Who gets to appoint the next batch of Arizona Clean Elections Commissioners after a six-year freeze, and does the appointment cycle alternate by political party or by office?
Plain-English summary
Arizona voters created the Citizens Clean Elections Commission in 1998 (Proposition 200) to administer the state's public-financing system for political campaigns. Five commissioners run the agency, with staggered five-year terms so one seat turns over each year. By statute, the governor and the highest-ranking statewide officeholder from a different political party than the governor alternate the appointments.
By late 2023, no commissioner had been replaced since 2017. All five sat on holdover terms (one of them on a second holdover). Governor Katie Hobbs (D) and Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R) wanted to make new appointments but disagreed on how. Treasurer Yee argued the cycle alternates by political party (with Republicans entitled to three of the next five because Hobbs as a Democrat made the most recent 2017 appointment). Governor Hobbs argued the cycle alternates between the governor and the highest-ranking different-party statewide official.
Attorney General Kris Mayes sided with the governor's reading. Section 16-955(D) explicitly identifies the appointing officials by office (the governor and the highest-ranking statewide official from a different political party), not by party affiliation alone. The plain text controls. Following the statutory cycle, Governor Hobbs is presently entitled to three of the next five appointments, and Treasurer Yee is entitled to two.
Two ancillary holdings: First, new commissioners step into the remaining portion of their predecessor's term, not into a fresh five-year term, because the holdover does not extend the term of the office (Graham v. Lockhart, 1939). Second, the original 1999 selection process in § 16-955(C) is structurally different from the annual cycle in § 16-955(D) and does not control here.
What this means for you
If you are Governor Hobbs or Treasurer Yee or a successor in either office
The opinion gives you a roadmap. Make appointments in sequence following the chart at the end of the opinion (Kimble's seat, Paton's seat, Chan's seat, Titla's seat, Meyer's seat). The Governor appoints to three seats (Kimble, Chan, Meyer); the Treasurer appoints to two (Paton, Titla). Each new appointee serves only the remainder of the term they step into. As successor terms come up in 2025 and beyond, alternation continues.
Comply with the other requirements of § 16-955(A) and (B): no more than two commissioners may be from the same political party, no more than two from the same county, no commissioner may have run for, been appointed to, or held public office in the previous five years. Treat the entire commission as vacant for purposes of these requirements when making the initial slate.
If you are a current Clean Elections Commissioner
Your holdover service ends when the appointing official names your replacement. The opinion clarifies that the appointing official is determined by office (governor or non-governor), not by your party.
If you are a candidate considering applying for a Clean Elections Commission seat
The seats become available when the appointing official acts. Hobbs's three seats and Yee's two seats become available immediately after the opinion. The five-year-old prior public office bar in § 16-955(B) is significant for candidates who held public office through 2019 or later.
If you are an election law attorney or campaign-finance advocate
The opinion follows plain-meaning canons strictly and rejects an "intent" or "history" argument from the Treasurer that would have read the statute to alternate by party. The footnote in para. 12 ([12] in the opinion) notes that the original gubernatorial-only 2000 appointment skewed the cycle to even-year governor appointments; the 2002-03 and 2008-09 deviations brought the cycle back. The cycle as it stands gives the governor odd-year appointments and the non-governor even-year appointments, but with Hobbs filling several at once because of the long holdover, that pattern temporarily shifts.
If you are a Clean Elections program participant or candidate
The five-year freeze on appointments did not stop the Commission from operating, since holdovers continued in office. With fresh appointments now seated, the Commission may revisit policies that may have been deferred during the holdover period. Keep an eye on the Commission's schedule for any early-2024 actions.
Common questions
Q: Why did the Treasurer think the cycle alternates by political party?
A: Because in practice, alternation between the governor and the highest-ranking different-party statewide official typically produces party alternation as a side effect. The Treasurer argued that the underlying purpose was party balance. The AG concluded that the statutory text identifies officials by office, not by party, and statutory text controls.
Q: Why does the Governor get three appointments now?
A: Because no appointments have happened since 2017, the AG worked through the alternation cycle to figure out whose turn each holdover seat is. Three of those positions in the cycle currently fall to the governor and two to the non-governor (the Treasurer as the highest-ranking statewide Republican).
Q: Can Treasurer Yee appoint a Democrat?
A: Yes. The party-balance limits in § 16-955(A) and county-balance limits in § 16-955(B) require careful slate construction, but neither appointing official is required to appoint within their own party. The AG noted that "[a]ppointments from outside the appointer's political party have therefore been common throughout the Commission's history and will necessarily remain so."
Q: How long do new commissioners serve?
A: Only the remaining term of the holdover commissioner they replace. Per Graham v. Lockhart (1939), holding over does not extend the term of the office; the new appointee picks up where the original term would have ended. So a new appointee in 2024 stepping into a seat whose original five-year term ended in 2022 serves until that seat's next regular cycle end (2027 in that case).
Q: Is this only a one-time fix?
A: For now, yes. After the initial slate is reset, alternation should resume on the regular annual cycle. As long as future officials make appointments on schedule, the cycle continues.
Background and statutory framework
The Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. §§ 16-940 to -961, was passed by voters as Proposition 200 in 1998. It established a public-financing system for state campaigns and a five-member commission to administer it. The commission's first members were chosen in 1999 under § 16-955(C), with each official entitled to one selection: the governor; the highest-ranking statewide official not in the governor's party; the second-highest-ranking statewide official in the governor's party; the second-highest-ranking statewide official not in the governor's party; and the third-highest-ranking statewide official in the governor's party. The initial commissioners drew terms ending in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
From 2000 onward, the annual cycle in § 16-955(D) governed: each year's vacancy was to be filled by either the governor or the highest-ranking statewide official from a different political party than the governor, alternating. § 16-955(I) limits each commissioner to one term and bars reappointment.
Between 2018 and 2023, no commissioner was replaced as terms expired. By January 2024, four commissioners were on first holdover terms and one was on a second holdover. In December 2023, Governor Hobbs and Treasurer Yee began correspondence about how to restart appointments, which led to the AG opinion request in late December 2023.
The opinion's principal interpretive move is to read § 16-955(D)'s plain text literally. The statute identifies appointing officials by office. The court of appeals confirmed in Secure Ventures, LLC v. Gerlach (2020) that even a longstanding "common practice" cannot displace plain statutory text. The text-by-office rule is what controls.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 16-955 (Clean Elections Commission appointments)
Cases:
- Graham v. Lockhart, 53 Ariz. 531 (1939) (term-vs-tenure distinction; holdover does not extend term)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i24-002-r23-022
- Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/%28Corrected%29%20I24-002.pdf
Original opinion text
To:
The Honorable Katie Hobbs, Governor, State of Arizona, 1700 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The Honorable Kimberly Yee, Treasurer, State of Arizona, 1700 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Question Presented
The last appointment to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission ("Commission") was in 2017. You have asked us to analyze how new appointments to the Commission should be made, and, in particular, whether appointments should alternate strictly between appointing officials in different political parties, or if appointments should instead alternate between the governor and the highest-ranking official holding a statewide office who is not a member of the same political party as the governor.
Summary Answer
Because A.R.S. § 16-955(D) provides that "the governor and the highest-ranking official holding a statewide office who is not a member of the same political party as the governor shall" make alternating appointments to the Commission, the alternation sequence must include the governor. Given the holdover status of the full current Commission, the Attorney General's Office ("Office") agrees that Governor Hobbs and Treasurer Yee may (and should) appoint new Commissioners to all five Commission seats without further delay. Based on the established alternation cycle, the Governor is presently entitled to appoint a new Commissioner for the term starting February 1, 2024. Additionally, the Governor and the Treasurer are each entitled to appoint successors for two other holdover Commissioners, with the new appointees' terms ending in accordance with the staggered-term cycles for their respective seats.
Background
A five-member Commission administers Arizona's Clean Elections program. In 1998, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, The Citizens Clean Elections Act ("Clean Elections" or the "Act"). The Act's "purpose . . . [was] to restore citizen participation and confidence in our political system, improve the integrity of Arizona State government and promote freedom of speech under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions."
A five-member, non-partisan Commission administers the Clean Elections program. A.R.S. § 16-955(C). In 1999, Arizona officials appointed five initial Commissioners for staggered term-lengths, such that one Commissioner was replaced in 2000, the next was replaced in 2001, and so on. A.R.S. § 16-955(C), (D). Beginning with the first replacement in 2000, all subsequent Commissioners have been appointed for five-year terms. A.R.S. § 16-955(D).
Commissioners may "serve no more than one term and [are] not eligible for reappointment." A.R.S. § 16-955(I). Since 2018, however, Commissioners have not been replaced as their five-year terms have ended; instead, they have remained on the Commission on a holdover basis. As of January 2024, four Commissioners are therefore serving in a holdover term and one is in a second holdover term.
Governor Hobbs and Treasurer Yee disagree about how to make new appointments to the Commission to replace the holdover Commissioners. The Clean Elections Act provides that "the governor and the highest-ranking official holding a statewide office who is not a member of the same political party as the governor shall alternate filling [Commission] vacancies." A.R.S. § 16-955(D).
In a December 20, 2023 letter to the Governor, the Treasurer characterized the Clean Elections law as requiring "the political parties to alternate in making these appointment selections." Because Governor Hobbs, a Democrat, had made the last appointment in 2017 while serving as Senate Minority Leader, Treasurer Yee believed that the Treasurer was "entitled to appoint three out of the next five selections as the highest-ranking Republican elected official in Arizona." Governor Hobbs responded that "the law is more nuanced than simply prescribing alternating appointments based on political party." Citing A.R.S. § 16-955(D), the Governor understood the law to require appointment authority to "alternate between the Governor and the highest ranking statewide official who is not a member of the Governor's party."
Analysis
Commission appointments must alternate annually between the governor and the highest-ranking state official in a different political party.
The Act does not prescribe a specific procedure to address the replacement of a Commissioner serving a holdover term. The Office nonetheless agrees with the Governor and the Treasurer that holdover Commissioners should be replaced and annual appointments should resume in a manner that adheres as closely as possible to the general appointment process established by statute.
Section 16-955(D) provides that the governor, irrespective of political party, is entitled to make alternating Commission appointments. Under the Act, the governor and other state officials populated the first five-member Commission with alternating selections in 1999. A.R.S. § 16-955(C). Although these initial Commissioners were appointed in the same year, their respective initial terms were staggered to end between January 31, 2000 and January 31, 2004. Thereafter, as each initial term ended, subsequent Commissioners were to be appointed for five-year terms, establishing a cycle in which one Commissioner would be replaced every calendar year, after having served for five years. A.R.S. § 16-955(D).
The annual appointment process from 2000 onward differs from the initial appointment process. The Act first required the "vacancy in the year 2000 [to] be filled by the governor." A.R.S. § 16-955(D). Then, the Act provides that "the governor and the highest-ranking official holding a statewide office who is not a member of the same political party as the governor shall alternate filling such [annual] vacancies." Thus, if the Governor makes an appointment one year, the following year's appointment should be made by the highest-ranking elected official from a different political party; and then the Governor should make the next appointment, and so on.
Extrinsic considerations do not support alternation by political party. The Treasurer has suggested that § 16-955(D) provides for alternation based on the appointer's political party on three bases, starting with "the original appointment structure in § 16-955(C)." But §§ 16-955(C) and 16-955(D) are different provisions for different purposes. Under the initial appointment process, the original appointments were made within a single calendar year by multiple officials, including "the third-highest-ranking" state official. Section 16-955(D), in contrast, expressly provides for future appointments to alternate with a selection by the "governor" every other year.
The Treasurer also suggests that § 16-955(D)'s "intent" was for appointment authority to alternate based strictly on political party. But as Arizona courts have often stated, "any case involving statutory interpretation . . . begin[s] with the text of the statute," and "[w]hen the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation." Section 16-955(D)'s plain text calls for alternation between the governor and another elected official from a different political party.
Further, statutory fidelity is not at odds with the Commission's bipartisan mission. The Act also provides that "[n]o more than two members of the commission shall be members of the same political party." A.R.S. § 16-955(A). Even if the timing of a gubernatorial election aligns to give elected officials belonging to the same political party consecutive appointments, that party cannot, in any event, "stack" the Commission with a majority of appointees from a single political party.
As of February 1, 2024, the Commission should include three Commissioners appointed by the Governor and two Commissioners appointed by the Treasurer.
It is the Governor's sequential turn to make the scheduled 2024 appointment. Protracted holdover service generally should never occur because the Act provides that the governor and another official "shall alternate filling . . . vacancies" on the Commission. But if an official who is required to make an appointment for a particular seat on the Commission fails to do so, and if the Commissioner previously appointed to that seat continues to serve in a holdover capacity, then that official, or his or her successor, should appoint a replacement for the holdover Commissioner.
If previous officials had made appointments as scheduled from 2018-2023, the responsibility for making an appointment to the Commission in 2024 would belong to the Governor in the alternating cycle. Governor Brewer appointed Commissioner Damien Meyer for the 2014-19 term; thus, in the alternating cycle, a non-governor official would have filled the 2019-24 term, and it is now the Governor's turn again to fill the 2024-29 term for that seat, and therefore, as of February 1, 2024, to fill three of the five seats overall.
New appointees should serve out the remaining term in their appointment cycle, not a full five years. The Office agrees that new Commissioners should serve for the remaining terms of the respective holdover Commissioners they replace, not for full five-year terms. Graham v. Lockhart, 53 Ariz. at 537 ("Since the term of an office is distinct from the tenure of an officer, the term of office is not affected by the holding over of an incumbent beyond the expiration of the term for which he was appointed; and a holding over does not change the length of the term, but merely shortens the term of his successor.").
Thus, the Governor shall appoint replacements for holdover Commissioners Kimble, Chan, and (for the term beginning February 1, 2024) Meyer. The Treasurer, as the highest-ranking elected statewide official of a different party than the governor, shall appoint successors for holdover Commissioners Paton and Titla. The balance of a 3-2 governor/non-governor appointment majority is purely a matter of timing within the alternation cycle. In 2025, of course, the appointment balance will shift back again when an official other than the Governor (presumably still the Treasurer) selects the next appointee.
Conclusion
Section 16-955(D)'s plain text compels the conclusion that Commission appointments must alternate between the governor and the highest-ranking statewide elected official who is not in the Governor's party. Thus, within the standard appointment cycle, the Governor is presently entitled to three appointments and the Treasurer is entitled to two appointments, with the appointees' respective terms to end in accordance with the regular staggered term cycles.
Kris Mayes
Attorney General