## Facts

- The Arizona Constitution permits qualifying municipalities to adopt charters granting authority over local governance, including selection of governing officers.
- The City of Tucson adopted a city charter in 1929 and, under that charter, conducted city-council elections using ward-based partisan primaries followed by at-large general elections.
- In 2009, the Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. § 9-821.01 to (1) bar partisan municipal elections and (2) bar at-large general elections when council candidates are nominated by ward-based primaries.
- The amended statute conflicted with Tucson’s charter provisions governing how council members are nominated and elected.
- Tucson sued the State seeking a declaration that its charter election provisions controlled and that the statute could not be enforced against it.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the State; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals’ decision, reversed, and remanded for summary judgment for Tucson.

## Issues

1. Whether Tucson’s charter provisions governing its city-council election method control over conflicting requirements in A.R.S. § 9-821.01.
2. Whether regulation of partisan municipal elections and a ward-primary/at-large-general election structure is a matter of statewide concern permitting legislative displacement of a charter city’s election system.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 9-821.01, as amended in 2009, does not override Tucson’s charter provisions governing city-council elections.
- The Court determined that the structure and method of selecting Tucson’s governing officers is a matter of local concern for a charter city.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the superior court’s judgment for the State, and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of Tucson.

## Legal Principles

- Under Arizona’s home-rule provision, charter cities may establish their “organic law” on matters of purely local or municipal concern, and charter provisions prevail over conflicting state statutes in that sphere.
- When a charter provision conflicts with a state statute, the controlling law turns on whether the subject is a matter of local concern (charter controls) or statewide concern (statute controls).
- The method of selecting a city’s governing officers—including whether elections are partisan and whether the city uses ward-based primaries with at-large general elections—falls within charter-city authority absent a demonstrated statewide interest sufficient to displace local control.
- Legislative assertions of uniformity or general policy goals do not, without a substantial statewide connection, transform a charter city’s internal election structure into a statewide concern.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Tucson’s charter-based city-council election system governs despite conflicting state statutory amendments, reaffirming that a charter city’s choices about selecting its local governing officers are matters of local concern unless a genuine statewide interest requires otherwise.


City of Tucson v. State, 273 P.3d 624 (Ariz. 2012)