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

Heading: The Nature of the Analysis

Text: We must first determine what A.R.S. § 19-124 means by instructing that the legislative council's analysis and description be impartial. Florida has a similar statute requiring an amendment sponsor to submit a ballot summary describing the substance of an initiative to amend the constitution. The secretary of state then must approve the ballot summary. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.161 (Supp. 1992). The statute provides that the amendment summary shall be an explanatory statement ... of the chief purpose of the measure. Id. The statement is to be in clear and unambiguous language. Id. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the explanatory statement is to ensure: that the voters should not be misled and that he have an opportunity to know and be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote.... What the law requires is that the ballot [summary] be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot. Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 155 (1982) (summary neither described the chief purpose of the amendment nor provided fair notice of the change to be effected; thus, the ballot summary did not comply with the procedural statute and the initiative was struck from the ballot); see also Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (1992) (language must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring); In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, and Summary, Adopted August 26, 1991, Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on Education Tax Refund, 823 P.2d 1353, 1354-55 (Colo. 1991) (impartial ballot summary must not mislead nor argue for or against proposed initiative). Although these cases involve different procedures and entities than those created by our law, they do shed some light on the purpose and meaning of A.R.S. § 19-124(B). Our statute's own words, however, provide the most telling indicators. The first provision permits each party advocating or opposing a measure to file with the secretary of state an argument advocating or opposing  the initiative measure. A.R.S. § 19-124(A) (emphasis added). Then, § 19-124(B) requires the legislative council to provide an impartial analysis and description. (Emphasis added.) Finally, § 19-124(C) directs that the  analyses and arguments shall be included in the publicity pamphlet immediately following the text of the amendment. (Emphasis added). The impartial analysis and description, therefore, clearly are something different than argument from a proponent or opponent. Obviously, to argue in this statutory context is to advocate. To analyze and describe is to explain without advocacy. If there were any doubt, use of the modifier impartial puts it to rest. [6] From the foregoing, we conclude that the purpose of the required analysis is to assist voters in rationally assessing an initiative proposal by providing a fair, neutral explanation of the proposal's contents and the changes it would make if adopted. Why would the legislature have intended the council to do anything else? The analysis and description must eschew advocacy  argument  for or against the proposal's adoption. Proponents and opponents, including members of the executive and legislative branches of government, can hardly complain about that because § 19-124(A) permits them to file their own arguments and requires the secretary of state to publish those arguments. We hold, therefore, that A.R.S. § 19-124(B) requires the legislative council to produce a neutral explanation of initiative proposals, avoiding argument or advocacy, and describing the meaning of the measure, the changes it makes, and its effect if adopted. 2. Did the Analysis Adopted by the Legislative Council Meet the Requirements of A.R.S. § 19-124(B)? Proposition 103 would alter three key provisions of the Arizona Constitution. They are as follows: Art. 2, 31. Damages for death or personal injuries No law shall be enacted in this State limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person. Art. 18, 5. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury. Art. 18, 6. Recovery of damages for injuries The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation. Proposition 103 would amend these constitutional provisions to read: Art. 2, 31. Damages for death or personal injuries A law may be enacted in this State limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person. Art. 18, 5. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk Unless otherwise provided by law, the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall be a question of fact and shall be left to the jury. Art. 18, 6. Recovery of damages for injuries The right of action to recover damages for injuries may be abrogated, and the amount recovered may be subject to statutory limitation. For convenience, we restate the analysis adopted by the Council on July 7, 1994: The Arizona Constitution, enacted in 1912, prohibits the people and their elected representatives from controlling what kinds of civil lawsuits are brought into the courts and how they are prosecuted. It also prohibits the people and their elected representatives from limiting the amount of compensation awarded during such lawsuits. This proposition amends the Arizona Constitution to allow people or their elected representatives to control: 1) the filing and prosecution of civil lawsuits for personal injury and wrongful death; 2) the amount of compensation awarded during those lawsuits. This analysis is not a neutral explanation devoid of argument or advocacy. While it may or may not be unfair, it is argument. The summary understates the power already vested in the legislature and the people, as well as the additional powers the amendment would create. Moreover, it makes no reference at all to an important provision of the initiative. The analysis implies that Arizonans and their legislature presently cannot control civil actions in any way. This notion is incorrect and, arguably, could provide a reason to support Proposition 103. First, the provisions of art. 2, § 31 and art. 18, § 6 apply only to actions for death and injury. They do not, as the analysis intimates, concern all civil lawsuits. Article 18, § 6, moreover, prohibits only the statutory abolition of injury causes of action. We have never held that the constitution precludes all statutory regulation or control of civil lawsuits. See, e.g., Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 152 Ariz. 9, 19, 730 P.2d 186, 196 (1986) (legislature may regulate method and procedure of cause of action but cannot enact practically insurmountable defenses). Indeed, the legislature routinely enacts such regulatory statutes. See, e.g., 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 162 (creating 180-day claims procedure and imposing one-year statute of limitation in civil actions against public entities); 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 154 (immunizing from civil liability anyone who without malice files a report with insurance fraud unit). Lawyers and judges may dispute the scope of statutory control that art. 18, § 6 permits, but that does not mean there is none. To the extent the analysis suggests that no such power currently exists over any civil action, it does not impartially describe the initiative. The assertion that the initiative amends the Arizona Constitution to allow [the] people to control civil lawsuits and damage awards also crosses well past the blurry line between impartiality and advocacy. The people themselves already have the ability to control, and even abolish, civil actions and damages. The source of this power, indeed, is the very same initiative procedure utilized by People and other Proposition 103 supporters. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, §§ 1 and 2. [7] A disinterested analysis would not suggest the creation of a power that already exists. The initiative does substantially increase the legislature's power over civil injury actions. An impartial description, however, requires a more frank recognition that the amendment does more than allow the legislature to control civil lawsuits and the amount of compensation awarded. The essence of art. 18, § 6 is its prohibition against abolishing injury actions. Proposition 103 goes beyond conferring additional power to regulate  in removing the abrogation prohibition it permits the legislature to entirely abolish causes of action for injury. The adopted analysis subjectively minimizes this important effect. Finally, we note that the challenged summary makes no mention of the proposed changes to art. 18, § 5 concerning contributory negligence and assumption of risk. If, as here, an initiative amends a small number of distinct constitutional provisions, an impartial analysis and description must include some reference to each of the affected provisions. See Baker v. Keisling, 312 Or. 385, 822 P.2d 1162, 1167 (1991) (omitting reference to major effect of one of three initiative provisions not a concise and impartial summary). We conclude, therefore, that the initiative summary adopted by the Council was not an impartial analysis and description as required by A.R.S. § 19-124(B). It was advocacy  argument  and therefore did not comply with the statute's requirement.