COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ANDY BIGGS, ANDY TOBIN, NANCY BARTO, JUDY BURGES, CHESTER CRANDELL, GAIL GRIFFIN, AL MELVIN, KELLI WARD, STEVE YARBROUGH, KIMBERLY YEE, JOHN ALLEN, BRENDA BARTON, SONNY BORRELLI, PAUL BOYER, 1 CA-SA 14-0037 KAREN FANN, EDDIE FARNSWORTH, THOMAS FORESE, Maricopa County Superior Court DAVID GOWAN, RICK GRAY, JOHN Case No. CV2013-011699 KAVANAGH, ADAM KWASMAN, DEBBIE LESKO, DAVID LIVINGSTON, PHIL LOVAS, JD MESNARD, DARIN MITCHELL, STEVE MONTENEGRO, JUSTIN OLSON, WARREN PETERSEN, JUSTIN PIERCE, CARL SEEL, STEVE SMITH, DAVID STEVENS, BOB THORPE, KELLY TOWNSEND, MICHELLE UGENTI, JEANETTE DUBREIL, KATIE MILLER, and TOM JENNEY, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent, and JANICE K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Governor of Arizona; and THOMAS J. BETLACH, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Real Parties in Interest. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the GOLDWATER INSTITUTE Clint Bolick (021684) Kurt M. Altman (015603) Christina Sandefur (027983) 500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 462-5000 [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………...……………i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….…ii INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………...……………. 1 ARGUMENT………………………………………………..………………...…...3 I. Special action jurisdiction is appropriate..…..………………..……...3 II. Legislator-Plaintiffs have traditional standing to challenge the nullification of their votes and do not seek a waiver…….…………..7 III. Jenney has standing as Statutory Private Attorney General..……….14 IV. Constituents have standing to challenge denial of representation......19 CONCLUSION……………………………………………...……………………21 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ammond v. McGahn, 390 F. Supp. 655 (D.N.J. 1975) ............................................20 Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 81 P.3d 311 (2003) .............................. 11, 13 Cave Creek Unif. Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 231 Ariz. 342, 295 P.3d 440 (App. 2013), aff’d 233 Ariz. 1, 308 P.3d 1152 (2013) ................................................................ 3 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) .................................................... 10, 12, 13 Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co., 42 Ariz. 1, 21 P.2d 914 (1933) ................................10 Dail v. City of Phoenix, 128 Ariz. 199, 624 P.2d 877 (App. 1980) .........................16 Davids v. Akers, 549 F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................20 Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 537, 760 P.2d 537 (1988) ............................................................................................................... 5 Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 414, 909 P.2d 481 (App. 1995) ................. 5 Dobson v. State, 233 Ariz. 119, 309 P.3d 1289 (2013) ....................... 10, 11, 12, 21 Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 210 Ariz. 138, 108 P.3d 917 (2005) .............. 9 Fogliano v. Brain, 229 Ariz. 12, 270 P.3d 839 (App. 2011) ..................................... 1 Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482, 143 P.3d 1023 (2006) ...................................................................................... 10, 11 Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ..............................................11 League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Martin, 219 Ariz. 556, 201 P.3d 517 (2009) ......3 Maricopa County v. State, 187 Ariz. 275, 928 P.2d 699 (App. 1996) ....... 15, 16, 19 Matter of Wilcox Revocable Trust, 192 Ariz. 337, 965 P.2d 71 (App. 1998) .........15 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) ................................ 1 ii Parker v. Merlino, 646 F.2d 848 (3d Cir. 1981) ......................................................20 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) .......................................................................12 Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 961 P.2d 1013 (1998) ..................................................20 S. Pacific Co. v. Cochise Cnty., 92 Ariz. 395, 377 P.2d 770 (1963) ......................... 8 State v. Block, 189 Ariz. 269, 942 P.2d 428 (1997) ............................. 17, 18, 19, 21 State Comp. Fund v. Symington, 174 Ariz. 188, 1848 P.2d 273 (1993).................... 3 Tobin v. Rea, 231 Ariz. 189, 291 P.3d 983 (2013) .................................................... 6 Turken v. Gordon, 220 Ariz. 456, 207 P.3d 709 (App. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 223 Ariz. 342, 224 P.3d 158 (2010) ......................................................16 Statutes A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4) .......................................................................................... 7 A.R.S. § 35-212(A) ..................................................................................... 14, 15, 18 A.R.S. § 35-213 ..................................................................................... 14, 15, 16, 19 A.R.S. § 36-2901.08...................................................................................... 4, 13, 18 Other Authorities Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction 108 (3rd ed. 1999) ..................................11 Rules Ariz. R. Civ. P. Spec. Act. 3(b) .................................................................................. 7 Ariz. R. Civ. P. Spec. Act. 7(e) .................................................................................. 6 Constitutional Provisions Ariz. Const. art. II, § 32 ............................................................................................. 9 Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 22(D) ...................................................................................... 9 iii INTRODUCTION While paying lip service to keeping politics out of the courtroom, see, e.g., Response at 1 (hearing claims would “lure judicial intervention into a political debate”); id. at 32 (recognizing standing would “expose[] courts to being perceived as political bodies”), Respondents actually seek to answer jurisdictional and constitutional questions by reference to political prescriptions in favor of transforming Arizona’s Medicaid program. See, e.g., Response at 32 (“Court should not . “entertain[] political challenges to a piece of legislation that has significant humanitarian and economic ramifications for Arizona”). 1 They employ hyperbole and irrelevant “material facts” about the new Medicaid program to 1 Respondents’ “statement of material facts” is replete with misleading exaggerations and inaccuracies. Their vague, bald assertions about the availability of “affordable health insurance” outside state programs, Response 10-11, are immaterial to the question of whether Petitioners have standing. Moreover, Respondents’ proffered reason for adopting the new Medicaid program – to fund a previous program that was scaled back, Response at 9 – overlooks the fact that Medicaid expansion vastly exceeds any previous coverage, extending to “the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the [federal] poverty level.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2606 (2012); (Petitioners’ App. 4 ¶ 48.) Regardless, a desire to reinstate a prior program and expand Arizona’s government health insurance coverage is wholly irrelevant to the jurisdictional and constitutional issues at bar. This is especially true, given that the voters chose to apply Proposition 108’s supermajority requirement to all revenue measures, even when “respond[ing] to emergency situations, court directives and federal requirements,” or when dealing with programs “for the poor.” (Petitioners’ App. 3 ¶ 55; App. 8 at 46.) As Respondents acknowledge, this Court has explicitly refused to direct the legislature to fund health insurance programs. See Response at 9 n.5 (citing Fogliano v. Brain, 229 Ariz. 12, 19, 270 P.3d 839, 846 (App. 2011)). 1 resolve the purely legal standing inquiry, Response at 8-14, and urge the Court to scale back Arizona standing jurisprudence to such a degree that critical issues of statewide importance will evade review. In short, Respondents ask this Court to permit a simple majority of legislators to vote to ignore a constitutional supermajority requirement (Proposition 108) whenever doing so is politically convenient, and render such a violation of the Constitution immune to legal challenges. And they pervert Petitioners’ desire for their day in Court – the same opportunity Arizona courts have given similarly situated plaintiffs in prior cases – into a demand to open the courts to anyone with a political axe to grind. See, e.g., Response at 1 (“If Petitioners have standing to challenge H.B. 2010, it is difficult to imagine a law enacted by the legislature that cannot be challenged by individual legislators and constituents generally”); id. at 32 (recognizing standing “would open the door for future challenges brought by a minority of legislators who voted against any bill” and “exposes courts to being perceived as political bodies”). Petitioners simply ask this Court to enforce the significant voter-enacted constitutional provision designed to curb the power of legislative majorities, and the Private Attorney General Statute, by accepting special action jurisdiction and reversing the trial court decision on standing. 2 ARGUMENT I. Special action jurisdiction is appropriate. Both the standing and constitutional