(Caution: 1998 Prop 105 applies)
A. Beginning January 1, 1999, an additional surcharge of ten per cent shall be imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties collected pursuant to section 12-116.01 and shall be deposited into the fund.
B. At least once per year, the commission shall project the amount of monies that the fund will collect over the next four years and the time such monies shall become available. Whenever the commission determines that the fund contains more monies than the commission determines that it requires to meet current debts plus expected expenses, under the assumption that expected expenses will be at the expenditure limit in section 16-949, subsection A, and taking into account the projections of collections, the commission shall designate such monies as excess monies and so notify the state treasurer, who shall thereupon transfer the excess monies to the general fund.
C. At least once per year, the commission shall project the amount of clean elections funding for which all candidates will have qualified pursuant to this article for the following calendar year. By the end of each year, the commission shall announce whether the amount that the commission plans to spend the following year pursuant to section 16-949, subsection A exceeds the projected amount of clean elections funding. If the commission determines that the fund contains insufficient monies or the spending cap would be exceeded were all candidates' accounts to be fully funded, the commission may include in the announcement specifications for decreases in the following parameters, based on the commission's projections of collections and expenses for the fund, including that the fund will provide monies under section 16-951 as a fraction of the amounts there specified.
D. If the commission cannot provide participating candidates with all monies specified under sections 16-951 and 16-952, as decreased by any announcement pursuant to subsection C of this section, the commission shall allocate any reductions in payments proportionately among candidates entitled to monies and shall declare an emergency. Upon declaration of an emergency, a participating candidate may accept private contributions to bring the total monies received by the candidate from the fund and from such private contributions up to the adjusted spending limits, as decreased by any announcement made pursuant to subsection C of this section.
Notes of Decisions
May v. McNally, 49 P.3d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 7× “See A.R.S. § 16-954(C). Although “the legislature need not look to an express grant of authority in order to justify an enactment,” “any exercise of legislative power is subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution.”
May v. McNally, 55 P.3d 768 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “We are asked to determine whether the ten percent surcharge on criminal and civil fines required by A.R.S. § 16-954(C) violates the First Amendment by impermissibly compelling those who pay the fines to support the speech of political candidates whom they might not otherwise…”
Lavis v. Bayless, 233 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 16-954(C). Defendant Bayless is the Secretary of State.”
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 19× “2 The legislature could have included such language in § 16-954 but did not do so. See State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz.”
State v. Rogers, 251 P.3d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “00 fine with a surcharge that included a ten percent surcharge pursuant to § 16-954(C).”
State v. Aleman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Aleman failed to include A.R.S. § 16-954(A), which included an additional 10% surcharge to be imposed on all criminal fines collected pursuant to A.”
State v. Stiefel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-703(J); a $1000 fine with a surcharge of 83%, see A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-954(0) — 1 case
State v. Rogers, 251 P.3d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“00 fine with a surcharge that included a ten percent surcharge pursuant to § 16-954(C).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-954(A) — 2 cases
State v. Aleman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Aleman failed to include A.R.S. § 16-954(A), which included an additional 10% surcharge to be imposed on all criminal fines collected pursuant to A.”
State v. Stiefel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“§ 13-703(J); a $1000 fine with a surcharge of 83%, see A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-954(C) — 5 cases
May v. McNally, 49 P.3d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“See A.R.S. § 16-954(C). Although “the legislature need not look to an express grant of authority in order to justify an enactment,” “any exercise of legislative power is subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution.”
May v. McNally, 55 P.3d 768 (Ariz. 2002).
“We are asked to determine whether the ten percent surcharge on criminal and civil fines required by A.R.S. § 16-954(C) violates the First Amendment by impermissibly compelling those who pay the fines to support the speech of political candidates whom they might not otherwise…”
Lavis v. Bayless, 233 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Ariz. 2001).
“§ 16-954(C). Defendant Bayless is the Secretary of State.”
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“2 The legislature could have included such language in § 16-954 but did not do so. See State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz.”
State v. Rogers, 251 P.3d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“00 fine with a surcharge that included a ten percent surcharge pursuant to § 16-954(C).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-954(D) — 1 case
Lavis v. Bayless, 233 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Ariz. 2001).
“§ 16-954(C). Defendant Bayless is the Secretary of State.”
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.