Opinion ID: 1393789
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Present Procedure

Text: The original provision on constitutional amendments commanded that until a method of publicity is otherwise provided by law, the Secretary of State shall publish the initiative proposal for a period of ninety days prior to the election. Ariz. Const. art. 21, § 1. This provision was also adopted by reference in art. 4, § 1(11). Accordingly, our first state legislature provided a procedure in lieu of that set forth in the constitution. Kerby, 48 Ariz. at 438, 62 P.2d at 1133. The Revised Code of 1928 perpetuated this system and allowed initiative proponents and opponents to file arguments with the secretary of state, who would then print them in a publicity pamphlet to be mailed to all registered voters in the state. Rev.Code Ariz. § 1746 (1928). In 1935, the legislature amended these statutes to provide that the publicity pamphlet must also include, in addition to pro and con arguments, a true copy of the title and text and the form in which the measure would appear on the ballot. 1935 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 62, § 1, codified at Ariz. Code Ann. 60-107 (1939). In 1972, the legislature provided that the publicity pamphlet should also contain a legislative council analysis of the ballot proposal as prescribed pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-124. 1972 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 75, § 1. Section 19-124 added more procedural detail, requiring the legislative council to provide an opportunity for comments by all legislators and to file its analysis with the secretary of state together with a list of popular arguments favoring and opposing each proposal. Id. at § 2. The analyses and arguments in the publicity pamphlet were to follow the proposal to which they referred. A.R.S. § 19-124(C). Shortly after the 1991 Tilson opinion, the legislature again modified these procedures. The relevant change was to A.R.S. § 19-124(B), which was amended to require the legislative council to provide an impartial analysis of the provisions of each ballot proposal and to include a description of the measure ... written in clear and concise terms avoiding technical terms wherever possible. (Emphasis added.) The analysis could contain background information, including the effect of the measure on existing law. 1991 Ariz. Sess. Laws, 3d Spec.Sess., ch. 1, § 17. Thus, the legislature has fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide procedures for placing initiative proposals on the ballot and informing the electorate about them. It has ably handled these matters since 1912. We do not, therefore, enter forbidden territory and tell the legislature what procedures to adopt or what it should submit to the people, what bills it may draft or what language it may use. Mecham, 156 Ariz. at 302, 751 P.2d at 962. The question before us, to the contrary, is whether the Council complied with the duties assigned it by the legislature. It is the Council, not the legislature, that is the named respondent in this case.