Court Opinion

ID: 9561075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:02:21.537643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:31.450111
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Justice
(dissenting).
The construction by the majority of A. R. S. § 15-1302 in literal terms may be good composition, but, in my view, it is bad law. Statutes are not literary exercises in composition; they are instruments of government. United States v. Shirey, 359 U. S. 255, 79 S.Ct. 746, 3 L.Ed.2d 789 (1959). Departure from the literal or so-called plain meaning may be necessary in order to effect the legislative purpose. Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 86 S.Ct. 1030, 16 L. Ed.2d 102 (1966).
Legislation is the product of a practical process of achieving a consensus by lawmakers, and courts should be sympathetic, not pedantic, in giving meaning and effect to the product of such efforts. There is a presumption against a construction which would render a statute ineffective, inefficient, or injurious to the public. Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100 (1902). Courts are not limited to a literal meaning in interpreting a statute where acceptance of such meaning would lead to absurd results or would thwart the obvious purpose of the statute.
*467The construction of A.R.S. § 15-1302 by the majority in effect gives to a minority of electors the right, if their number is at least 15 percent of those on the poll list, to keep an issue constantly unresolved through successive elections. This result was certainly not desired by the legislature, and the authorities cited in the opinion of the Court of Appeals indicate that such a construction is not necessary.
In my judgment the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and the petition for review should not have been granted.