Opinion ID: 1393789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: special action in nature of mandamus

Text: Even if this court were to get beyond the separation of powers problem, the nature of the duty of the Legislative Council makes special action relief inappropriate. The special action in this case would have been labelled a request for mandamus under the traditional procedures. See, e.g., State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Walker, 67 Ariz. 156, 192 P.2d 723 (1948). The rules for special actions were not intended to, and did not, create any new claims. Rule 1(a), Ariz.R.P.Special Actions. Instead, the special action rules were intended to provide relief historically provided by the traditional writs. Id. In determining whether mandamus is appropriate to compel action by a government official, the dispositive inquiry is whether the official's duty is ministerial or discretionary. 52 Am.Jur.2d Mandamus § 73 (1970) (The controlling question ... is whether the thing sought to be enforced is the performance of a ministerial act which it is clearly the legal duty of the officer to perform without any inquiry into facts on his part.). When an official fails to perform a mandatory ministerial duty, this court has the power of mandamus to order the officer to act as required by law. See, e.g., Industrial Dev. Auth. v. Nelson, 109 Ariz. 368, 377, 509 P.2d 705, 714 (1973); Rhodes v. Clark, 92 Ariz. 31, 35, 373 P.2d 348, 350 (1962); Walker, 67 Ariz. at 162, 192 P.2d at 726-27. If, on the other hand, the duty is discretionary, the court cannot compel performance. As early as 1881, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona stated, The writ of mandate lies to compel an inferior court, board, tribunal, or officer to act, but never to command how to act, unless the act be purely ministerial. If the act sought for be judicial or discretionary in its character, no court by its writ of mandate can command what this action shall be, much less can it command how and what the said action shall be after he or it has already fully acted upon the matter, no matter how erroneously. Osborn v. Clark, 1 Ariz. 397, 398, 25 P. 797, 797 (1881); see also Graham v. Moore, 56 Ariz. 106, 109, 105 P.2d 962, 964 (1940); Dorrington v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Ariz. 4, 6, 68 P. 541, 542 (1902); Territory ex rel. Sherman v. Board of Supervisors, 2 Ariz. 248, 251, 12 P. 730, 731 (1887). In Winsor v. Hunt, 29 Ariz. 504, 243 P. 407 (1926), this court defined ministerial duty as `a simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.' Id. at 514, 243 P. at 411 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 498, 18 L.Ed. 437 (1866)). For example, in Walker, this court found that the Board of Barber Examiners violated a ministerial duty in failing to issue a license where the petitioner satisfied all the requirements to obtain the license. 67 Ariz. at 168, 192 P.2d at 729. In Williams v. Parrack, 83 Ariz. 227, 319 P.2d 989 (1957), we held that the Phoenix City Council, in refusing to submit a valid initiative petition to the voters, violated a duty that was purely ministerial. Id. at 230, 319 P.2d at 991. Also, in Adams v. Bolin, 74 Ariz. 269, 247 P.2d 617 (1952), we determined that the certification of a referendum by the Secretary of State to the clerks of the boards of supervisors is manifestly a ministerial act not requiring discretion. Id. at 285, 247 P.2d at 628. The analysis performed by the Legislative Council is vastly different from the ministerial acts typically involved in mandamus actions. The nature of the relief granted by the court itself demonstrates this. When the majority decided this case after oral argument on August 12, 1994, it specified no precise act that the Council was to perform. Instead, it remanded the matter to the Council for more deliberation, for more analysis, and for more voting. The Council had debated alternatives in an open hearing and it had rejected the staff's analysis in favor of an alternative advanced by one of its members. The Council members were acting in their elected, not ministerial, capacities in considering, weighing and approving the analysis. Preparing an impartial analysis of a complex initiative proposal is far from a simple ministerial act. See Winsor, 29 Ariz. at 514, 243 P. at 411. This is not to say that none of the Council's duties is ministerial. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 41-1303(B) (1992) (prepare annual report); id. § 41-1304(A)(5) (Supp. 1994) (maintain legislative reference library). Of all the duties assigned to the Legislative Council, however, the one that most resembles the preparation of the impartial analysis is bill drafting. Id. § 41-1304(A)(1) (Supp. 1994). A great deal of discretion is involved both in drafting bills and adopting impartial analyses, and this court should no more interfere in the latter than in the former. Activities such as bill drafting are not judicially reviewable. Mecham, 156 Ariz. at 302, 751 P.2d at 962 (1988) (We will not tell the legislature ... what bills it may draft or what language it may use.). Judicial review of the language of the impartial analysis is much akin to judicial review of the language of an initiative itself. This court has no power to review such language. Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468, 470, 737 P.2d 1367, 1369 (1987). The special concurrence in Tilson states: Believing ... that the democratic process requires questions of fairness in drafting to be resolved first by the electorate rather than the judiciary, I concur in the holding that the judicial branch has no power to keep the proposal off the ballot simply because we might believe the matter has not been submitted to the people in a fair form. Id. at 473, 737 P.2d at 1372 (Feldman, V.C.J., concurring). Tilson involved the language of the initiative itself, whereas this case deals with an analysis in a publicity pamphlet. Doubtless, the language in the initiative is more important than the language in a publicity pamphlet. Yet this court held that it does not have the power to review the language in the initiative before the vote. Id. at 470, 737 P.2d at 1369. Similar considerations should lead us to conclude that we do not have the jurisdiction to review the language adopted for the publicity pamphlet by the Legislative Council. The majority opinion invites the routine challenge in this court of Legislative Council analyses over the very subjective meaning of the words impartial analysis in section 19-124(B). Indeed, the order granting relief to petitioners has already spawned a copycat petition asking this court to review the language of another initiative summary. People's Choice Initiative Comm. v. Hogue, No. CV-94-0373-SA (Ariz. Sept. 7, 1994). On a more practical level, what would this court have done if the petitioners had again protested the language adopted by the Legislative Council after this court's order? If the court again agreed with the petitioners, would the court step in and write the language to meet its view of impartiality? Would it prohibit the use of the adopted language on the pamphlet? These practical considerations are of the sort that have led to the adoption of the principle limiting mandamus to ministerial duties.