Bird v. State

OPINION

GRANT, Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide whether the Arizona statute forbidding wagering on the outcome of an election runs afoul of constitutional freedom-of-speech protections. We hold that the statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) section 16-1015, is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. We reverse the superior court’s ruling to the contrary.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 23, 1993, the state charged the plaintiffs/appellees Jack Bird and Charles Lofton “Loft” Hollamon with violating the statute prohibiting betting on the outcome of an election:

§ 16-1015. Election…