A local woman’s desire to stage a small rally opposing a 2011 town bond proposal has led to a possible overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona finalized its decision earlier this month that a key component of Arizona’s campaign finance regulations is unconstitutional.

This decision is based on a complaint originally filed by Dina Galassini against the Town of Fountain Hills.

The court’s judgment holds that Arizona’s definition of “political committee” is unconstitutionally vague and that regulations on small political committees are unconstitutionally burdensome.

With the definition of political committee being ruled unconstitutional, laws that apply to political committees – most of Arizona’s campaign finance laws – cannot be constitutionally enforced.

The case began in October 2011 when Galassini sent an email to 23 friends and neighbors asking them to join her in two sign-waving protests against a $30 million road bond package up before voters that November.

The proposal was eventually defeated at the polls.

“Little did she realize,” District Court Judge James A. Teilborg noted, “that she was about to feel the heavy hand of government in a way that she never imagined.”

Galassini’s email found its way to election officials at Town Hall, who notified her that Arizona law prohibited her from organizing such a protest or speaking as a group unless she first registered with the town as a political committee.

By registering, she would need to abide by the legal requirements imposed on political committees by state law.

The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, assisted Galassini and went to court and won the right to hold a protest just prior to the 2011 election.

This judgment against the state follows an earlier judgment agreed to by Fountain Hills.

Town Attorney Andrew McGuire said the town had stipulated to a dismissal of the case and is no longer a defendant in the litigation.

“I was stunned to learn that I needed to register with the government,” Galassini said. “All I could think was, ‘How can this be allowed under our First Amendment?’

“I am glad the judge ruled that these laws are unconstitutional and that this decision protects other citizens from these abusive and vague laws that were created to chill their speech.”

Institute for Justice attorney Paul Avelar said the ruling is a victory for those wanting to speak out.

“In this country all you should need to speak about politics is an opinion, but thanks to campaign finance laws, even the smallest groups of friends and neighbors need lawyers and accountants, too,” Avelar said.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not allow laws that chill speech through vague requirements and heavy administrative burdens.

“Until now, however, Arizona persisted in enforcing such laws.”

Avelar describes Arizona’s definition of political committee as a single sentence of 183 words with numerous confusing clauses and sub-clauses.

Throughout the litigation of this case, lawyers and election officials for various governments offered conflicting interpretations of the definition, and the judge could not make sense of the statutory language, according to Avelar.

“Such vagueness is not permitted by the Constitution,” Teilborg ruled.

He said both speakers and government regulators are forced to guess at the meaning of the law and often differ as to how it should be applied.

“As campaign finance regulations have proliferated, courts across the country have to wrestle with laws like these,” said IJ attorney Diana Simpson.

“The First Amendment’s protection of free speech and association is hollow unless courts meaningfully engage with the real-world effects of these laws.”

The state may now appeal Teilborg’s judgment, but in the meantime officials have a lot of issues and questions as a result of the ruling.

There are challenges to campaign finances from the most recent election cycle that the Secretary of State’s Office is looking into.

Some of those complaints have been referred to the Attorney General’s Office.

Courts may not have heard the last of this case.

Tom Collins, executive director for the Clean Elections Commission, has told the media he sees the primary effect being on ballot measures and not individuals who are candidates for office.

As for the town’s role in the affair, McGuire said the town was “dragged” into the Galassini litigation because of a single communication in which Town Clerk Bev Bender told Galassini about the existence of a state law relating to registration of political groups.

“That notice triggered a lawsuit about the validity of the state law,” McGuire said.

“The town found itself in the middle of a battle between the Institute for Justice and the state about the validity of the law.

“The town felt it had ‘no dog in the fight’ but was unable to convince the Institute for Justice that the town should be dismissed.

“In order to avoid spending additional time and resources continuing in litigation over what the town believed to not be its fight, the town’s insurer negotiated a stipulation in which the town admitted enforcing a state law that was later determined to be invalid.

“Although the town believes it did nothing wrong, it was determined to be in the best interests of the town to accept the stipulation as a means to get out of the middle of a fight that was not its own.”