Protect Our Arizona v. hobbs/healthcare Rising, 522 P.3d 678

Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare sponsored the "Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act" initiative and submitted a 98-word petition description for the 2022 ballot (certified as Proposition 209).
The description said the measure caps interest on medical debt, increases statutory exemptions (homestead, certain household goods, a vehicle, funds in a single bank account, disposable earnings), adjusts exemptions for inflation, and includes the sentences: "Does not affect existing contracts. Does not change existing law regarding secured debt."
Protect Our Arizona sued, arguing the final sentence was objectively false or misleading because the initiative alters laws that affect involuntarily secured debt (judgment liens), thus changing existing law regarding secured debt.
The trial court found that "secured debt" is commonly understood to mean voluntarily secured debt and, in any event, that the description read as a whole alerted a reasonable person to the initiative’s principal objectives and was not misleading.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed: reading the final sentence in context with the rest of the summary makes clear the measure changes exemptions affecting collection by judgment creditors but does not alter law governing consensual secured financing; the court denied attorneys’ fees to either party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 100-word description communicates objectively false or misleading information	The phrase "Does not change existing law regarding secured debt" is false because the initiative changes laws affecting involuntarily secured debt (judgment liens)	Read in context, the summary explains changes to exemptions that limit collection by judgment creditors but does not affect consensual secured transactions or existing contracts	The description, read as a whole, is not objectively false or misleading and sufficed to alert a reasonable person to the principal provisions' objectives; initiative qualifies for the ballot
Whether signatures must be disqualified for alleged circulator affidavit noncompliance under A.R.S. § 19-118(B)(5)	Signatures collected by some circulators should be disqualified for failing strict affidavit requirements	Signatures should not be disqualified; Secretary’s prior acts affected the issue	Court declined to disqualify signatures, following Leibsohn reasoning
Award of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 19-118(F)	Each party sought fees as prevailing party	Each side sought fees	Court declined to award fees to either party

Molera v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 13 (2020) (articulates standard that a description disqualifies an initiative if it communicates objectively false or misleading information)
Molera v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 291 (2018) (review of initiative-description issues is de novo and courts should avoid intruding on the people’s legislative power)
Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Phx., 247 Ariz. 45 (2019) (requirement to read petition language in context to determine what a reasonable person would know)
Leibsohn v. Hobbs, 254 Ariz. 1 (2022) (addressing circulator affidavit compliance and signature-disqualification issues)