Bisbee civil unions stir legal questions

From the political notebook: » The vilification of Attorney General Tom Horne for saying he will legally challenge Bisbee’s civil-union ordinance is misplaced. In reality, an early judicial resolution of the scope of the ordinance would be in everyone’s best interest.

Bisbee clearly can pass an ordinance providing recognition of civil unions. In 2006, Arizona voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have precluded state and local governments from doing that.

And Bisbee can clearly treat those registered by the city as in civil unions the same as married couples in the conduct of city business.

The ordinance adopted by Bisbee, however, purports to go well beyond that. It declares that anyone who enters into a Bisbee civil union has the same rights and responsibilities as someone who enters into marriage under state law. Now, it says that this is so “within the jurisdiction of the City of Bisbee.” But that is a term without clear meaning, or in some cases even unclear meaning, in this context.

Take the question of community property, for example. State law says that property acquired during the course of a marriage is equally owned by the husband and the wife. Property is widely defined to include basically anything of monetary value.

The Bisbee ordinance says that its civil- union partners will have community-property rights. But what does it mean to have such rights “within the jurisdiction of the City of Bisbee”?

Does it mean that the right appertains only to real property that lies within the city limits and not to real property located elsewhere or intangible property such as stocks and bonds?

Do Bisbee civil-union partners have community property rights only while living in Bisbee? Do their communityproperty rights extinguish if they move? What if only one of the partners moves?

If there is a legal dispute over community-property rights purportedly established by the ordinance, it won’t be adjudicated by the city of Bisbee. It will be adjudicated by a Superior Court judge who will have to weigh what consider-

ation, if any, to give to the ordinance as opposed to state law, under which there would be no such rights.

The same question about whether the Bisbee ordinance exceeds the city’s authority, and what as a practical matter it means if it doesn’t, exists in several other areas, such as inheritance, procuring life insurance and adoption.

Now, Horne is unquestionably politically grandstanding a bit by saying he will sue. He is playing up to social conservatives who don’t fully trust him. But if a court will accept him as having standing in a pre-emptive challenge, that would be best for all concerned.

People who enter into Bisbee civil unions should know what legal rights and responsibilities are associated with that. That’s far from clear. And discovering the answers through private-party litigation when thing go sour would be hurtful and destructive.

» There’s an interesting pattern developing involving the Democratic members of Arizona’s delegation from swing congressional districts: Ann Kirkpatrick, Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema.

When they deviate from the Democratic Party line, they tend to do it together — all voting the same.

The House recently considered five different budget resolutions.

All of Arizona’s Democrats voted against Republican Paul Ryan’s budget, of course.

The main Democratic alternative offered by the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen, included $1.2 trillion in tax increases over 10 years. Only 28 Democrats voted against Van Hollen’s proposal.

All of Arizona’s swing-district Democrats were among them. In fact, none of the three cast a vote in favor of any of the budgets before the House.

Earlier, all three were among only 18 Democrats to vote in favor of a Republican bill forbidding the Obama administration from providing waivers to welfare work requirements.

» Of the three, Barber is generally considered the most vulnerable in 2014. He had the narrowest margin of victory in 2012, and Mitt Romney carried his congressional district.

Sinema, however, may end up being the most vulnerable. “Obamacare” will have been implemented by then, and the launch is likely to be messy and disruptive.

Sinema was a tireless advocate for Obamacare. Voters didn’t seem to hold it against her in 2012.

It may play much bigger in 2014. “Obamacare” could spell trouble for Kyrsten Sinema.