Supreme Court Rules in Favor of English

Background Briefing

Citizens’ Group Defends “Official English” In U.S. Supreme Court Case
Supreme Court Arguments Were Heard December 4, 1996

• General
• Overview
• Supporters of Article 28
• Opponents of Article 28
• The Arizona Official English Cases
• Selected Background Cases
• Counsel for the Parties

On Sept. 23, the United States Supreme Court announced a surprise in one of its most controversial pending cases: the Court refused Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods’ request to defend the constitutionality of Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution, which requires official government actions to be in English. Ordinarily, a State’s Attorney General would defend a state law’s constitutionality, but not this time. Art. 28 will be defended by Arizonans for Official English, the citizens’ group which proposed the ballot initiative which enacted the provision.

The case, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, No. 95-974, popularly known as the “Official English” or “English-only” case, was originally brought by Maria-Kelly Yniguez, who evaluated medical malpractice claims against Arizona; Yniguez (“EE-neh-gez”) could settle claims for up to $10,000 on her own. She wrote her malpractice settlement forms in Spanish “to demonstrate my belief that Arizona is a pluralistic society.” Her supervisor couldn’t read Spanish.

In 1988, Arizona voters enacted Art. 28. Yniguez sued, claiming she had a free speech right to write her malpractice settlement forms in Spanish. Federal courts agreed, striking down Art. 28 as violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in March to review the case this fall. Although the case asks whether a state declaration that English is its official language violates the First Amendment, the case also involves a broader question: can a state require its employees to carry out its policy if the employees don’t want to? Can, for example, an employee who disapproves of state policy on affirmative action or the death penalty simply ignore the policy? Or is there a constitutional lawsuit lurking in every government office?

On October 7, the Supreme Court will announce the schedule for oral arguments in the case. The Court may duck the case on procedural grounds, since Yniguez left government service in 1990 and since there is a question of whether a citizens’ group can represent the State in the Supreme Court.

Background releases and other information can be obtained from Bob Park, Chairman of Arizonans for Official English, at (520) 778-5811.

English as the Official Language: Does It Violate the First Amendment? Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 95-974

AN OVERVIEW [back to top]

On August 1, 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 259-169 to declare English the official language of the federal government, joining 23 states which have declared English their official language. This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a constitutional challenge to declaring English the official language of government.

The case, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, was filed by an Arizona state employee, Maria-Kelly Yniguez (“EE-neh-gez”). Yniguez, a first-year law student from Phoenix, evaluated medical malpractice claims brought against Arizona public hospitals. She could settle or pay claims of up to $10,000. Her supervisor, Fred Cuthbertson, could not speak or read Spanish.

Yniguez testified at trial that she often spoke Spanish with attorneys and claimants and that she drafted settlement documents in Spanish. She testified that she used Spanish on the job because “It’s kind of a solidarity thing” and “to demonstrate my belief that Arizona enjoys a pluralistic society.”

In 1987, Bob Park, of Prescott, Arizona, began an initiative drive to amend the Arizona Constitution to declare English the official language. Park’s group, Arizonans for Official English, gathered more qualifying signatures than any other initiative proponent in Arizona history, and qualified the initiative for the November 1988 ballot. After an intense political campaign, voters narrowly approved the Official English initiative, which became Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution.

Yniguez filed suit two days later. She claimed that the First Amendment gave her the right to choose the language in which she would write her government documents.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt, in Phoenix, agreed with Yniguez, and struck down Article 28 as unconstitutional. Judge Rosenblatt said government employees have First Amendment rights to choose the language in which they will perform their government jobs. First, however, Judge Rosenblatt dismissed Arizona and its officials as defendants, under the Elventh Amendment (states’ immunity from suit), holding that only the Governor could be sued.

Then-Governor Rose Mofford, a vocal opponent of Art. 28, refused to appeal the decision striking the provision. Attorney General Bob Corbin, trying to protect Article 28, asked to rejoin the case. Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park also tried to intervene to protect their initiative. Judge Rosenblatt refused both requests, and Corbin, AOE and Park appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (covering several Western states) permitted Park and Arizonans for Official English to intervene. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that initiative proponents are like legislators, who can protect the laws they propose. The Ninth Circuit, however, refused to let Attorney General Corbin back into the case, saying that once he had been let out under the Eleventh Amendment, he couldn’t get back in, even to protect the state’s constitution.

Following the decision, the Attorney General revealed that Yniguez had voluntarily resigned from her government job. Park and AOE asked the Ninth Circuit to declare the case “moot” because Yniguez could no longer represent government employees. The Ninth Circuit refused to drop the suit, however, since another government employee could take Yniguez’s place. Subsequently, a group of government employees – Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering – was allowed to join the case to prevent mootness.

On December 7, 1994, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt struck down the Arizona law. Article 28, wrote Reinhardt, violated the First Amendment speech rights of both government employees and claimants for government services. A few weeks later, however, other Ninth Circuit judges voted to withdraw Reinhardt’s opinion and have eleven Ninth Circuit judges rehear the case en banc.

On October 5, 1995, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel voted 6-5 to strike Article 28. Judge Reinhardt again wrote the majority opinion, which was almost the same as his earlier one. Judge Melvin Brunetti added a concurrence, stressing his concern that Article 28 not burden elected officials’ and candidates’ non-English speech.

Five dissenting judges would have upheld Article 28. Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez wrote the main dissent, saying that, while he might not have voted for Article 28, the provision was constitutional. Judge Fernandez said that the State of Arizona had “the right to control what it is paying for; it can control what is said by those acting on its behalf.” Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Clifford Wallace also wrote a dissent, pointing out that Article 28 did not violate the First Amendment because it was “content-neutral” – it did not restrict what was said, only the mode of speech.

Judge Alex Kozinski also dissented, noting that under Reinhardt’s theory, any government employee who disagreed with any government policy could ignore or reverse the policy without fear of repercussions. Kozinski, who immigrated to the United States when he was six years old, predicted that government employees who disagreed with affirmative action, capital punishment and other controversial government policies could now file constitutional lawsuits.

Judge Reinhardt, whose wife runs a California ACLU chapter, then wrote a separate “special concurrence” with his own majority opinion, saying “The end result of Judge Kozinski’s legal approach would be to punish people who are not as fortunate or as well educated as he – people who are neither able to write for nor read the Wall Street Journal, and indeed would have little cause to do either.” (Kozinski is an occasional columnist for the Journal and other publications.)

Park and Arizonans for Official English requested Supreme Court review of the 6-5 decision. On March 25, 1996, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case asking four questions:

1) Whether a State constitutional provision declaring English the official language of the State and requiring English to be used to perform official acts violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

2) Whether a government employee has a Free Speech right to disregard the official language of her employer and choose the language in which to perform official actions.

3) Do Park and Arizonans for Official English have standing [a constitutional legal right] to maintain this action?

4) Is there a case or controversy with respect to Yniguez [can she still remain in this case after leaving government employment in 1990]?

More than 1,000 pages of legal briefs and materials have been filed in the Supreme Court. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are expected to be scheduled for late 1996 with a decision in early 1997.

For more information, please contact Robert D. Park, Chairman of Arizonans for Official English, at 520-778-5811.

Parties to the Arizona English Case Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 95-974

There are four parties to the Arizona English case, evenly split between striking down and upholding the Arizona law. The “Petitioners” – who asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law – are Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park. The State of Arizona is a “Respondent” – against the Petitioners’ position on procedural grounds, but also asking that Article 28 be upheld as constitutional. Two other Respondents want to strike Article 28: Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering; and the original plaintiff, Maria-Kelly Yniguez. A number of organizations have filed amicus curiae – “friend of the court” – briefs in support of the parties.

WANT TO UPHOLD ARTICLE 28: [back to top]

Arizonans for Official English and Robert D. Park (“AOE”): Arizonans for Official English is an Arizona political committee, formed in 1987 to draft and promote Arizona’s Official English initiative, now Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution. Bob Park is the Chairman of AOE. Former Senator Barry Goldwater was Honorary Chairman of the AOE initiative campaign. Approximately 9,700 Arizonans contributed to AOE, and approximately 1,000 volunteers worked in the successful 1988 initiative campaign. AOE spent approximately $307,000 on the campaign. AOE has defended the constitutionality of Article 28 in the federal Yniguez litigation, and the Robles and Ruiz state cases. AOE says that Official English declarations are constitutional because: choice of language is not content (and thus not regulated by the First Amendment); the State of Arizona has the right to make policy judgements on how it will operate; and government employees do not have Free Speech rights in the words they speak for the government. Some Organizations and Officials Who Filed Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Briefs supporting AOE:

34 U.S. Representatives, including the Chairmen of the Appropriations, Judiciary, and Commerce Committees, and the Constitution Subcommittee 39 Arizona legislators, including the President of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House The State of Nebraska The Washington Legal Foundation The Pacific Legal Foundation The Equal Opportunity Foundation The Claremont Institute Several community organizations

State of Arizona: The State of Arizona and several of its officials were defendants, but the District Court dismissed them because of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Only then-Governor Rose Mofford was kept as a defendant. Then-Attorney General Bob Corbin sought to rejoin the case to protect the constitutionality of Article 28. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to let the State return as a full party. The Attorney General continued to argue that Article 28 was constitutional. The Attorney General has also participated in the state court cases, although AOE was the primary defender of Article 28. Under Supreme Court rules the State was made a “Respondent.” The State says that this case should be thrown out on procedural grounds, both because AOE should not have appealed the original decision and because Yniguez left government employment in 1990. Organization Which Filed Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief supporting the State’s Position: U.S.ENGLISH

WANT TO STRIKE DOWN ARTICLE 28: [back to top]

Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez and Jaime P. Gutierrez (“Yniguez”): Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez (“EE-neh-gez”), a first-year law student from Phoenix, evaluated medical malpractice claims brought against Arizona. She filed suit so she could write her malpractice settlement releases in Spanish. Yniguez left government employment in 1990. Jaime Gutierrez, a state Senator who opposed Article 28, has not been active in the suit. Yniguez was awarded one dollar in damages for winning her case in the District Court, but has sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees (her husband is one of her attorneys). Yniguez says that Arizona’s Official English declaration unconstitutionally restricts the free speech rights of government employees and claimants for government services. She also says that no one can appeal the decision declaring Article 28 unconstitutional because the decision only affects her and Governor Mofford.

Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering (“AACT”): Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering is an Arizona political committee, formed in 1988 to oppose the passage of the initiative creating Article 28. AACT’s membership includes current government employees and elected officials, thus lessening concerns that Maria-Kelly Yniguez’s 1990 departure from government employment moots this case. AACT members filed the Ruiz state court lawsuit. In addition to agreeing with Yniguez’s legal argument, AACT suggests that Article 28 will hamper elected officials’ speech with their constituents and candidates’ speech with voters. AACT also says that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to permit official multilingualism.

Some Organizations and Officials Who Filed Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Briefs Supporting Maria-Kelly Yniguez and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering:

32 U.S. Senators and Representatives Congressional Hispanic Caucus Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus State of New Mexico National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials American Civil Liberties Union People for the American Way National Education Association National Council of La Raza Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund Linguistic Society of America Navajo Nation Hawaii Civil Rights Commission Human Rights Watch Several community organizations

The Federal Government (As Friend Of the Court, Not As A Party): The federal government also filed an amicus curiae brief suggesting that Petitioners Bob Park and Arizonans for Official English do not have standing to defend their initiative in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General argued that the federal government does not want private citizens to continue cases it has decided to settle. The effect of this filing is to support the Ninth Circuit ruling and oppose Article 28.

Selected Positions of the Parties to the Arizona English Case Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 95-974

The “Government Speech” Doctrine: Under the “government speech” doctrine, the government can choose what it will say, as a matter of policy, and can require its employees to carry its message. Government can make reasonable choices about what to say without violating the First Amendment. Prior cases, for example, held that the government could require uniformed employees to salute the flag while in uniform and regulate signs on government property and curricula in schools. Petitioners Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park believe that a State’s to use English as its official language is a reasonable choice about what to say, so such a declaration does not violate the First Amendment. Just as the government can require its memos and contracts to be written in a particular way, the government can require that its work be done in English. In the lower federal court, the State of Arizona agreed with this analysis (in the Supreme Court, the State is only presenting procedural arguments). Respondents Maria-Kelly Yniguez and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering say that the government speech doctrine applies only to government contractors’ and third parties’ speech paid for by the government, not to government employees’ speech. They also contend that government employees’ and benefit claimants’ First Amendment rights outweigh any government rights to control its own speech, and using English discriminates against non-English-speaking citizens.

Government Employees’ First Amendment Rights: Government employees’ speech rights are much more limited than private citizens,’ but even government employees retain some free speech rights. For example, they cannot be barred from writing or speaking unrelated to their job and on their own time. But a government employer can restrict employees’ speech both to protect itself against being associated with their views and to promote the efficient and effective implementation of government policy interests. A reviewing court balances employees’ speech rights against the government’s interests in restricting the employees’ speech. Yniguez and AACT want this balancing test used against Article 28, because they say no government interests support restricting employees’ non-English speech. AOE says that the balancing test does not apply to employees’ speech on the job, and that using English protects important interests in efficiency and supervision, as well as national unity. AOE says that past government language assistance, like bilingual education and bilingual ballots, has delayed or prevented immigrants’ assimilation.

“Official English” In Government: “Official English” means the official language of government, the language used for actions which bind the government. Article 28 is an “official English” statute – only requiring the use of English for official acts; it does not affect requests for information or informal activities. Courts have uniformly rejected challenges to governments’ use of English. Yniguez and AACT say that government should use languages other than English with persons who don’t speak English well if the other languages do not interfere with government activity. AOE says that official actions should be taken in English because it would cost too much to translate all activities into the many languages used in the United States and because government language assistance programs over the last twenty years have delayed immigrants’ assimilation.

Do Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park Have “Standing” to Sue? The federal courts are prohibited from giving speculative “advisory opinions.” This constitutional limitation, known as “standing” to sue, means that every federal litigant must show individual injury which can be redressed by a favorable outcome in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court, before the State of Arizona filed its brief, asked whether AOE and Park had standing to maintain this action in the absence of the State. The State, however, subsequently filed a brief asking to vacate and dismiss the lower court opinions. Yniguez and the State of Arizona say that AOE and Park do not have standing because there is no state law giving them the right to defend their initiative. Yniguez adds that AOE was never in a position to sue her because the Governor decided not to appeal the original decision, and AOE was not a party to the original decision. The two political committees – AOE and AACT – say that AOE has standing because its initiative was voided by the lower court decision. AOE adds that it is the logical representative of the voters who adopted the initiative, and that it has lost the right to sue granted by Article 28's “citizen standing” clause. These losses, the political groups say, give AOE standing to defend its initiative.

Is This Case Moot Because Yniguez Left Government Employment? Ordinarily, only a government employee can assert the rights of other government employees. Maria-Kelly Yniguez left government employment in 1990; the Supreme Court asked whether there was still any case left as to her. Yniguez herself says that her case ended in 1990 and can’t be appealed. The State of Arizona agrees. The political organizations, AOE and AACT, however, believe that the controversy between them, and between the State and each of them, about the constitutionality of Article 28 is enough to keep the case alive. Since the Supreme Court’s decision will bind both of them, AOE and AACT say, they deserve the right to present their best case before the Supreme Court.

The Arizona Official English Cases [back to top]

Federal Court Decisions: Yniguez v. Mofford, 730 F. Supp. 309 (D.Ariz. 1990) February 6, 1990, U.S. District Court, Phoenix Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt strikes down Arizona’s Official English amendment, Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution, because it restricts the Free Speech rights of government employees who wish to use languages other than English to perform their government jobs.

Yniguez v. Mofford, 130 F.R.D. 410 (D.Ariz. 1990) April 3, 1990, U.S. District Court, Phoenix Judge Rosenblatt denies motions to intervene filed by initiative proponent Arizonans for Official English and Arizona Attorney General Bob Corbin.

Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1991) July 19, 1991, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco Judge Stephen Reinhardt permits intervention by Arizonans for Official English to appeal decision striking down Article 28. Judge Reinhardt denies request by Arizona Attorney General Corbin to intervene, permitting only a “non-party” appearance by the State to argue that Article 28 is constitutional.

Yniguez v. Arizona, 975 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1992) September 16, 1992, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco Judge Reinhardt rejects claim that case is moot because Yniguez left government employment in 1990, noting that another government employee may keep the case alive. In 1994, a group of government employees – Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering – joins the case.

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 42 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1995) December 7, 1994, amended January 17, 1995, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco Judge Reinhardt strikes down Article 28, saying it violates the Free Speech rights of government employees and of claimants for government services who may wish to have services provided in languages other than English.

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 53 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1995) May 12, 1995, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco Appeals court judges vote to withdraw Judge Reinhardt’s opinion striking Article 28, and to rehear the case en banc (eleven judges).

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995) October 5, 1995, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco En banc review panel votes 6-5 to strike down Article 28 as unconstitutional; majority opinion, by Judge Reinhardt, is almost identical to earlier withdrawn opinion. Judge Melvin Brunetti writes separately about Article 28's effect on elected officials. Judge Reinhardt also separately criticizes Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent. Main dissent, by Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, would have upheld Article 28 because the state has a right to choose policy, government employees’ can be regulated when they are speaking for the state, and there’s no constitutional right to services in languages other than English. Chief Judge Clifford Wallace separately notes that choice of language is a “mode of speech,” not protected by the First Amendment, and Article 28 is content-neutral. Judge Kozinski also dissents, noting that, under the majority opinion, any government employee who disagrees with government policy can frustrate policy-making by filing constitutional lawsuits.

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 116 S.Ct. 1316, 134 L.Ed.2d 469 (1996) March 25, 1996, Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court grants review of Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision, and requests briefing on four questions: 1) Does a State’s official language provision violate the First Amendment? 2) Does a government employee have a First Amendment right to ignore her state’s official language? 3) Do Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park have the right to appeal the decision striking down their initiative? 4) Does Maria-Kelly Yniguez’s departure from government employment end this case?

Arizona State Court Decisions: Robles v. Arizona, No. 261837 (Sup. Ct. Pima County, 1989) November 14, 1989 Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona (Tucson) Judge Hannah dismisses constitutional challenge to Article 28's requirement that lawsuit papers be filed in English.

Ruiz v. Arizona, No. CV-92-19603 (Sup. Ct. Maricopa County, 1994) January 26, 1994, Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix) This is the state court version of the Yniguez federal court case. Parties include Arizonans for Official English and Bob Park, defending Article 28, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, which filed the constitutional challenge to Article 28. Judge Cates rejects constitutional challenge, holding that Article 28 is “content-neutral” and so can’t violate the First Amendment.

Ruiz v. Arizona, No. 1 CA-SA-94-0235 (Ariz. Court of Appeals, 1996) June 1, 1996, amended August 1, 1996, Arizona Court of Appeals (Phoenix) Appeal of earlier Ruiz decision upholding Article 28. Judge Weissberg says that Arizona’s courts will defer to the federal litigation.

Selected Background Cases [back to top]

The “Government Speech” Doctrine: Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2518-19 (1995): “We have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message.” Capital Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 2449 (1995): government runs no risk of suppressing free speech when it restrains its own speech. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 192-96 (1991): government can regulate speech of federally-supported family-planning clinic doctors. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271-72 (1988): government may insure that it is not associated with a speaker’s views or political position. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, Ohio, 418 U.S. 298, 303-04 (1974): city can regulate signs on city-owned vehicles.

Government Employees’ Rights: Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 285-86 (1984): “Appellees’ status as public employees gives them no special constitutional right to a voice in the making of policy by their government employer... Disagreement with public policy and disapproval of officials’ responsiveness . . . is to be registered principally at the polls.” Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463, 464-66 (1979): same. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 70 n. 4 (1990): Fact that government uses public employment to further its policy and societal interests does not make those interests subject to public employees’ rights. United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 1012 (1995): Government employees’ free speech rights apply to “their expressive activities in their capacity as citizens, not as Government employees.” Waters v. Churchill, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 1886 (1994): Government may prevent its employees from swearing on the job, being rude to customers, and speaking on private topics. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1976): Government may require government employees to salute the flag while in uniform and cut their hair.

Official English in Government: Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444 (2nd Cir. 1994): No right to administrative notices in French. Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 587 F.2d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 1978): “[T]he Constitution neither requires nor prohibits the bilingual and bicultural education sought by the appellants. Such matters are for the people to decide.” Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993): Striking down as illegal federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules which presume that employers’ English-on-the-job rules are discriminatory. Gutierrez v. Municipal Court, 838 F.2d 1031, 1043 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989): Judge Reinhardt opinion: solutions to problems associated with African- American supervisors not understanding Spanish-speaking workers was to hire bilingual supervisors. Judge Kozinski calls this a “let them eat cake” attitude. 861 F.2d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 1988).

Counsel for the Parties: [back to top]

WANT TO UPHOLD ARIZONA LAW:

Attorney for Arizonans for Official English & Robert Park BARNABY W. ZALL Williams & Jensen 1155 21st Street, N.W. #300 Washington, D.C. 20036-3308 (202) 659-8201 fax: 659-5249

Attorney of Record for State of Arizona PAULA BICKETT Assistant Attorney General State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-8304 fax: 542-8308

WANT TO STRIKE DOWN ARIZONA LAW:

Attorneys for Maria-Kelly Yniguez ROBERT J. POHLMAN CATHERINE BERGIN YALUNG Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 101 North First Ave., Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1973 (602) 258-7701 fax: 257-9582

Attorney for Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering STEPHEN G. MONTOYA Law Offices of Steven Montoya 337 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1571 (602) 271-0070 fax: 252-1922

[back to top]