12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 3 -
II
The Arizona Supreme Court may answer questions of Arizona law certified to it bya district court "which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifyingcourt," and for which there is no controlling state court precedent. A.R.S. § 12-1861. Underfederal law, it is "manifestly inappropriate to certify a question" if there is no uncertain statelaw question whose resolution may affect the federal claim. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.914, 945, 120 S. Ct. 2597, 2617 (2000) (quoting Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 471, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2514 (1987)).The intervenor-defendants move to certify the following question to the ArizonaSupreme Court: "[d]oes Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 37 create a parallel state enforcementmechanism for protecting employee representation rights in addition to such enforcementmechanisms that may exist under the [NLRA], 29 U.S.C. § 151,
et seq.
?" Mot. forCertification at 1. The intervenor-defendants argue that the resolution of this question maybe outcome-determinative, as the NLRB's sole argument for preemption will evaporate if theArizona Supreme Court holds that Article 2 § 37 does not create a cause of action. Even if the court holds that it does, the intervenor-defendants argue that the court's articulation of thescope and nature of the cause of action will permit us to better assess the arguments raisedby the parties here.Although there is no state court precedent addressing whether Article 2 § 37 may beenforced in state courts, ample precedent in Arizona shows that litigants have broughtlawsuits to enforce state constitutional rights, including lawsuits to enforce Article 2 rights.See, e.g., Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309, 320, 214 P.3d 397, 408 (Ct. App. 2009) (plaintiff stated a claim for violation of Article 2 § 21, the right to a free and equal election); AidaRenta Trust v. Maricopa Cnty., 221 Ariz. 603, 607, 212 P.3d 941, 945 (Ct. App. 2009)(taxpayer sued county for violation of Article 9 § 1); Bailey v. Myers, 206 Ariz. 224, 230,76 P.3d 898, 904 (Ct. App. 2003) (property owners brought suit alleging violation of Article2 § 17); Mecham v. Gordon, 156 Ariz. 297, 303, 751 P.2d 957, 963 (1988) (governor facingimpeachment had rights under both the Federal Constitution and Article 2 of the Arizona
Case 2:11-cv-00913-FJM Document 65 Filed 09/05/12 Page 3 of 11