Tenants who receive federal housing assistance will not be discriminated against simply because they receive that assistance.

Tucson feels the first tangible results of the 2022 midterm elections. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays city official said renters’ “income source” protections are kosher under state law, overturning his one of the final acts of his Republican predecessor.

In December, AG Mark Brnovich threatened the city that the ordinance violated state law and would withhold Tucson’s shared sales tax revenues if the rule went into effect.

The city suspended the new law and asked Democrat Mayes last month whether the ruling was valid. She said no and it’s a whole new world for Tucson and Southern Arizona.

Elected leaders of the City of Tucson and Pima County report to Democratic voters. Arizona’s governor, attorney general, and Congress have long represented Republican voters who prefer the absence of powerful progressives.

Arizona can’t (yet) control the outcome of local elections, but it can override common rules and regulations passed by left-leaning city councils and oversight boards.

they’ve been doing it for years. In the 1990s, the state legislature stole a trendy new land use ordinance from Pima County and changed the law, making the move illegal under state law. Congress and the AG’s office have taken turns banging Tucson’s gun laws.

Brnovic’s decision on the housing ordinance represents a farewell torpedo fired at Tucson’s state ships. But the new AG Mayes hit the self-destruct button before the fish in the water got home.

The ordinance is safe for now, but challenges may come as the Arizona Multifamily Association considers legal options.

“The Tucson Revenue Sources Ordinance was illegal when it was enacted, was found illegal by the Office of the Attorney General after a thorough investigation, and remains illegal today,” said executive director of Landlord Lobbying Group. “Under this ordinance, families who have invested in real estate are losing control of their property. It’s unfair and, more importantly, illegal.” We will continue to work to protect their property rights.”

OK, turn it off, Courtney. Landlords are completely free to reject tenants based on gross income, credit score, or other intangible reasons.

If this is an actual burden on the landlord, I might be more excited about it.

ordinance

The story of the Sources Act is very emblematic of Tucson’s eternal struggle against Phoenix and the state’s changing nature.

In the fall, the city council passed an amendment to the Fair Housing Ordinance that would prohibit landlords from denying applicants simply because they are recipients of federal rental vouchers offered under the Section 8 program.

It’s worth pointing out that Tucson has a housing crisis. Governments have long tried to address this issue. At one point, federal housing subsidies came in the form of building “projects.”

It didn’t work for several reasons. The Ronald Reagan administration stopped building homes and began handing out Section 8 vouchers to help renters find their own rental properties in the private sector (the program was then severely underfunded). bottom). Money used to build government apartments went to private landlords instead.

If society stopped building local housing and the private sector stopped accepting federal vouchers, governments would be unable to provide the housing assistance they provided.

More people are expected to live on the streets, especially as rents rise by 30-40% over the next few years.

Well, the city thought the source of income protection was what they could do. So done.

Sometimes you have to exhale into the wind…or some other verb.

Brno vs Mayes

Then came Speaker of the House Ben Thoma. The reason Ben Thoma’s name doesn’t sound familiar is because no one in Tucson ever voted for him. He’s a Phoenix Republican.

But it was he who lodged a complaint with Brnović.

Brnovic handed it over to one of his former staff lawyers, who was also a political appointment. Michael Catlett rose as a career attorney at AG and wasn’t one of those people protected by the Civil Service Act. When Bruno went, he went.

Toma argued that a 1992 amendment to the 1991 state law required all housing ordinances to be enacted before January 1, 1995.

1995 will be next in 2022 if you attended a lower Arizona charter school.

Catlett therefore decreed that the ordinance be null and void.

He argued that “if Congress intended to authorize a fair housing ordinance, such as one that would amend the code structure, it would be perfectly possible for Congress to draft[a1992law]accordingly.” It was,” he wrote.

Catlett also determined that the sources of income protection were not equivalent to the Federal Fair Housing Act. I couldn’t.

Then something strange happened on Tucson’s road to venting frustration. The Democrat came to power in his three statewide posts in Arizona. His 280-vote win for Mayes was still a win.

There was a new lady in law in the AG office and she was not indebted to a man like Toma.

The Tucson Attorney’s Office therefore asked Mays to review the ordinance, but Thoma protested that the AG’s office had no authority to reverse the ruling.

maize A ruling was issued in her name this week. I mean, either she wrote the opinion herself, or someone else wrote it, but she just put Joan Hancock on it because she’s still digging into what “Attorney General Christine Mays” looks like in print. is.

Mayes took the same approach as Catlett, but with a twist. She found her Brnovich staff wrong in claiming that the law prohibited any amendments or amendments to the housing ordinance after January 1, 1995.

“If Congress intended to ban such adaptations, it would have clearly stated its intentions,” Mays wrote.

Look what she did there. Catlett ruled that no such authority exists because state law does not specifically give cities or towns the power to amend their housing laws. Since it is not prohibited, it was determined that such a prohibition does not exist.

God. I love lawyers.

This is a debate about whether lack of evidence is proof of absence. What is not in law? A person can read the law and say, “I didn’t say you can’t,” and consider the act legal. Another person (probably a policeman) could say, “I didn’t say anything you could do,” and determine that person is breaking the law.

Also, the idea that the law cannot be changed after a certain date does not work. Does anyone think Thoma will complain if Tucson withdraws its fair housing protection?

hell no.

Mays followed a similar path in denying Catlett’s finding that the Tucson ordinance was not “substantially equivalent” to federal and state law.

Brnovich’s office determined that the source of income did not exist anywhere under state law or federal protection. Therefore, Tucson’s Law is invalid.

Mayes finds that nothing in state law prohibits Tucson from enacting ordinances, and that federal law includes cases to protect foster parents and families receiving child support.

It’s a bit of a judgment call, but there’s a reason our legal system includes people called “judges.”

author is important

It makes me all weird about citing sources when I wonder who said or wrote what I’m quoting.

The bigger problem is that this issue could end up in court. So I hope Mayes didn’t write the opinion himself.

She won the election because she is a great jurist. Her significant legal experience is working with the Arizona Corporate Commission. I have no doubts about her talent as a lawyer. lawrence tribe again Michael Lutig.

That’s good. Not why voters chose her. She won over being seen as a much more responsible law enforcement officer than her Trump-loving, election-denying opponent, Abe Hamade.

Calling it “illegal” means LeVinus should consider it ripe for legal challenge. Laws are not safe forever.

To stand up to the court system, the opinion had to be made by one of her subject matter experts. Mayes should run the department to solve the problem instead of writing a 27-page legal opinion.

elections have consequences

Anyway, it matters who wins. The entire interpretation of the law can change.

Any? perhaps. Whimsical? necessarily.

All legal powers involve a personal approach to law, determining how it is interpreted and defining what law is for all of us.

What does this tell us about Mays’ approach to law? I have to be honest. It reads to me: “The Tucsonians helped elect me. I’m on their side in a close call.”

This is usually not the best practice for law enforcement. The law cannot be defined as driving my political opponents into a cynical outrage, while since Terry Goddard resigned as Attorney General in his 2011, anyone on the left of John McCain has made these is on the losing side of the verdict.

Those of us who aren’t on the right can understand if Thomas and Levinas feel trolled by Arizona elected officials exercising power against their political preferences.

In the words of the great legal scholar W. Axl Rose, “Welcome to the jungle. Fun games await.”