Opinion ID: 783260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying rational basis scrutiny

Text: 36 Plaintiffs do not argue that § 9-101.01 fails rational basis scrutiny, and with good reason. The statute easily passes constitutional muster under that standard. As the district court correctly noted, Arizona has a legitimate state interest not only in regulating the formation of new municipalities, but also in protecting the interests of already existing municipalities. We conclude that § 9-101.01 is rationally related to that interest. As the Arizona Court of Appeals has recognized, [t]he very purpose of [§] 9-101.01 is to protect cities and towns from problems that may flow from the existence of many separate governmental entities in a limited geographical area. City of Tucson, 19 P.3d at 660 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Municipal incorporation of areas on the fringes of existing cities and towns, if left unchecked, can lead to intergovernmental conflict over resources and economic development. See, e.g., Briffault, Our Localism, 90 Colum. L. Rev. at 77 (Incorporation subtracts land and revenues from the surrounding jurisdiction and denies it to localities in the area. Incorporation on the urban fringe precludes the extension of central city boundaries to recapture middle-class residents who have moved to outlying areas.); Vaubel, Toward Principles of State Restraint, 20 Stetson L. Rev. at 16 (Limiting incorporation also furthers a state policy of reducing the proliferation of local units of government. If left unheeded, proliferation could lead to loss of effective local government....). Arizona has rationally chosen to prevent such inter-municipal conflict by giving existing municipalities a veto over the incorporation of neighboring areas. 13