Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 16

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952

Onepartydominant legislative district

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop 105 applies)

 

Upon applying for clean elections funding pursuant to section 16-950, a participating candidate for the legislature in a one-party-dominant legislative district who is qualified for clean elections funding for the party primary election of the dominant party may choose to reallocate a portion of funds from the general election period to the primary election period. At the beginning of the primary election period, the commission shall pay from the fund to the campaign account of a participating candidate who makes this choice an extra amount equal to fifty per cent of the original primary election spending limit, and the original primary election spending limit for the candidate who makes this choice shall be increased by the extra amount. If a participating candidate who makes this choice becomes qualified for clean elections funding for the general election, the amount the candidate receives at the beginning of the general election period shall be reduced by the extra amount received at the beginning of the primary election period, and the original general election spending limit for that candidate shall be reduced by the extra amount. For the purpose of this subsection, a one-party-dominant legislative district is a district in which the number of registered voters registered in the party with the highest number of registered voters exceeds the number of registered voters registered to each of the other parties by an amount at least as high as ten per cent of the total number of voters registered in the district.  The status of a district as a one-party-dominant legislative district shall be determined as of the beginning of the qualifying period.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2005–2014 · leading case: Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz · cites it 6× “In an apparent effort to “level the playing field,” the Act also originally provided that once expenditures by or on behalf of a nonparticipating candidate exceeded a publicly funded opponent’s initial funding allotment, that opponent would be given roughly one dollar for every…”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011) scotus · cites it 2× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-952 (West Supp.”
McComish v. Bennett (2010) ca9 · cites it 4× “OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. The Act establishes a legal framework within which the State of Arizona may provide public financing…”
Green Party of CT v. Garfield (2008) ctd · cites it 7× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. Unlike the Maine Act, however, the Arizona Act does not reduce a participating candidate’s general election grant in a “one-party-dominant” 41 race, but rather, gives the candidate the option to reallocate a portion of the candidate’s general election…”
Ass'n of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Brewer (2005) azd · cites it 2× “SeeA.R.S. § 16-952(C). 4 . Plaintiffs allege that: the first type of speech is treated as an expenditure of the opponent during the primary election, and a contribution to the opponent during the general election; the second type of speech is matched or neutralized only when the…”
Green Party v. Garfield (2009) ctd · cites it 3× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. Unlike the Maine Act, however, the Arizona Act does not reduce a participating candidate’s general election grant in a “one-party-dominant” 68 race, but rather, gives the candidate the option to reallocate a portion of the candidate’s general election…”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011) scotus · cites it 2× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-952 (West Supp.”
McComish v. Bennett (2010) ca9 · cites it 6× “BENNETT OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952 . The Act establishes a legal frame- work within which the State of Arizona may provide…”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 6× “1 A.R.S. § 16-952 (1998); see Bennett, 131 S.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 6× “1 A.R.S. § 16-952 (1998); see Bennett, 131 S.”
John McComish v. Ken Bennett (2010) ca9 · cites it 6× “OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952 . The Act establishes a legal frame- work within which the State of Arizona may provide public…”
McComish v. Bennett (2010) ca9 · cites it 5× “OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the "matching funds" provision of Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. The Act establishes a legal framework within which the State of Arizona may provide public financing…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952(A) — 1 case
Green Party of CT v. Garfield (2008) ctd “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. Unlike the Maine Act, however, the Arizona Act does not reduce a participating candidate’s general election grant in a “one-party-dominant” 41 race, but rather, gives the candidate the option to reallocate a portion of the candidate’s general election…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952(C) — 1 case
Ass'n of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Brewer (2005) azd “SeeA.R.S. § 16-952(C). 4 . Plaintiffs allege that: the first type of speech is treated as an expenditure of the opponent during the primary election, and a contribution to the opponent during the general election; the second type of speech is matched or neutralized only when the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952(D) — 2 cases
Green Party of CT v. Garfield (2008) ctd “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. Unlike the Maine Act, however, the Arizona Act does not reduce a participating candidate’s general election grant in a “one-party-dominant” 41 race, but rather, gives the candidate the option to reallocate a portion of the candidate’s general election…”
Green Party v. Garfield (2009) ctd “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. Unlike the Maine Act, however, the Arizona Act does not reduce a participating candidate’s general election grant in a “one-party-dominant” 68 race, but rather, gives the candidate the option to reallocate a portion of the candidate’s general election…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-952(E) — 5 cases
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz “In an apparent effort to “level the playing field,” the Act also originally provided that once expenditures by or on behalf of a nonparticipating candidate exceeded a publicly funded opponent’s initial funding allotment, that opponent would be given roughly one dollar for every…”
McComish v. Bennett (2010) ca9 “OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. The Act establishes a legal framework within which the State of Arizona may provide public financing…”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “1 A.R.S. § 16-952 (1998); see Bennett, 131 S.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz “1 A.R.S. § 16-952 (1998); see Bennett, 131 S.”
McComish v. Bennett (2010) ca9 “OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the "matching funds" provision of Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-952. The Act establishes a legal framework within which the State of Arizona may provide public financing…”
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.