(Caution: 1998 Prop 105 applies)
A. For the purposes of this chapter, "expressly advocates" means:
1. Conveying a communication containing a phrase such as "vote for," "elect," " reelect," "support," "endorse," "cast your ballot for," "(name of candidate) in (year)," "(name of candidate) for (office)," "vote against," "defeat," "reject" or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates.
2. Making a general public communication, such as in a broadcast medium, newspaper, magazine, billboard or direct mailer referring to one or more clearly identified candidates and targeted to the electorate of that candidate(s) that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of the candidate(s), as evidenced by factors such as the presentation of the candidate(s) in a favorable or unfavorable light, the targeting, placement or timing of the communication or the inclusion of statements of the candidate(s) or opponents.
B. A communication within the scope of subsection A, paragraph 2 shall not be considered as one that expressly advocates merely because it presents information about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of three or more candidates, so long as it is not made in coordination with a candidate, political party, agent of the candidate or party or a person who is coordinating with a candidate or candidate's agent.
Notes of Decisions
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 78× “2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Legacy v. Citizens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 16-901.01(A), -941(D). ¶4 The Commission found probable cause to believe that Legacy had violated the Act and assessed a civil penalty, and Legacy requested an administrative hearing.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(A): 2 cases
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Legacy v. Citizens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A.R.S. §§ 16-901.01(A), -941(D). ¶4 The Commission found probable cause to believe that Legacy had violated the Act and assessed a civil penalty, and Legacy requested an administrative hearing.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(A)(1): 1 case
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(A)(2): 1 case
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a): 1 case
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(b): 1 case
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-901.01(B): 1 case
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“2012), CJF suggests express advocacy cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01. See CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.