1. SB 1487 and Related Litigation
2017 ACAA Summer Meeting
Presented by:
Mike Rankin, Tucson City Attorney
Brad Holm, Phoenix City Attorney

2. Summary of SB 1487 – AG investigation
AG to investigate any “ordinance, regulation, order or other official action adopted or taken” by a governing body of a county, city or town” upon request of a legislator that alleges the action violates AZ law or Constitution;
AG shall make a report of findings and conclusions within 30 days after legislator request, and provide report to Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, Sec of State, and requesting legislator

3. SB 1487 – AG’s report AG can make 1 of 3 findings:
No violation (no further action required)
City/Town/County action does violate AZ law
Notice to c/t/c to resolve w/in 30 days
If no cure, AG directs Treasurer to withhold and redistribute SSR
C/T/C action may violate AZ law:
AG shall file special action in AZ Supreme Court
Court shall give case precedence over all other cases
Court shall require C/T/C to post a bond equal to SSR paid in the prior 6 months

4. SB 1487 – If AG finds “Does Violate”
C/T/C has 30 days to resolve by repeal or otherwise
If not resolved, Treasurer withholds SSR:
SSR includes Urban Revenue Sharing (income tax), TPT revenues. VLT, HURF (gas tax) not implicated
Treasurer is not to withhold amounts that C/T/C “certifies” as being necessary to make any deposits or payments on debt service on bonds or other long-term obligations that were issued or incurred before the violation
If later resolved, AG directs Treasurer to “restore” the distribution of SSR

5. SB 1487 – if AG finds “May Violate”
AG “shall file” SA in Supreme Court
No requirement that Court take jurisdiction
Does require “precedence” over other cases
Court “shall require” bond
6 months’ SSR
No description of form of bond, how posted, when posted, what happens if C/T/C fails to post, or what happens to bond upon disposition of case by Supremes

6. SB 1487 – AG investigations to date
Legislator requests and AG reports are online
AG letter (not investigation) in 8/16 concluding SB 1487 applies to local actions taken prior to the effective date of SB 1487
08/16 – Snowflake investigation
10/16 – Tucson investigation
Although only 2 investigations, more threats

7. SB 1487 – Snowflake Investigation
Submitted by Rep. Boyer, but written by law firm (StateCraft) that was involved in the local dispute
Local action was council-approved SUP and Facilities Agt for MMJ cultivation facility
5 allegations:
OML violation
Zoning notice procedures
“Contract zoning”
Right of referendum
Public records access

8. SB 1487 – Snowflake AG Report
AG rejected the 5 asserted violations, b/c they require reviewing factual questions relating to compliance with purely procedural obligations that are not incorporated in an ultimate, substantive action by the town
BUT, found the Facilities Agt “may violate” AZ law by including an ad hoc tax or improper exacation.
Ultimately, Snowflake amended agreement, dealt with zoning notice issues, and AG took no further action

9. SB 1487 – Tucson Investigation
Request by Rep. Finchem alleging Tucson Code requiring destruction of city-acquired firearms violates state laws that prohibit destruction, require sale to authorized dealers
City response:
Charter city authority to dispose of property as it sees fit, without interference by Legislature
Constitutional authority to engage in business/proprietary acts in same manner as private person
SB 1487 is plainly unconstitutional

10. SB 1487 – AG Report re: Tucson
AG declines to address constitutionality of 1487
Finds Tucson Code “may violate” AZ statutes
Code conflicts with AZ statutes
Disposition of firearms “likely not” a purely local concern
Case law re: Charter authority to dispose of property limited to real property
City not making a business decision, but a political one
But: City might be right about preemption issue, so conclusion is “may violate” state law

11. SB 1487 – Litigation: AG Special Action
After AG report, Tucson chose not to repeal its Code; AG filed Special Action in Supremes
In SA, AG switched from “may violate” to “does violate” and asserted:
Issue is of statewide concern (right to bear arms; promotes public safety; regulate conduct of police; but dropped issue of city revenues)
So, state law preempts
Asked for declaratory relief; atty fees; retain jurisdiction to direct Treasurer to withhold SSR.
No bond requested

12. SB 1487 – Litigation: Superior Court
Tucson filed action in Superior Court 6 days later:
Declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief
League, Phx, Yuma as interveners
On stay while Supremes have the case
SB 1487 is unconstitutional
Art. 13, Sec. 2;
Violates taxpayer rights (due process, equal protection)
Separation of Powers
Advisory Opinions
Delegation of Legislative Appropriation Authority
Others

13. SB 1487 – Supreme Court Extensive Briefing (City, AG, Amici)
Briefs, supplemental briefs, letter briefs, responses and replies
In directing supplemental briefs, Court asked questions re:
Should Court address constitutionality of 1487 first?
Jurisdiction
Preemption/Home Rule
Constitutionality of (A) [AG investigation] and (B)(2) [Special action if “may violate”]
Bond requirement
Are provisions of SB 1487 severable?
Can Court order Treasurer to withhold SSR as a remedy?
Oral argument 2/28/17
Heard by expanded Court
No decision yet

14. SB 1487 Litigation – What’s at stake
Validity of Tucson firearm ordinance
What is the test for Charter authority v. preemption: does Charter only control for a “purely” local issue, or is it a balancing test to see if local or statewide interest is paramount?
Validity of SB 1487, and the use of threat of revocation of SSR to compel cities, towns and counties to act a certain way
More 1487-like bills on the way

15. Questions?