Transparent Payson v. Town of Payson, 2 CA-CV 2024-0195

Payson voters approved Propositions 401 and 402 in 2018, which imposed requirements for a public vote on certain long-term leases and high-value financial obligations by the town.
The Payson Town Council repealed both propositions in 2023, claiming it lacked legal authority to refer the measures to the ballot originally.
Plaintiffs (Transparent Payson and its chairman Jeffrey Aal) sought injunctive relief, arguing the Arizona Voter Protection Act (VPA) shielded these voter-enacted measures from repeal by the Town Council.
The Town counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the propositions were invalid and unenforceable.
The trial court sided with the Town, ruling that the VPA only applies to the Arizona State Legislature, not municipal councils, and thus the Town could repeal the measures.
Plaintiffs appealed, focusing on whether the VPA protects local ballot initiatives.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Does the Voter Protection Act (VPA) apply to municipal councils like the Payson Town Council?	VPA's voter intent was to prevent elected officials from overriding voter-enacted laws, so protection should extend to local initiatives.	VPA's language applies only to the state legislature, not local councils, and thus does not restrict municipal repeals.	VPA applies only to the state legislature; it is inapplicable to municipal councils like Payson's.

Town of Florence v. Florence Copper Inc., 251 Ariz. 464 (emphasized standard for reviewing factual findings on appeal)
Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467 (describes VPA's history and scope)
Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 231 Ariz. 342 (purpose and superiority of VPA over legislative acts)
S. Ariz. Home Builders Ass’n v. Town of Marana, 254 Ariz. 281 (statutory interpretation principles)
Perini Land & Dev. Co. v. Pima County, 170 Ariz. 380 (constitutional interpretation, plain meaning rule)