The Arizona Supreme Court issued a landmark decision today allowing a constitutional challenge to Arizona's donor disclosure law to proceed, recognizing that the state constitution provides an independent source of free speech protection beyond federal law. The court held that nonprofit plaintiffs—the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and anonymous donors—had sufficiently alleged that Proposition 211 violates Arizona's constitutional guarantee of free speech as applied to them. The ruling makes clear that Arizonans who contribute to political causes don't automatically surrender their privacy rights simply because they donate money to organizations they believe in.
Proposition 211 forces nonprofits that speak about a ballot measure or mention an incumbent lawmaker near an election to disclose to the government their donors' names, addresses, employers, and donation amounts. The court rejected a broad facial challenge to the law but allowed the narrower as-applied challenge to move forward. The plaintiffs include anonymous individuals who alleged they reasonably feared harassment, retaliation, and intimidation if their identities were publicly disclosed because they supported organizations engaged in public policy advocacy. Justice Kathryn Hackett King's dissent—joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick—argued that engaging media before an election to communicate about candidates or ballot measures "is core political speech – not an abuse" and that speaking anonymously "is a principle that contributes to liberty – not an abuse."
The decision establishes that the Arizona Constitution isn't merely a mirror of the First Amendment. According to the court, Arizona judges must independently interpret the protections guaranteed by the state's Speak Freely Clause, explaining that the clause "tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause's protective scope." The court also recognized that donating to organizations for the purpose of funding policy speech constitutes protected expressive conduct under the Arizona Constitution and reaffirmed that the Speak Freely Clause broadly protects against laws that chill protected speech. Scott Freeman, Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, called it "an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure."
The case now returns to the trial court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to prove that compelled disclosure chills speech in violation of the Arizona Constitution. At that stage, they'll need to demonstrate that Proposition 211's disclosure requirements subject their supporters to threats, harassment, reprisals, or other harms that unconstitutionally burden free speech and freedom of association. The plaintiffs contend that compelled disclosure creates a substantial risk of exactly those harms and discourages citizens from participating in public debate, pointing to increasing incidents of harassment, intimidation, swatting, vandalism, and violence directed at individuals and organizations because of their political or religious beliefs in recent years. Andrew Gould of Holtzman Vogel, who argued the case, said the decision "establishes that the Arizona Constitution is an independent source of liberty" and recognizes that plaintiffs may challenge compelled donor disclosure when it chills protected expression.
The ruling reinforces a principle central to constitutional law: state constitutions are independent guarantees of individual liberty and, in appropriate cases, provide protections beyond those recognized under federal law. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision establishes an important framework for future free speech litigation and confirms that compelled disclosure laws remain subject to meaningful constitutional scrutiny under Arizona's Speak Freely Clause. Peter Gentala, President of Center for Arizona Policy, summed up the stakes: "No one should have to choose between supporting a cause they believe in and fearing harassment, retaliation, cancellation, or personal safety."