Opinion ID: 1191622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fundamental Fairness and Due Process

Text: Tilson claims that the proposed initiative is intentionally deceptive and misleading because it is framed so as to hide from voters the fact that its adoption will repeal Arizona Constitution article 2, section 31 and article 18, section 6. Thus, Tilson asserts, the initiative fails to satisfy fundamental fairness and due process requirements of the elective process. The plain language of the proposed amendment is clear and straightforward; any ambiguity would lie not in the language of the amendment itself, but rather in the effect the amendment would have on other constitutional provisions. Arizona has no statute nor constitutional provision requiring an initiative to indicate other provisions of the constitution that would be affected by the proposed amendment. As stated earlier, A.R.S. § 19-123 deals solely with the publicity pamphlet. Furthermore, the initiative provisions of the state constitution found in article 4, Part 1 section 1 and article 21, section 1 are simple and self-executing; none of them require the initiative to indicate other constitutional provisions affected or altered. In the absence of any constitutional or statutory directive to the contrary, the proper place to argue about the potential impact of an initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper articles, advertisements and other forums. The constitutionality of the interpretation or application of the proposed amendment will be considered by this court only after the amendment is adopted and the issue is presented by litigants whose rights are affected. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed. CAMERON, J., concurring.