Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 16

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-959

Inflationary and other adjustments of dollar values

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

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop 105 applies)

 

A. Every two years, the secretary of state shall modify the dollar values specified in the following parts of this article, in the manner specified by section 16-905, subsection H, to account for inflation: section 16-941, subsection A, paragraph 2 or subsection D; section 16-942, subsection B; section 16-945, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2; section 16-948, subsection C; section 16-955, subsection G; and section 16-961, subsections G and H. In addition, the secretary of state shall make a similar inflation adjustment by modifying the dollar values in section 16-949, subsection A to reflect cumulative inflation since the enactment of this article. In addition, every two years, the secretary of state shall change the dollar values in section 16-961, subsections G and H in proportion to the change in the number of Arizona resident personal income tax returns filed during the previous calendar year.

B. Based on the results of the elections in any quadrennial election after 2002, and within six months after such election, the commission may adopt rules in a public meeting reallocating funds available to all candidates between the primary and general elections by selecting a fraction for primary election spending limits that is between one-third and one-half of the spending limits for the election as a whole.  For each office, the primary election spending limit shall be modified to be the sum of the primary and general spending limits times the selected fraction, and the general election spending limit shall be modified to be the same sum times one less the selected fraction.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2014 · leading case: Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain (2014) ariz · cites it 2× “¶ 17 Second, voters treated the § 16-941(B) limits differently from fixed amount limits specified elsewhere in the Act. Specifically, voters included an inflation-adjustment mechanism for monetary amounts fixed in other provisions of the Act, including § 16— 941(A)(2) and (D),…”
Green Party of CT v. Garfield (2008) ctd · cites it 3× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-959. 40 Like the Maine Act, the Arizona Act adjusts for uncompetitive districts.”
Green Party v. Garfield (2009) ctd · cites it 3× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 16-959. 67 Like the Maine Act, the Arizona *361 Act adjusts for uncompetitive districts.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 2× “¶17 Second, voters treated the § 16-941(B) limits differently from fixed amount limits specified elsewhere in the Act.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett (2014) ariz · cites it 2× “¶17 Second, voters treated the § 16-941(B) limits differently from fixed amount limits specified elsewhere in the Act.”
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.