Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Phx., 445 P.3d 2

Building a Better Phoenix (BBP), a political committee, sought to place the "Building a Better Phoenix Act" (Initiative) on Phoenix's August 2019 special election ballot to stop future light rail extensions and redirect local sales-tax funds to "infrastructure improvements."
BBP filed with the Phoenix City Clerk, received a petition serial number, and hired a commercial circulation firm that paid circulators on a per-signature basis.
Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors and an individual (Contractors) sued under A.R.S. § 19-122(C) to enjoin ballot placement, arguing: (1) signatures should be void because circulators were paid per signature in violation of A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A); and (2) the 100-word petition description violated A.R.S. § 19-102(A) by being misleading.
The superior court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted expedited review and affirmed.
The Supreme Court addressed (1) whether § 19-118.01(A) (which on its face applies to "statewide" initiatives) applies to local measures and (2) whether the petition's 100-word description created a significant danger of confusion or unfairness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A) (prohibiting pay-per-signature) applies to local initiative petitions	§ 19-118.01(A) must apply to local measures via A.R.S. § 19-141(A); signatures paid per-signature are void	§ 19-118.01(A) applies only to "statewide" measures as written; § 19-141(A) does not nullify the "statewide" limitation	Court held § 19-118.01(A) applies only to statewide measures; superior court correctly refused to void signatures
Whether the Initiative's 100-word description violates A.R.S. § 19-102(A) by misleading signers	The description misleads by (a) implying terminating extensions generates "revenues," (b) failing to disclose that only city-controlled funds can be redirected and that regional/federal funding might be affected, and (c) not stating that "infrastructure improvements" excludes light-rail repairs	The description states the principal provisions concisely; it need not detail all consequences; the Initiative does not eliminate funding for existing light-rail upkeep	Court held the 100-word description complied with § 19-102(A); it did not create a significant danger of confusion or unfairness

Molera v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 291 (2018) (statutory interpretation and standards for evaluating petition descriptions)
Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566 (2019) (interpretation of statutory text in context)
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc., 242 Ariz. 139 (2017) (presumption that legislature knows existing laws)
Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015) (harmonizing apparently conflicting statutes)
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 226 Ariz. 345 (2011) (inferences from statutory omissions)
Save Our Vote v. Bennett, 231 Ariz. 145 (2013) (100-word description need not be exhaustive; tests for misleading descriptions)
Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468 (1987) (political fora are proper venue to argue measure consequences)