S. § 16-961.A’s reference to the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditures” in § 16-901 extend the Voter Protection Act (VPA) (Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)) protections to those definitions; 2) the definition of “primary purpose” in subsection 16-901(43) and related provisions violate the VPA; and, 3) the “sole public officer” reference in A.R.S. § 16-961.A limits the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s investigative authority under the Act.Decision: Subsection 16-961.A’s reference to the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditures” in § 16-901 does not extend VPA protections to those definitions. Because SB1516’s definition of “primary purpose” neither directly nor indirectly impacts the substance of the Act, it does not run afoul of the VPA. The statute violates the VPA to the extent it limits the Commission's investigative authority under the Act.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.