Adams v. Com'n on Appellate Ct. Appointments

Summary

The court accepted special-action jurisdiction and held that the legislative petitioners had standing to challenge the legality of nominees for the Independent Redistricting Commission. It concluded that irrigation-district directors and members of Congress hold public office for purposes of the constitutional eligibility restriction, but that a tribal judge does not because tribal offices are not offices of the state or its political subdivisions under the provision's context and Arizona law. The court granted relief in part by requiring replacement nominees for the two irrigation-district directors. Justice Brutinel, dissenting in part, would have construed the restriction broadly to include tribal judges.