September 02, 2008
Federal District Court in Arizona Denies TRO Barring Matching Funds Portion of Arizona Public Financing System, But Legal Analysis Says Law is Unconstitutional*
* The title of this post and the substance of this post has been corrected. The original post said that the TRO had been granted. It was denied in a balancing the hardship analysis. On the law, the judge believed the matching provision of the law is unconstitutional. Sorry for the error. The original post appears below.
I have posted the court's order here. There is an upcoming hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction, which could then be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The district court relied upon the Supreme Court's opinion in FEC v. Davis, reading it in a way I suggested was a likely reading by a court hostile to such regulation.
Given that this is just a ruling on a TRO in Arizona, it is certainly not binding on a New Jersey legislator in deciding whether or not to keep the matching program on the books. But it is a nice fig leaf.
More on the Arizona ruling here.