341 P.3d 457
Ariz.2014Background
- HB 2010 expanded Arizona’s indigent healthcare program and imposed a hospital assessment to fund it; the legislature passed it by simple majority and the governor signed it into law as A.R.S. § 36-2901.08.
- Arizona Const. art. 9, § 22(A) requires a two-thirds vote for certain revenue-raising measures; the legislature voted by majority that the supermajority requirement did not apply to HB 2010.
- Thirty-six legislators (27 representatives, 9 senators) who voted against HB 2010 sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging the law was enacted unconstitutionally because the supermajority requirement applied.
- The superior court dismissed for lack of standing, relying on precedent holding individual legislators generally lack standing; the court of appeals reversed in part, and the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court considered whether a bloc of legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to block passage (if a supermajority were required) has standing to challenge the law’s enactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a minority bloc of legislators has standing to challenge a statute enacted without a required supermajority | Biggs: The bloc’s votes were effectively nullified if the supermajority applied, so they allege a particularized institutional injury | Brewer/Betlach: Individual legislators lack standing; legislature’s internal determination that §22 didn’t apply was dispositive; other remedies exist | Held: The representative bloc has standing because their votes would have defeated the bill if §22 applied; their institutional injury is justiciable |
| Whether the legislature’s majority can be the final arbiter of whether §22 applies | Biggs: Constitution, not majority vote, determines applicability | Brewer/Betlach: Each house may determine its rules and decide applicability during process | Held: Legislature may decide procedural rules, but it cannot be the final arbiter of constitutional applicability; courts may review whether §22 applies |
| Whether plaintiffs must exhaust political remedies before suing | Biggs: Not required; impractical for a minority to repeal a law enacted by majority | Brewer/Betlach: Plaintiffs had political remedies like repeal or referendum | Held: Failure to pursue political remedies is a prudential concern but does not bar standing here |
| Whether hospitals are more appropriate plaintiffs | Biggs: Hospitals supported the law and likely will not sue | Brewer/Betlach: Hospitals are proper parties to challenge the law’s validity | Held: Whether others could or would sue does not defeat the bloc’s standing; court need not decide who else might be proper plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520 (2003) (individual legislators generally lack standing to challenge executive actions that affect legislative outcomes)
- Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482 (2006) (the legislature as a body can assert institutional injury and has standing to sue)
- Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (legislators whose votes would have defeated an action have standing because their votes were nullified)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (distinguishes Coleman and limits legislator standing where votes would not have been sufficient to block the action)