PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.C.M. 2002
(Reference to printed bill)
Page 1, strike lines 3 through 8, insert:
"Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects the right not to be associated with certain beliefs. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977); and"
Line 10, after "Court" strike remainder of line
Strike lines 11 through 14, insert "upheld a claim by California mandatory bar members that the use of compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities with which the members disagree violates the members' First Amendment rights. The Court further found that compulsory dues could not be used for activities that are not germane to the purpose for which compelled association was justified. In the case of the mandatory bar, the Court found compelled association justified only by the state's interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services. Furthermore, only if challenged expenditures were "necessarily or reasonably incurred" for those limited purposes could they be funded with compulsory dues; and
Whereas, the Court in Keller also saw "a substantial analogy between the relationship of the State Bar and its members . . . and the relationship of employee unions and their members": and
Whereas, "[c]ompulsory subsidies for private speech are . . . subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny and [are rarely] sustained . . . ." Knox v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2282 (2012); see also Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618, 2639 (2014). In Knox, the Supreme Court also said that "in the rare case where a mandatory association can be justified, compulsory fees can be levied only insofar as they are a "necessary incident" of the "larger regulatory purpose which justified the required association"; and"
Line 15, strike "an integrated" insert "a mandatory"; after "bar" insert "association"; after "influence" insert ", takes policy positions"
Line 18, strike "state" insert "mandatory"
Page 1, line 19, strike "behaviors" insert "activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services"
Line 20, strike "its" insert "their"
Between lines 21 and 22, insert:
"Whereas, despite Keller's narrow boundaries of regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services, the State Bar of Arizona has adopted Article XIII of its bylaws to set its own criteria of political or ideological permissibility. Thereby, it has unilaterally deemed itself "Keller-pure" to consequently fund political speech, including lobbying and electioneering, and ideological activities with compulsory member dues so long as it alone says the expenditures are "reasonably related" to, among others, "matters relating to the improvement of the functioning of the justice system" or to "increasing the availability of legal services to the public" or "any other activity authorized by law"; and"
Line 28, after "Arizona's" insert "judicial"
Strike lines 33 through 35, insert:
"Whereas, the process to determine how the State Bar of Arizona spends member dues in reference to political activity lacks transparency; and
Whereas, to the extent provided by the Constitution of Arizona, all regulatory functions relating to the practice of law, including the regulation of attorneys in this state, are within the authority of the Arizona Supreme Court."
Between lines 40 and 41, insert:
"2. That the Arizona Supreme Court establish improved transparency measures with respect to the practices and policies of the State Bar of Arizona in spending member dues."
Renumber to conform
Amend title to conform