State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226

The State appeals a superior court judgment in favor of the IRC and Commissioners on whether the IRC is subject to the OML and on legislative immunity for communications about hiring a mapping consultant.
The IRC, created by ballot initiative Prop 106 (Arizona Constitution Article 4, Part 2), sought declaratory and injunctive relief asserting the OML does not apply to it and that communications regarding hiring a mapping consultant are not privileged.
The Court consolidated actions: the Attorney General’s enforcement of CIDs under A.R.S. § 38-431.06 and the IRC’s challenge to OML applicability and to the legitimacy of legislative immunity.
The superior court held the IRC has capacity to sue, that the OML applies to the IRC to the extent not in conflict with the Open Meeting Clause, and that communications about hiring a mapper are not protected by legislative privilege; it also found no reasonable cause for the OML investigation and enjoined further investigation.
The State appealed, challenging standing/capacity, OML applicability, and immunity issues, and the Court reviews de novo the relevant constitutional and statutory questions.
The Court ultimately upholds the IRC’s capacity, holds the OML applies (with severability concerns), rejects blanket legislative immunity for the mapping consultant hiring, and affirms summary judgment and the injunction against further OML investigation because there was no reasonable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IRC capacity to sue for declaratory relief	Montgomery argued IRC lacks capacity to sue beyond redistricting resources.	IRC has capacity under Art. 4, Part 2, §1(20) to pursue legal actions on redistricting and resources and to hire counsel.	IRC has capacity to sue
Whether the OML applies to the IRC	State contends OML applies to all public bodies, with harmonious reading; no express exemption for IRC.	IRC argues Open Meeting Clause supplants the OML; the OML is not compatible with the IRC’s constitutional structure.	OML applies to IRC to the extent not in conflict with Open Meeting Clause
Whether communications about hiring a mapping consultant are protected by legislative immunity	State contends communications are legislative acts immune from investigation.	Commissioners’ mapping consultant hiring is not a traditional legislative act and thus not privileged.	Communications about hiring mapping consultant are not protected by legislative immunity
Reasonable cause to investigate under A.R.S. § 38-431.06	State sought enforcement of CID powers to investigate OML violations.	IRC argues no reasonable cause existed for the OML investigation.	There was no reasonable cause for the OML investigation; summary judgment affirmed and investigation enjoined

Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n v. Brewer, 229 Ariz. 347 (2012) (upholds independence of IRC and discusses Open Meeting Clause vs. OML)
Ariz. Minority Coal. for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 208 P.3d 676 (2009) (confirms IRC’s role in redistricting and related processes)
Fields v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 206 Ariz. 130 (2003) (defines legislative privilege context for IRC actions)
Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, 196 Ariz. 516 (2000) (implied constitutional limits on legislative power; separation of powers context)
Jones v. State, 142 Ariz. 302 (1984) (severability principles for partially unconstitutional acts)
Gherna v. State, 16 Ariz. 344 (1915) (severability and harmony with constitution when applying statutes)
Allred v. State, 67 Ariz. 320 (1948) (legislative power limitations and constitutional structure)