Pima County Superior Court Judge Michael Miller has ruled that state law trumps the city of Tucson charter when it comes to having non-partisan, ward-only elections.

Republican Jonathan Paton pushed the law last year as a member of the state Senate.

The City of Tucson filed a suit claiming that the city should have the right to hold elections as it sees fit.

Here’s a copy of Miller’s ruling: C2009_7207_City_of_Tucson_v_State_Order_and_Judgment.pdf

This article appears in Mar 4-10, 2010.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

6 replies on “Tucson Loses Court Fight Over Partisan Elections”

  4. Carol, the latest voter registration numbers posted on the Pima County Recorder’s Office Web site show that Ward 2 has 17148 Democrats and 16486 Republicans. How exactly is that Republican-dominated? Rodney won his ward in 2007.

    I suspect, however, that he won’t be seeking re-election to Ward 2.

    Red Star, that’s a good question! Overall, I guess it means that campaigns should be less expensive since candidates don’t have to run citywide; candidates will have to play to different constituencies since they will be appealing to all the voters of the ward rather than the hardcore primary voters in the Democratic Party; and we’ll have to relearn how voters behave because they’ll be engaged in a whole system–which could change again, depending on what charter changes come forward in the months ahead.

    Also, the state can run roughshod over local control.

    Unless, of course, the city appeals and the decision is overturned.

  5. Thanks Jim for the clarifications. Can you post the results on Fred Ronstadt’s past two wins in Ward 6, as well as the Nov. 2009 ones for Councilmember Steve Kovachik?

  6. “Unless, of course, the city appeals and the decision is overturned”
    (Posted by Nintz on March 4, 2010 at 8:16 PM)

    Any insight, any inside on what the Old Pueblo will do in response?

    “Also, the state can run roughshod over local control.” (Posted by Nintz on March 4, 2010 at 8:16 PM)

    By “the state” you mean AZ Attorney General, correct?

    Please advise…

Comments are closed.