ANNOUNCEMENT 12 Jun 2012
In June, 2012, a local US government announced a change in the price advantage granted to domestic producers in certain public tenders. A state judge later struck down the law.
NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS
https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2016/1/21/Minute%20Entry%20Ruling%20granting%20Hirshman%20Motion%20for%20Summary%20Judgment.PDF (for the judge's ruling) and http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/government-preferences/case/hirshman-v-rothschild-bid-preference-suit/
On June 12, 2012, the Tucson City Council adopted a local bid preference law that applies to city contracts for goods and services. Under Ordinance Number 10992, 'Type A' businesses (those whose principal business offices are physically located within Pima County) receive a five percent preference over other businesses. The ordinance also recognizes as 'Type B' businesses those whose principal business offices are located outside of Pima County but within Arizona, which receive a three percent bid preference. 'Type C' businesses operate a franchise within Pima County and are owned by Pima County residents, and are eligible for a one and a half percent preference.
The Goldwater Institute brought suit against the city for this policy, which was then struck down by a state judge in 2014.
The Goldwater Institute brought suit against the city for this policy, arguing that —
Tucson’s bid preference law has dispensed with fundamental notions of fairness and openness in government procurement. In the process, the discriminatory policies have driven up costs for all Tucson taxpayers and put Tucson business at a competitive disadvantage. Still worse, not only are Tucson’s bid preference policies exceptionally bad policy, they are also illegal.
On November 21, 2014 Judge Gus Aragon of the Arizona Superior Court found in favor of the Goldwater Institute’s suit and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The judge found that the law violated both the U.S. Constitution (including the equal protection clause and the privileges and immunities clause) and the constitution of the state of Arizona (including the gift clause and the equal privileges and immunities clause). This ruling effectively rendered the law null. Tucson elected not to appeal this ruling to a higher court.