Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Arizona Supreme Court Deems H.B. 2600 Unconstitutional

Posted by Dev Sethi | Apr 16, 2014 | 0 Comments

At Kinerk, Schmidt & Sethi, PLLC, our attorneys are devoted to securing our clients' futures by helping them receive maximum compensation in their injury claims, but our passion goes beyond the scope of our Tucson practice as we are equally devoted to the Arizona Constitution and the pursuit of justice.

To illustrate our passion for preserving the Arizona Constitution, our very own Ted A. Schmidt was one of the petitioners in Dobson v. State, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Arizona.

Some background on this case, in 1974 Arizona voters approved Proposition 108, which amended the Arizona Constitution and introduced merit selection to the state's judicial selection process. Proposition 108 created the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments which is made up of ten non-attorney and five attorney-members. The Commission is charged with evaluating applicants for appointment to the Arizona appellate courts in an impartial and objective manner but with a focus on merit during the selection process.

Under the Arizona Constitution, the Commission is to recommend not less than three nominees to the governor. But, in April of 2013, the legislature passed and the governor approved H.B. 2600 which would alter the state's judicial nomination process.

In Dobson v. State, attorney Schmidt, along with the other petitioners argued that H.B. 2600 conflicted with the Arizona Constitution. Instead of the Commission nominating not less than three persons for each judicial vacancy, H.B. 2600 directs the Commission to submit a minimum of five nominees, unless the Commission rejected an applicant by a two-thirds vote. It was the petitioners' argument that this requirement under H.B. 2600 fundamentally changes the selection process that was established by the Arizona Constitution.

The Supreme Court Hands Down Opinion

The case came to conclusion when the Arizona Supreme Court held that H.B. 2600 was unconstitutional because it directly conflicted with the Arizona Constitution. The Supreme Court awarded reasonable attorney's fees to the petitioners in compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

At Kinerk, Schmidt & Sethi, PLLC, we want to congratulate attorney Ted A. Schmidt for his hard work and dedication in Dobson v. State and for ultimately prevailing with the Arizona Supreme Court – we are very proud that a member of our very own legal team was a part of this memorable moment in Arizona's legislative history!

About the Author

Dev Sethi

Dev Sethi litigates and tries a wide-range of complex injury and death cases throughout Arizona. He has Martindale Hubbell's highest rating, AV, and he is listed in "Best Lawyers." Dev is also recognized as an Arizona Super Lawyer in the area of plaintiff's products liability litigation.Dev has been at the forefront of auto product defect litigation. He played a key role in uncovering the Goodyear Load Range E tire scandal and worked to hold Ford Motor Company responsible for the danger posed by their now notorious 15-passenger vans. Dev is currently representing families in product liability suits against the nation's largest corporations including General Motors, Ford, Pentair Pools and Invacare.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

Initial consultations are completely complimentary and we only get paid when you get paid. As such, we always have your case and your best interest in mind, because it’s in our firm’s best interest to do so.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.