Source: https://www.azag.gov/sgo-opinions/use-city-or-county-funds-educate-public-ballot-measures
Timestamp: 2016-09-28 22:10:49
Document Index: 453261010

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 15', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 35']

Use of City or County Funds to Educate the Public on Ballot Measures | Arizona Attorney General Skip to main content
HomeUse of City or County Funds to Educate the Public on Ballot Measures Use of City or County Funds to Educate the Public on Ballot Measures
Opinion No:I00-020 (R00-027)
Re: Use of City or County Funds to Educate the Public on Ballot Measures
The Honorable Chris CummiskeyArizona State Senate
Applying these principles from campaign finance law, the Legislature has prohibited cities and counties from using general fund monies to advocate for or against a measure that will be on the ballot. The only “educational”materials regarding ballot issues that are clearly permitted are those authorized by statute, such as the bond informational pamphlet, sample ballots, and publicity pamphlets. Informational materials that do not advocate for or against a measure, but are not specifically required by statute, would require case-by-case evaluation to determine whether they are, based on all relevant circumstances, materials to influence the outcome of an election in violation of statute. This analysis requires “careful consideration of such factors as the style, tenor and timing of the publication.”Stanson v. Mott, 551 P.2d 1, 12, 130 Cal. Rptr. 697, 708 (1976) (analyzing distinction between unauthorized campaign expenditures and authorized informational activities by public entity). The statutory prohibition in A.R.S. §§ 9-500.14 and 11-410 does not “bar knowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.” Id. Thus, a city or county may use its resources to respond to citizen inquiries that may concern election issues, but it must do so in a neutral manner that does not urge support or opposition to a measure. Similarly, A.R.S. §§ 9-500.14 and 11-410 do not prohibit the use of city or county facilities for non-partisan forums that educate voters about issues or candidates. Nor do they prohibit a public entity from making its buildings and facilities available to partisan groups on the same basis and conditions as other groups. Cf. A.R.S. § 15-1105 (governing use of school property); Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I86-024 (analyzing constitutional aspects of regulating political activity on public property). The statutes also provide “[n]othing in this section precludes a [city, town or county] from reporting on official actions of the governing body.” A.R.S. §§ 9-500.14(A) and 11-410(A). This provision makes it clear that if, for example, a city council or county board of supervisors proposes a measure that will appear on the ballot for the voters’ consideration, A.R.S. §§ 9-500.14 and 11-410 do not preclude the use of public resources to inform people of that official action. However, this provision must be read in a manner consistent with the general prohibition against using public resources to influence an election. Thus, a local governing body may not adopt a resolution supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum and then under the guise of “reporting on official actions”mail brochures to all residents. Any official action supporting or opposing an initiative or referendum necessarily requires the use of public resources and its purpose is to influence the election by having the public entity formally take a position on a matter that is coming before the public for a vote. Such official action supporting or opposing ballot measures, other than those the governing body itself is referring to the voters, are prohibited by A.R.S. §§ 9-500.14 and 11-410. Otherwise, any broader reading of the last sentence would create a loophole that would permit campaign activity by the public body through passing resolutions and then communicating those resolutions to the voters. Although the governing body cannot take formal positions on ballot measures, individual members of those governing bodies may express their views on public policy issues. As one court commented, “the effective discharge of an elected official’s duty would necessarily include the communication of one’s considered judgment of . . . [a] proposal to the community which he or she serves.” Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So. 2d 529, 541 (Miss. 1992). Elected officials “acting in their official capacity shed no First Amendment rights in their advocacy of policies.”Id. Although individual elected officials of cities and counties may advocate for or against matters that may be on the ballot, they cannot use public resources to support their efforts because of the prohibitions in §§ 9-500.14 and 11-410. Moreover, city and county policy- makers may use city or county resources to assess the potential impact of a proposed ballot measure on their jurisdictions, but they cannot use public resources to disseminate information about the measure in a manner that violates A.R.S. § 9-500.14 and 11-410.
Although this Opinion focuses on the statutes applicable to cities and counties, the same analysis applies to A.R.S. § 15-511(A) concerning school districts. Although the legislative history suggests the language in the current statutes was based on a former Department of Education rule, the statutory language differs from the rule. In part, the rule stated that “consistent with constitutional provisions regarding public monies, the school district may not use its equipment, materials, buildings or other resources to present or engage in express advocacy to influence the outcome of any election,” with exceptions for leases of school property under A.R.S. § 15-1105 and informational reports on overrides. See former Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R7-2-1201 (repeal effective Feb. 20, 1997). The rule also provided “nothing in this rule shall preclude school districts from reporting on official actions of the governing board or producing and distributing impartial information on elections other than school district budget override elections.” Id. The pamphlet includes: amount of bond authorization, maximum interest rate of the bonds, estimated debt retirement schedules for the proposed bond authorization, the current amount of bonds outstanding, showing both principal and interest payments and the estimated tax rates, source of repayment, estimated issuance costs, estimated tax rate impact on the average assessed valuation of both owner-occupied residential property and commercial and industrial property for the current year, current outstanding general obligation debt and constitutional debt limitation, the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued, polling location, and the hours when polls will be open. A.R.S. § 35-454(A).
The Arizona case law regarding using public resources to influence elections is limited. In Sims v. Moeur, 41 Ariz. 486, 19 P.2d 679 (1933), the Arizona Supreme Court approved the Governor's removal of certain Industrial Commission members for their use of State Compensation Fund monies to prevent an initiative repealing workers' compensation laws from being placed on the ballot and to urge voters to defeat the measure. Id. at 503, 19 P.2d at 685. The Court upheld the removal after finding the record showed inefficiency and malfeasance in office. Id. at 503-4, 19 P.2d at 685. Courts in other jurisdictions have limited public expenditures promoting or opposing ballot issues but recognized the government’s ability to provide impartial information to its citizens regarding elections. See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott, 551 P.2d 1, 130 Cal. Rptr. 697 (1976); Citizens to Protect Public Funds v. Board of Educ. of Parsippany-Troy Hills TP., 98 A.2d 673, 179-80 (N.J. 1953); Palm Beach County v. Hudspeth, 540 So. 2d 147 (Fla. App. 1989); see also Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So. 2d 529, 549 (Miss. 1992). AG Opinions Archive