Arizona’s Flag

When did Arizona select the distinctive design featuring a base of dark blue under a star with rays shooting upward? What do the colors and symbols mean? It turns out that the basic design dates back to 1911. The design has been the state flag ever since it was adopted in 1917. It has been included in each successive statutory code, exuberantly waving over many generations of Arizonans.

The design

Captain Charles W. Harris, Arizona National Guard. Photo from March 1970 Arizona Highways.

In 1910, Colonel Charles Wilfred Harris brought the Arizona National Guard Rifle Team to the National Rifle matches and noticed that Arizona was the only state team that did not have a flag or emblem. (Arizona wasn’t even a state at the time, but still.) From here, the historic accounts differ a little on the details. Most say that Harris designed a flag and that May Hicks sewed the first one. May Hicks later married Frank Curtis, one of the riflemen of the National Guard Rifle Team.

May Hicks Curtis Hill and 2 men holding Arizona flag. With permission, from the Colorado Plateau Digital Collections of the Cline Library at Northern Arizona University.

The other version regarding the origin of the flag relates that Harris teamed up with Carl Hayden to design the flag. At that time Hayden was a well-known local politician. He was elected to Congress in 1911 in anticipation of Arizona statehood, which was celebrated February 14, 1912. Hayden represented Arizona in the House of Representatives and the Senate from 1911 until his retirement in 1968. According to tradition, Hayden’s wife Nan Downing Hayden stitched up the first flag. Nan Downing is sometimes called the “Betsy Ross of Arizona”. Her role in making one of the first Arizona flags was honored in Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1008 (PDF page 1655), passed in 1972 upon the death of United States Senator Carl Hayden. Thus, there were two early prototypes of the flag created in 1911.

Nan. D. Hayden, “The Betsy Ross of Arizona”. Photo from March 1970 Arizona Highways.

The Hayden flag is believed to have burned in a fire at the Adjutant General’s office some years later. The Curtis flag survives and is in the collection of the Arizona Capitol Museum.

From the beginning, the flag included certain features. Blue and gold had long been considered the official colors of Arizona. The red and blue of the flag match the colors of the United States flag. Red and yellow also signify the heritage of the Spanish explorers, who carried the red and yellow Spanish flag in 1540 in their unsuccessful search for the legendary Seven Cities of Gold. In the upper half of the flag are thirteen rays, for the thirteen original colonies of the United States, that represent the setting sun. The star in the center symbolizes Arizona’s copper resources.

1915 legislation

On January 11, 1915, Governor George W.P. Hunt delivered his opening day message (PDF page 77) to the Legislature. He advocated for the adoption of a state flag and flower:

STATE EMBLEMS

On numerous occasions certain embarrassment, or at least inconvenience, has been entailed upon State Departments and civic organizations by the fact that no State flag has ever been fashioned and duly authorized by the Legislature. In view of the picturesque character of Arizona’s early history, considered in conjunction with the recent marvelous development of the State, the devising of a suitable emblem for use in connection with public functions of various kinds should prove no difficult task. The need, moreover, of a State flower especially designated by legislative enactment, is felt by civic and commercial organizations in a lesser degree than is experienced through the lack of a flag pertaining distinctively to Arizona. It is a certainty that the legislative adoption of a State flag and State flower would meet with the approval of Arizona’s people.

Frances Munds. Photo from the Arizona State Archives on the Arizona Memory Project.

Frances Munds of Yavapai County introduced SB 124 in the Senate to adopt blue and gold as Arizona’s official colors. Rachel Berry of Apache County introduced HB 111 (PDF page 81) in the House with identical language. In the end, HB 111 passed. Frances Munds and Rachel Berry are familiar to students of Arizona history as central figures in securing passage of women’s suffrage. Suffrage had passed as Citizen Initiative 300 in 1912 (PDF page 10).

Rachel Berry. Photo from the Arizona State Archives on the Arizona Memory Project.

Rachel Berry also introduced HB 110 to designate a state flower but the bill did not advance. The Journal did not record what Berry proposed to be the state flower.

From Session laws, State of Arizona, 1915, Second Legislature, Regular Session, First and Second Special Sessions (PDF page 88).

House Bill 68, introduced by Representative William E. Brooks of Gila County, proposed the now-familiar design as the state flag. The progress of the bill in the Legislature was described in the February 6, 1915 issue of the Arizona Gazette:

The speaker would have the lower half of the proposed flag a blue field, while the upper half “shall be divided into thirteen equal segments or rays which shall start at the center, on the lower line, and continue to the edges, yellow and red, consisting of seven yellow and six red rays; in the center of the flag superimposed, a copper colored five pointed star, so placed that the upper point shall be one foot from the top of the flag and the lower points one foot from the bottom of the flag. The red and blue shall be of the same shades as the colors in the flag of the United States; the flag to have a four foot hoist and a six foot fly, with a two foot star; the same proportions to be observed for flags of other sizes. The flag represents the copper star of Arizona rising from a blue field in the face of a setting sun.

The proposal passed the House on an enthusiastic vote of 29 to 2, but not everyone was pleased. The Gazette stated:

The Brooks state flag bill was favorably recommended after a drawing in colors had startled the House. Goodwin thought the speaker had borrowed the design from China or Japan. The flag is guaranteed to stop a limited train. It is in bright reds, yellows and coppers, and will be heard from Atlantic City to Puget Sound.

Subsequently, the flag proposal was held in the Senate and it was dead for the session. You can read more about the proposal in the History of the Arizona State Legislature 1912-1966 (PDF page 47).

Adopted in 1917

The measure returned in 1917 in the Regular Session. Representative Edwards of Yuma County introduced HB 2:

From Session laws, State of Arizona, 1917, Third Legislature, Regular Session (PDF page 31).

J. Morris Richards, author of the History of the Arizona State Legislature, tells the story (PDF pages 69-70). The bill failed in the House Education committee but still advanced to the floor and cleared the Committee of the Whole. The bill was progressing when the local paper weighed in. On the front page, the Arizona Republican sniffed:

Arizona Republican, January 27, 1917.

This writer had to look up a word in the headline. “Solon” was an Athenian statesman. It also refers to a “wise lawgiver”. The objection that the flag was too similar to Japan’s flag depicting the rising sun was raised again during World War II, but in 1917 the Arizona Republican’s prediction came true. The bill became law with minor amendments but without the signature of Governor Campbell. Laws 1917, Chapter 7 (PDF page 31).

The Arizona Constitution specifies a process that is the opposite of the federal “pocket veto”. In Arizona, if a Governor does not sign a bill or return it to the Legislature with a veto message within five days during session or ten days after adjournment of session, it becomes law (Arizona Constitution, Art. 5, Section 7).

The Senate Journal reported:

From Journal of the Senate, State of Arizona, 1917, Third Legislature, Regular Session (PDF page 354).

At least he was nice about it. Arizona had a state flag.

Later statutes retain state flag provision

The state flag provision was included when the Legislature adopted the new 1928 Revised Code of Arizona.

From The Revised code of Arizona, 1928 (PDF page 153).

In 1939, the provision was included in the new Arizona Code:

From the Arizona code, 1939 : containing the General laws of Arizona, annotated (PDF page 347).

The Arizona Revised Statutes were first compiled in 1956. The state flag provision appeared at §41-791. In 1972, the Legislature renumbered the provision as §41-857. The Legislature reorganized the statutes again the following year in Laws 1973, Chapter 157, creating Article 5 and grouping together state emblems including the flag, the state bird, the state tree, and others. The state flag statute was renumbered as §41-851.

More flag laws

The 1973 measure also adopted §41-852 which directed that the state flag be displayed with the U.S flag at the state capitol and other state buildings and at county and municipal buildings as determined by local governments. The statute was later amended to provide for flying the flag at half-staff to honor elected officials at their deaths (Laws 1986, Chapter 165). A later amendment required displaying the flag, along with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in each hearing room of the state Senate and House of Representatives (Laws 3006, Chapter 381).

A.R.S. §13-3703 governs “abuse of venerated objects”. It is illegal to use the flag for advertisement. It specifically prohibits “casting contempt upon, mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, trampling or otherwise dishonoring or causing to bring dishonor upon a flag”. The law was added by Laws 1977, Chapter 142, §100 as a part of an extensive reorganization of the Arizona criminal code. Despite its expansive language, there are no Arizona court cases that interpret it.

The Arizona flag today

After more than a century of flying the flag, Arizonans and others seem to have disregarded the disapproval of early critics of the design. In fact, people seem to like it because of its easily recognized graphics and bold colors. Vexillology is the study of flags. The North American Vexillological Association, the world’s largest organization of flag enthusiasts and scholars, promotes the study of the history, symbolism, usage of flags, and flag design. Their 2001 survey ranked the Arizona state flag as one of the 10 best designs for state flags (PDF page 6).

For more information

Arizona Highways, March 1970, “Flags over Arizona”.

Eight women who changed NAU, Flagstaff and the World, The NAU Review.

Image of May Hicks Curtis Hill draped in Arizona Flag. From the Colorado Plateau Digital Collections at Cline Library, Northern Arizona University.

May Hicks Curtis Hill Collection, 1840 ca.-1970, Northern Arizona University.

More details on Rachel Berry.

More details on Frances Munds.

More on the State of Arizona Flag from the Arizona Office of the Secretary of State.

North American Vexillogical Association

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 3

Part 3 covers Justice Struckmeyer’s years as a trial court judge and Supreme Court justice, changes in the courts in Arizona, and his views on the judicial system.

Justice Struckmeyer saw many changes in Arizona and the law during his years as a Judge and a Justice. He put into practice a cautious and thoughtful philosophy of the law.

Portrait of Judge Fred C. Struckmeyer Jr. in the 1960s

Judicial Career
In 1950, Governor Dan Garvey appointed Assistant County Attorney Fred Struckmeyer Jr. to the Superior Court, filling a vacancy left by the passing of Thomas J. Croaff, Jr. He served as a judge on the Superior Court for five years. It was during this period that he ruled that segregation of Arizona public schools was unconstitutional.

Then-Judge Struckmeyer was elected to Supreme Court and was sworn in on January 3, 1955. At 43 years old, he was the youngest justice ever elected or appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court. In nearly 27 years on the Supreme Court, he served 4 terms as Chief Justice, authored a steady stream of judicial opinions, and participated in many changes in the judicial process. Justice Struckmeyer retired on January 19, 1982 at age 70.

Session laws, State of Arizona, 1964, Twenty-Sixth Legislature, Second Regular Session, PDF page 298

Creation of the Court of Appeals
In the early years following Statehood, Arizona’s judicial system had only one appellate court, the Arizona Supreme Court. By the 1960s the work of the Supreme Court has increased so much that the Supreme Court needed the help of an intermediate level appellate court. Justice Struckmeyer participated in gathering information and preparing paperwork to assist the Legislature in making the change. In 1964, the Legislature created the two divisions of the Court of Appeals. Division 1 would consist of Maricopa, Yuma, Mohave, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and Apache counties and would meet in Phoenix. Division 2 would consist of Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham, and Gila counties and would meet in Tucson.

Water: A Review of Rights in Arizona

Water law
In 1960, Justice Struckmeyer co-authored an article on Arizona water law: Water: A Review of Rights in Arizona. The work included the history of water use and legal rights, legislation and court decisions regarding surface water and groundwater, and legal rights.

Therefore it was logical that as Chief Justice he assigned himself to write the opinion in Town of Chino Valley v City of Prescott, 131 Ariz. 78 (1981), the major legal challenge to the groundbreaking Groundwater Management Act of 1980. Citing the Arizona Constitution and caselaw, the decision held that the owner of the overlying land does not have an ownership right in groundwater prior to its capture and withdrawal. Despite the fact that the effect of the legislation was to choose between competing interests in a limited supply of groundwater, the decision recognized the authority of the Arizona Legislature to adopt the Groundwater Management Act.

Many entities that had water rights filed documents in the case to explain to the Court their legal interests in water issues. True to his practice in deciding cases, Justice Struckmeyer declined to decide additional issues that had been presented to the Supreme Court:

Many and varied interests are affected by the 1980 Act. These interests are apparent in the briefs which amici curiae have filed. We express our appreciation for their excellence and the assistance which they have given the Court. Some matters have been raised and argued which were not addressed by the parties. As to these, it is the rule that amici curiae are not permitted to create, extend, or enlarge issues beyond those raise and argued by the parties.
***
This Court will only decide issues raised and argued by the parties.

The opinion upheld the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 and affirmed the authority of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to regulate groundwater. It left the constellation of additional issues for future determinations. According to his friend George Reed Carlock, Justice Struckmeyer was proud of the opinion he authored in the case. “He would think his water decision was his greatest accomplishment. He would think that was the most important thing he did.” (Arizona Republic, June 24, 1992).

Justice Struckmeyer was also heralded for his pro-consumer opinion in Pena v Fullinwider, 124 Ariz. 42 (1979). In 1974, the Legislature had moved the Division of Weights and Measures to the Department of Administration (Laws 1974, Chapter 200, PDF page 292). The legislation included a requirement that the Department establish labeling standards that presented cost-per-unit information. The next year, the Legislature repealed the cost-per-unit requirement (Laws 1975, Chapter 146, PDF page 705). Challengers to the repeal argued that the 1975 law was unconstitutional because it combined two distinct subject matters in a single bill in violation of Article 4, Part 2, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution. The bill had included the Weights & Measures provisions with changes to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. The Division of Weights and Measures challenged the lawsuit, and the Arizona Supreme Court heard the appeal. The opinion written by Justice Struckmeyer held that the plaintiffs were proper parties to challenge the constitutionality of the law and that bringing the suit as a declaratory judgment claim was appropriate.

Photograph of the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix, 1972 L-R Justices Lockwood, Cameron, Hays, Struckmeyer, Holohan

Judicial Philosophy

In an interview in 1991, he explained his views on the law, the role of judges, and the judicial system.

On politics

Justice Struckmeyer considered himself a conservative Democrat. He felt loyalty to the party and believed it was better to work within the party to resolve differences than to change parties.

On being an activist judge

Justice Struckmeyer was seen as extremely conscientious and an excellent legal scholar with a tempered legal mind. He believed in the strict construction of our Constitution. He discussed his thoughts in an interview in 1991.

Interviewer: If I was to say, describe Fred Struckmeyer, I would start it off by saying he was a man of reason. He didn’t make decisions without having reasons for them.
Justice Struckmeyer: It’s what I call a five-hundred-year outlook. Look at it and if you’re in a position where you can change things, you should measure it by saying to yourself, well, is this going to be just as good five hundred years from now.
Interviewer: That’s a tough test.
Justice Struckmeyer: Well, it helps a lot when you think of it that way. It keeps you from doing a lot of things you might do if you didn’t think about it that way.
Interviewer: I know that your opinions never seemed to touch political lines. They cut across all lines, it seems, over the years as I read them.
Justice Struckmeyer: Well, I hope that’s true. Well, it’s a matter of being an activist I guess. I don’t think judges should be activists. That’s one of the things I most firmly believe in. It’s a little, the philosophy changes and you can see it. It’s easiest, of course, to see it in the United States Supreme Court. A few years back they had very strong activists. Before that they were men that weren’t. The tide comes and goes. I just never was an activist in the law, I don’t think, in that sense.
A new law, just create a new law and make it suitable to live under five hundred years now. That’s sort of the kind of the test. If you’re going to a law as a judge, you ought to think, well how is this going to look in the light of the history of civilization, of men and women, how they live the two thousand years that we’ve had history, that we’ve had a history we know of, from the Roman Empire.

On the jury system

Justice Struckmeyer: Well, I think it’s the best system. It has its problems that’s not to be denied, but other systems have their problems too. And if it’s between something different and the jury system, I think the jury system is, hands down, the system. That’s simply because you can have some weird jury verdicts at times and some funny things influence a jury. When I was trial judge I found that out. I always wouldn’t have decided case the way they did. But I think in the long run, over the long haul, it’s a much safer thing to have, because in the end, the jury is going to be the arbiter of what is justice and that’s really what you want, somebody that’s going to not be prejudged on the basic lines. With a jury you have a chance of getting somebody that’s open-minded in that area. If the lawyers are smart when they select the jury, this will be the outcome.
Interviewer: You know, the cases I’ve tried and, unfortunately, the few I’ve lost, in some instances lost in a big way, the clients seem to accept the fact that a jury decided it as opposed to a single individual like a judge. If it’s a judge then they’re mad at him individually, but against the jury they feel like their friends and neighbors have said something to them.
Justice Struckmeyer: It’s hard to be mad at them collectively.

On election of judges

Today, merit selection is used for appointments of Supreme Court justices, Appeals Court judges, and trial court judges in the most populous counties. A judicial nominating commission screens candidates and sends a list of names it recommends to the Governor, who appoints a judge from the list. Prior to merit selection, judges were elected.

Voters approved merit selection in 1974, with the passage of Ballot Proposition 108 (PDF page 27).

State of Arizona initiative and referendum publicity pamphlet general election 1974

Proposition 108 was endorsed by the Citizens Association on Arizona Courts, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Arizona Jaycees, Arizona Judges Association, and the State Bar of Arizona. It passed with about 54% of the vote (PDF page 9).

Image of the Arizona Supreme Court in 1975. L-R: Justices Holohan, Struckmeyer, Chief Justice Cameron, Hays, Gordon.
Justice Frank X. Gordon was the first justice appointed under merit selection.

Having experienced both systems, Justice Struckmeyer expressed his opinion:

Interviewer: What do you think of judges not running? How do you feel about the plan now that it’s been in effect…twenty years or so?
Justice Struckmeyer: I don’t think there’s any perfect way of selecting judges. But I think the system of having to go out and campaign and shake hands and walk around the community and…
Interviewer: Get contributions.
Justice Struckmeyer: Well, that’s the worst part. I should have put that first. But the system of having to go to the lawyers because nobody else, you wouldn’t take their campaign contribution from a corporation or a company or anything of that kind, going to the lawyers and getting your campaign contributions. Because in a sense it looked as if you were going to repay that with a favor on the Supreme Court. Judges didn’t and lawyers didn’t try to do that, but there’s some, there’s a little bit of…
Interviewer: The appearance?
Justice Struckmeyer: Yes, but not only the appearance but there’s a little pressure on a judge who has a lawyer in front of him that has made a campaign contribution, too. There’s a little bit of feeling of, I don’t know exactly what to call it. It puts a little pressure on a judge, let’s put it like that. And for that reason I think it’s a terrible system to have to run. Any system is better than having to run, a judge run for office.

Photograph of Arizona Supreme Court Justices in the 1970s

In his long career as a judge, Justice Struckmeyer displayed his values and judicial philosophy. He did not believe that judges should be activists. He made decisions carefully, applying the law and considering the long-term welfare. He believed that a good judicial decision should stand the test of time and be understood by the citizens.

Work after retirement
Justice Struckmeyer was a workhorse and didn’t stop after his retirement from the Court. Sixteen days after his retirement, Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed him to fill a vacancy on the State Racing Commission. He served on the Commission from 1982 until 1987.

The next year, he participated in the Supreme Court decision in Green v Osborne, 157 Ariz. 363, 758 P.2d 138 (1988), which found that the recall election of former Governor Evan Mecham was moot, since he had been impeached and removed from office. Chief Justice Gordon recused himself from the case before the Arizona Supreme Court and Justice Struckmeyer was designated to sit in his stead. Under the Arizona Constitution (Article 8, Part 2, §1), Chief Justice Gordon had served as the presiding officer of the Court of Impeachment in the State Senate.

Conclusion
Justice Struckmeyer died on June 22, 1992 at age 80 and was buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of Arizona in Phoenix. A scholarship fund in his memory was established at the law school of the University of Arizona.

At the time of his death, Justice Struckmeyer had devoted over four decades of his life to public service. He was an army lieutenant in wartime, a deputy county attorney working on both civil and criminal cases, a trial court judge, a Supreme Court Justice, and a commissioner on the Racing Commission. As a justice he authored some 650 legal decisions. He participated in changes in the development of Arizona law, embraced reforms to the administration of the courts, and welcomed greater inclusiveness of legal minds in the profession. He collaborated with countless colleagues and mentored even more young lawyers. In his lifetime he experienced unimaginable changes in Arizona. Yet, the biography of this diligent and private man is surprisingly sparse. An unsung hero, indeed.

Additional reading:

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 1

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 2

State Bar Foundation. Arizona Legal Legacies Project. Interview transcript 5-21-1991. Retrieved from
https://www.legallegacy.org/13-attorneys/75-frederick-c-struckmeyer

“Ex-Justice Fred Struckmeyer Dies.” Arizona Republic, 24 June 1992, p.B2.

Struckmeyer, Fred C., Jr., and Butler, Jeremy E., “Water: A Review of Rights in Arizona”. Arizona Weekly Gazette, 1960.

Arizona Supreme Court. (1985). The Superior Court in Arizona 1912-1984: A History of the Court in each County since Statehood.

Zarbin, Earl. (1991). A History of Maricopa County’s Legal Professions. Chatsworth, California: Windsor Publications, Inc.

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 1

Part 1 covers Justice Struckmeyer’s early life and education, the influence of his parents, and his historic ruling striking down Arizona’s long-standing law of school segregation.

Image from Arizona Bar Foundation Oral History Project: Arizona Legal History

Frederick Christian Struckmeyer was born on January 4, 1912 in Territorial Arizona, some six weeks before Arizona became a state. He was decorated for his service in World War II. He distinguished himself during a long career as a public servant. Justice Struckmeyer was a conscientious judge, deciding the cases before him in with a view of their long-term results. He participated in the most significant changes in the administration of the law and its interpretation. He died on June 22, 1992, but the influence of this unsung hero endures.

Early years

Justice Struckmeyer grew up in central Phoenix in a home at the corner of Portland Street and North 9th Street. Like most homes at that time, they had a screened sleeping porch. They would drape wet sheets around the porch to cool any breeze and make it more comfortable to sleep. He even improvised a homemade evaporative cooler by placing a wet gunny sack in front of a fan to blow cooler air into the house. People who were able to leave town would spend part of the summer in San Diego, Prescott, or the Mogollon Rim.

The Phoenician yearbook, 1929, PDF page 60

Justice Struckmeyer graduated from Phoenix Union High School in 1929. He lived at home and studied for two years at Phoenix Junior College, the predecessor to Maricopa Community College. During the summers he would looking for a summer job. It was during the Great Depression when many people were unemployed.

“I’d go down in the summertime to look for a job and line up with guys and they’d go down the line and say, ‘How many children do you have?’ ‘I have two.’ ‘How many do you have?’ ‘I have three.’ ‘How many do you have?’ ‘I have six.’ You’d get the job.”

After two years studying at Phoenix Junior College he moved to Tucson and enrolled at the University of Arizona. He graduated from a program that allowed students who had studied at the undergraduate level for 3 years and at the law school for 3 years to earn an LLB, which was the law degree awarded in that era. He graduated with his law degree in 1936.

Family influences

Justice Struckmeyer was named after his father, a well-known and accomplished lawyer. Born in 1874 in Wesphalia, Germany, his father was orphaned at age 1 when both of his parents died of influenza. At aged 17 he arrived in the United States by way of South Africa where there were German colonies at the time. He started studying for a law degree at University of Michigan Law School but finished at the more affordable Chicago Kent. He arrived in Arizona in about 1909.

Fred Struckmeyer Sr. developed a friendship with Arizona Governor George W.P. Hunt. In 1923 the Governor appointed him to the Maricopa County Superior Court, filling a vacancy left when Frank Lyman resigned to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court. He was paid $5000 per year ($81,000 in 2021 dollars), and he served for 2 years. He returned to the private practice of law, where he could earn more money to support his family of 6.

Struckmeyer Sr. served as the code commissioner for the Revised Code of Arizona of 1928. His work started with the Revised Statutes of Arizona 1913 Civil Code and the Revised Statutes of Arizona 1913 Penal Code. He added the laws that had been enacted by the Legislature since 1913, reorganized the sections, edited extensively for clarity, and added annotations showing the origin of the statutes and relevant caselaw. It was a very valuable resource for the Legislature and the legal community. Struckmeyer Sr. described the process in the Preface:

“The task of revision has been arduous and exacting. It was the aim of the Commission to truly carry out the intent of the Legislature to ‘reduce in language’. To reduce statute law in language is not only the demand of the layman but produces clearness and certainty. Redundancy is ever confusing. The 1913 Civil and Penal Codes contained 7057 sections. From 1913 to 1927 an additional 4499 sections of general legislation had been enacted. All this was reduced to 5349 sections.”

Struckmeyer Sr. donated his time to perform this huge task.

The Revised code of Arizona, 1928

Justice Struckmeyer may have gained his perspective of the law from his father’s view. Fred Struckmeyer Sr. revealed his view of the law in his Preface to the Revised Code of 1928:

“The craving for new legislation resulting in multiplicity of statute law inevitably leads to confusion…The necessity of simple restatement of the statute law is apparent. Any person of common school education should be enabled to read intelligently the statute law of his state.”

Years later, Justice Struckmeyer would coach a law clerk:

“Try to keep the language clean and stop – I know you can use big words, but every chance you get to use a big one use a small one so everybody understands.”

Justice Struckmeyer was noted for his insightful, concise, and clearly worded opinions.

Photograph/portrait of Arizona Judge Fred C. Struckmeyer Jr., taken in Phoenix

Justice Struckmeyer’s mother, Inez Walker, moved to Arizona due to a tuberculosis scare. Here she met and married Fred Sr., but never developed tuberculosis. She was active in community affairs with a special interest in the welfare of children. In 1921, she and other women in Phoenix lobbied the Arizona Legislature to pass a law permitting segregation of the high schools. Ironically, it was Superior Court Judge Struckmeyer who later ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional. Let’s jump ahead in the chronology to provide context for Inez Struckmeyer’s role in segregation and her son’s actions three decades later to undo it. In an interview, Justice Struckmeyer told the story:

(Justice Struckmeyer) …[my mother] and some other women in Phoenix went out to the Legislature and they got the statute, the segregation statute passed. And here’s why they did it… The Blacks were in the minority…and there was a chronic fight going
on in the high school between the Blacks and whites. There were so many more whites that the Blacks weren’t being educated. They just were killing the Blacks right on the school grounds, fights, vicious fights. So my mother and some other women went out and got a segregated statute permitting the building of a black high school in Phoenix, Arizona. And that’s what happened. They did build a separate high school for the Blacks. And that’s how Arizona happened to have segregated school districts.

Interviewer: That you overturned…

Justice Struckmeyer: It permitted it, see. It didn’t demand it but it permitted it. But then the school districts all did it.

Interviewer: And then your decision subsequently…

Justice Struckmeyer: Overturned it.

Interviewer: Overturned the statute that was a pragmatic gesture for your mother to put through in the early days.

Justice Struckmeyer: Yes. And that’s how things change.

Interviewer: Yes. Then things had changed and they weren’t giving those Black students a fair shake, really, is what was happening.

Justice Struckmeyer: That’s right. That’s right, they weren’t giving them an education. I was appalled at what I saw.

The Revised Statutes of Arizona, adopted in 1913, had mandated segregation of the elementary schools, but was silent on the question of segregation of high schools. Section 2733 (PDF page 920) stated in part:

The revised statutes of Arizona, 1913 : civil code

The 1921 legislation confirmed that segregation was mandated in elementary schools and established a process to segregate a high school by an election of voters in the school district:

Session laws, State of Arizona, 1920, Fourth Legislature, Special Session, 1921, Fifth Legislature, Regular Session PDF page 344

Newspapers reported the progress of the bill through the Legislature. On March 1, 1921, The Bisbee Daily Review reported that equal facilities would be furnished for the segregated Black pupils.

Bisbee Daily Review, March 1, 1921, Page 2

The March 11. 1921 edition of the Copper Era & Morenci Leader reported that the Black community was in favor of the bill.

Copper Era & Morenci Leader, March 11, 1921, Page 7

In 1950 there was a ballot proposition to prohibit segregation of pupils in public schools. Initiative Measure 318 was defeated by a wide margin.

State of Arizona initiative and referendum publicity pamphlet general election November, 1950 (PDF page 51)

The provision was included in the Arizona Code of 1939, renumbered as §54-416. It was last amended by Laws 1952, Chapter 138 (PDF page 494). It remained in Arizona statute until 1953.

In 1952, Hayzel B. Daniels, the first Black lawyer to pass the Arizona bar examination, and long-time Phoenix attorney Herbert B. Finn, both working pro bono, filed suit on behalf of students of Carver High School, the only segregated high school in the state. Justice Struckmeyer recounts his memory of the case:

“I just went out and I took my car and I drove over to the school. They had a big two-story concrete school for the whites and they had a two-room schoolhouse on another lot down there, and they had the four first grades in one room and the four second grades, the four upper grades to the eighth grade in another room and two schoolteachers. There were outdoor toilets. So a year before the Supreme Court outlawed segregation, I ordered the school district to admit the children.”

In February of 1953, then-Judge Struckmeyer found §54-416 and §54-430 unconstitutional. Enforcement of the court order was stayed pending an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. In the meantime, on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declaring that racial segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Arizona Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Judge Struckmeyer’s ruling as moot. Documents from the case are on the website of the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Additional reading:

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 2

Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr.: War Hero, Jurist, Unsung Hero- Part 3