Ninth Circuit: Upholds Arizona Prop 211 Campaign Finance Law

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's Proposition 211, known as the Voters Right to Know Act, in a 2-1 decision.
• The law requires disclosure of donors who contribute over $5,000 to campaigns spending at least $50,000 statewide or $25,000 in other races.
• The court ruled that the law does not violate First Amendment free speech or associational rights, finding it narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest in an informed citizenry.
• A dissenting judge argued the law could chill political speech and donations by publicly associating indirect donors with political causes they may not support.
• The Voters Right to Know Act, approved by over 70% of Arizona voters in 2022, aims to combat "dark money" by increasing campaign finance transparency.

This ruling confirms the enforceability of Arizona's Proposition 211, requiring disclosure of large political donations, and signals a judicial willingness within the Ninth Circuit to prioritize campaign finance transparency over donor privacy and free speech challenges.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's decision, upholding the legality of Arizona's Proposition 211, widely known as the Voters Right to Know Act. In a 2-1 majority ruling, the appellate court rejected arguments that the state's campaign finance transparency measure infringes upon free speech or associational rights, or that it would stifle political expression and contributions. This significant ruling means that the law, which mandates the disclosure of substantial political donations, can continue to be enforced in Arizona.

The challenge to Proposition 211 originated from conservative advocacy groups, including Americans for Prosperity, who initiated a lawsuit in 2023 against the Citizens Clean Elections Commission of Arizona, the agency tasked with enforcing the law. They contended that the legislation chilled free speech and compelled association, violating the U.S. Constitution. After U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver dismissed their complaint, the groups filed an appeal in May 2024, leading to the Ninth Circuit's recent review and affirmation of the dismissal.

Central to the Ninth Circuit's majority opinion was the finding that the Voters Right to Know Act is narrowly tailored to achieve a specific and vital governmental objective: providing the public with accurate information regarding the sources of major campaign media spending. U.S. Circuit Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Joe Biden appointee, authored the 52-page opinion, asserting that the act imposes only a "modest burden" on First Amendment free speech rights, which is proportionate to the significant public interest it serves. Judge Sanchez, joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, a Bill Clinton appointee, highlighted a half-century of Supreme Court precedent that underscores the public's right to an informed citizenry within the political landscape and the importance of electoral transparency for safeguarding democratic traditions.

Conversely, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented from the majority. He argued that the law risks chilling political speech and donations by potentially "doxxing" individuals whose contributions might indirectly support political causes without their explicit knowledge or intent. Judge Bumatay illustrated this concern with an example: if an individual donates over $5,000 to their church over two years, and the church subsequently contributes to a political candidate, Proposition 211 could publicly identify the original donor. This, he contended, could associate individuals with political campaigns or ideas they do not endorse and had no intention of supporting, regardless of their awareness of the ultimate political use of their funds.

The Arizona Voters Right to Know Act, overwhelmingly approved by more than 70% of Arizonans in 2022, mandates that campaigns spending at least $50,000 in a statewide election or $25,000 in any other race must disclose the identities of donors contributing more than $5,000. This requirement includes some exceptions for individuals using their own funds or business income. The law was specifically enacted to combat "dark money" – political donations that are obscured through multiple intermediaries to conceal the original source, thereby enhancing campaign finance transparency in Arizona.

This ruling confirms the enforceability of Arizona's Proposition 211, requiring disclosure of large political donations, and signals a judicial willingness within the Ninth Circuit to prioritize campaign finance transparency over donor privacy and free speech challenges. While the federal challenge to the law's core provisions has been resolved, a separate aspect of the legislation has been ruled upon at the state level. The Arizona Supreme Court found that a section of the law preventing the Legislature from restricting or prohibiting enforcement actions by the governing agency was unconstitutional due to separation of powers, though the law otherwise remains in effect. A separate 'as-applied' challenge regarding free speech and donor harassment has also been revived and sent back to a trial court for further consideration.

This ruling confirms the enforceability of Arizona's Proposition 211, requiring disclosure of large political donations, and signals a judicial willingness within the Ninth Circuit to prioritize campaign finance transparency over donor privacy and free speech challenges. Lawyers advising political action committees, advocacy groups, or major donors in Arizona must ensure compliance with these disclosure requirements and be aware of this precedent when assessing similar legislation.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service