Opinion ID: 1429543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standing of the attorney general

Text: CDC argues that the Attorney General lacks standing to maintain this action. In response, the Attorney General contends that he has standing under three separate theories: his obligation to uphold the Arizona Constitution, and two statutory groundsA.R.S. § 12-2041 (action in quo warranto), and A.R.S. § 35-212 (challenging the illegal expenditure of funds). We will separately analyze each of these three contentions in the context of this particular case after discussing the general role of the Attorney General in Arizona.
In Arizona, the Attorney General has no common law powers; whatever powers he possesses must be found in the Arizona Constitution or the Arizona statutes. Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement Sys. v. Corbin, 161 Ariz. 348, 354, 778 P.2d 1244, 1250 (App.1988), approved in part, 161 Ariz. 364, 778 P.2d 1260 (1989); see also Arizona State Land Dep't v. McFate, 87 Ariz. 139, 142, 348 P.2d 912, 914 (1960). By statute, the Attorney General has been authorized to bring an action in quo warranto against any person who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office ... within the state. A.R.S. § 12-2041(A). An action in quo warranto is an extraordinary proceeding, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502, 53 S.Ct. 721, 729, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933). Additionally, the Attorney General has statutory authority to bring an action to prevent the illegal payment of monies or to recover monies alleged to be illegally paid. A.R.S. § 35-212. Arizona also has long considered the Attorney General to be a key player in litigation concerning a statute's constitutionality. A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must serve the Attorney General, who is entitled to be heard. A.R.S. § 12-1841 (Supp.1996). The statute imposing this requirement was recently amended to provide that if the Attorney General is not timely served with the proper notice, the court, upon motion by the Attorney General, shall vacate any finding of unconstitutionality and shall give the attorney general a reasonable opportunity to prepare and be heard. Id. Although A.R.S. § 12-1841 gives the Attorney General broad power to argue in support of the constitutionality of a statute, it does not mandate him to do so in all cases. He clearly retains discretion not to intervene if he concludes it is appropriate to do so. The Attorney General must support and defend the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. § 38-231(G) (1996), which is superior to state statutes.
The Attorney General first argues that, as the state's chief legal officer, he has a duty not only to represent his client agencies, but also the duty to uphold the Arizona Constitution. He states that he has a recognized affirmative duty to challenge statutes. Therefore, he argues, this duty to uphold the constitution gives him an independent ground for standing. To the extent the Attorney General is arguing that the Arizona Constitution itself grants him independent standing here, we disagree. The Arizona Constitution creates the office of Attorney General but does not undertake to describe the duties of the office. Instead, it merely provides: The powers and duties of ... [the] Attorney General ... shall be as prescribed by law. Ariz. Const. art. V, § 9. Although the court of appeals held that the Attorney General has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, that holding was based on a statutory, rather than a constitutional, foundation. See Fund Manager, 161 Ariz. at 354, 778 P.2d at 1250. In Fund Manager, the Attorney General brought an action under A.R.S. § 35-212, challenging the illegal expenditure of funds. Id. at 352, 778 P.2d at 1248. The Attorney General contended that the statute which exempted certain contracts for goods and services from the procurement code was unconstitutional. Id. at 356, 778 P.2d at 1252. The Fund Manager challenged the Attorney General's standing contending that, because no statute specifically authorized the Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute, he could not do so. Id. at 353, 778 P.2d at 1249. The court held, however, that the Attorney General had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute because the challenge was in support of his statutory authority to prevent the improper expenditure of public funds. Id. at 354, 778 P.2d at 1250. We therefore conclude that the Arizona Constitution does not itself give the Attorney General standing to maintain this action. Standing must be linked to some statutory basis.
What we have already said leads necessarily to a conclusion that the Attorney General has standing to maintain this action under section 35-212. Under that statute, the Attorney General in his discretion may bring an action in the name of the state to enjoin the illegal payment of public monies. A.R.S. § 35-212(A). The Attorney General may use any ethically permissible argument to prevent the illegal payment of public monies, including the argument that the statute granting the power to spend the money is unconstitutional. See Fund Manager, 161 Ariz. at 354, 778 P.2d at 1250. We have previously discussed the Fund Manager case in rejecting the Attorney General's contention that the Arizona Constitution independently authorizes him to maintain this action. See supra, Standing of the Attorney General, part II. But although Fund Manager is against the Attorney General's contention on that point, it supports his argument under section 35-212(A). In Fund Manager, the Attorney General, Robert Corbin, brought an action against a law firm under A.R.S. § 35-212 for the repayment of funds alleged to have been illegally paid to the law firm by the Fund Manager. The Fund Manager had not complied with the provisions of the procurement code before hiring the law firm; therefore, the Attorney General alleged that payments to the firm were illegal expenditures of public funds. Fund Manager, 161 Ariz. at 352, 778 P.2d at 1248. The Legislature then passed SB 1098, which purported to retroactively exempt from the procurement code payments which had been approved by the Fund Manager. Id. at 352-53, 778 P.2d at 1248-49. The Attorney General contended that the payments were still illegal because SB 1098 was unconstitutional. Id. at 353-54, 778 P.2d at 1249-50. The Fund Manager argued, as does CDC here, that the Attorney General did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 1098. Id. at 353, 778 P.2d at 1249. The court of appeals, in a portion of its opinion later approved by this court, see Fund Manager v. Corbin, 161 Ariz. 364, 778 P.2d 1260 (1989), held that the Attorney General had standing, stating we are aware of nothing that would disable the Attorney General from attacking the constitutionality of an Arizona statute in the process of exercising his specific statutory powers. Fund Manager, 161 Ariz. at 353, 778 P.2d at 1249. Additionally, the court held that the Attorney General's discretionary power under A.R.S. § 35-212(A) necessarily includes the authority to press any ethically permissible argument he deems appropriate to aid him in preventing the allegedly illegal payment of public monies or in recovering public monies alleged to have been illegally paid. Id. CDC nevertheless argues that the Attorney General lacks standing under A.R.S. § 35-212 because he has not specifically challenged any particular expenditure of funds by CDC. The petition requested an order prohibiting CDC from exercising its purported powers because of the unconstitutionality of section 41-401. The primary power granted to CDC is the power to initiate and pursue legal actions. A.R.S. § 41-401(F). For this purpose, CDC may select and employ attorneys to implement the purposes of this chapter. A.R.S. § 41-401(G). Section 41-401(H) provides the funding for the attorneys hired by CDC. CDC's power to employ attorneys for litigation is meaningless without funding. We conclude that the Attorney General's request to prohibit CDC from exercising its power to litigate necessarily includes a request to prohibit payment for such litigation. This also disposes of CDC's subsidiary argument that the Attorney General did not specifically challenge the expenditure portion of the statute, as distinguished from the statute itself. Lastly, CDC argues that giving the Attorney General the broad power to challenge the expenditure of public funds based on the unconstitutionality of a statute will give the Attorney General a global mandate to sue and will defeat the proposition that the Attorney General does not have common law powers in Arizona but only statutory powers. We are unpersuaded. Had the constitutionality of the CDC statute been called into question in litigation not initiated by the Attorney General, he would have to be notified and would have an unquestioned right to participate in the litigation. See A.R.S. § 12-1841 (Supp.1996). We also note the extreme anomaly of denying standing to the Attorney General, whose office is created by the constitution, while the legislatively created CDC claims a mandate to engage, at its sole option, in any and all litigation which it believes will benefit the state.
Under A.R.S. § 12-2041, the quo warranto statute, the Attorney General may bring an action against any person who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or any franchise within the state. A.R.S. § 12-2041(A). The purpose of quo warranto is to protect the public interest by preventing one who is not entitled to an office from exercising it.... And in such action the judgment to be rendered is that the defendant be excluded from the office.... State ex rel. Sullivan v. Moore, 49 Ariz. 51, 57, 64 P.2d 809, 812 (1937); see also Garcia v. Sedillo, 70 Ariz. 192, 199-200, 218 P.2d 721, 726 (1950). If a defendant in a quo warranto action is adjudged guilty of usurping or intruding into or unlawfully holding an office, franchise or privilege, such defendant is guilty of a petty offense and shall be excluded from the office, franchise or privilege. A.R.S. § 12-2045. The Attorney General alleges that the members of CDC are unlawfully exercising their office because the legislation creating the office is unconstitutional. In this respect, this case is similar to Ahearn v. Bailey, 104 Ariz. 250, 451 P.2d 30 (1969). In Ahearn, petitioner (who was not the Attorney General) argued that respondents did not have the right to hold office as members of the Industrial Commission of Arizona because the legislation creating their positions was unconstitutional. The Legislature had changed the structure of the Industrial Commission from three to five members. 104 Ariz. at 252, 451 P.2d at 32. In so doing, the Legislature also shortened the terms of the existing commissioners, which had the effect of unseating the incumbents, thereby violating separation of powers principles by encroaching upon the authority of the executive branch. 104 Ariz. at 254-55, 451 P.2d at 34-35. The court held that because the legislation was unconstitutional, the new commissioners appointed pursuant to it were ousted and the three incumbent members were declared to be the lawful commissioners. 104 Ariz. at 256, 451 P.2d at 36. In the present case, the Attorney General seeks to prohibit the members of CDC from exercising their purported powers because CDC was created by an unconstitutional statute. Because the relief requested is within the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the quo warranto statute, A.R.S. § 12-2041, the Attorney General has standing to bring this action under it as well as under section 35-212. Having concluded that the Attorney General has standing under both statutes relied upon by him, we do not decide whether he also has standing under A.R.S. § 41-192 and 41-193 as urged by Justice Martone in his concurring and dissenting opinion because, in our view, the pleadings do not squarely place that basis of standing in issue.