*1 error in not was also proof; and want of proponent of for the judgment
rendering probate. admitting it to
the will sufficiency legal I
As evaluate judg- to sustain the verdict
evidence ample. Viewing the
ment, it than was more do, I I sufficiency the evidence
legal opinion judgment
am be sustained.
trial court should LA CONCINI, J., Judge joins in
DE dissent.
PRADE’S P.2d BOLIN, Secretary of State. al. v. et
ADAMS
No. 5680.
Supreme of Arizona. Court
July *2 Pintek, Bisbee, Jones, jority & voting Conner there- electors John Tucson, counsel, Tucson, Jones, proclamation Gerald on and the Governor.” appellants. for Employees’ The Public Retirement Wilson, Gen., Atty. O. Earl Ander- Fred adopt by petition Act was initiated and was Gen., Attys. Perry Ling, son and M. Asst 240,998 ed at general the 1948 election: Lewis, Scoville, Phoenix, of Roca & coun- electors had for this election sel, appellee. for 184,323 ballots registering; at the election 86,989 cast;
were electors for the re voted 38,111 against tirement measure voted PRADE, LA Justice. Of actually voting it. presents appeal proceeding from polls measure; 59,223 did vote on this Superior Court dis- judgment and, 56,675 registered electors failed to complaint plaintiffs. missing the at all. figures registrations All and votes re prohibit injunction complaint were cast verified from records the of certifying Secretary of Secretary State, fice of of which we super- boards of of the several clerks judicial take notice. visors, the official ballot for inclusion on “A cast thereon” votes general voters at the be submitted *3 62,551 votes, upon was and became a law November, 1952, a to held in election be proclamation of the Governor. Const. Art. by proposed Legislature. the referendum 1, 1(5). pt. sec. Secretary by the of The action enjoined ground majority qualified the be on the “A of sought to that the elec- 120,500. power 4, pt. without to refer the tors” was Art. was Const. Legislature 1(6). question. sec. measure not, however, did the approval It receive 10, 1952, there was March
On filed majority qualified of “a the vote of elec- State, Secretary House the the office repeal so make it tors” as to immune from by Concurrent Resolution No. by Legislature, the or amendment within Legislature regular the at its second 20th prohibition (6), the of Subsection unless or- resolution enacted and session. This phrase “approved by majority the vote of the of a the submission to dered interpreted qualified electors” is the to be measure an initiative repealing measure phrase “approved by synonymous with the known the adopted by majority the votes cast thereon”. Employees’ Retirement Act. Public Secs. complaint to 12-828, inc., A.C.A.1939, motion dismiss was Cum. to 12-801 it upon ground that failed to the act was state a Supp. repealing The measure upon relief could be approved claim granted. a ma- to “become valid qualified argued (1) with- It was was electors.” The subsection would court jurisdiction restrain the submission then have read: out to proposed by Legisla- referendum power “The governor, veto or of the ture, (2) Legislature that the con- has power legislature, repeal to authority submit stitutional to to voters amend shall not initiative extend to repealing referendum an initiated law. or referendum measures”. complaint judgment “dis- ordered Appellee presents propositions three ground missed for the reason we cognizance: they of which will take Arizo- Legislature that the of the State are, (1) Legislature constitutional has the vot- na have does to submit repeal power meas- or amend an initiated law, repeal ers a referendum to an approved by majority ure less than a legislative aas measure.” electors; qualified (2) has. power elec- constitutional to submit to the It is that an appellants the contention of repealing an initiated' torate measure, adopted, initiated can once law; (3) specifically that unless authorized' repealed in which it in the same manner injunction will law an not lie to restrain- repeal, adopted, e., by i. initiated legislative exercise of functions or in have the does not manner interfere in the authority referen- to order a process. repealing dum law. part controversy here stems- A appellee’s having It is contention interpretation a difference of majority received a vote of the pt. 1(6) language of repeal amend- subject fol- section reads as This Constitution. subject Legislature, if ment : lows Leg- a fortiori Legislature, power governor, “The veto repeal! refer a legislature,
islature must sustaining repeal. holding A initiative- resolution amend shall not extend would, course, dis- first contention measures or referendum electors.” vote of they appellant’s pose contentions ar- considered. It is to be not need would amended' reads was it now section as *4 general had in- the approved makers an initiated act the constitution gued if that 3, 1914, effective- and election on November measures and referred all initiated tended 14, December 1914. appeal amend- from immune to be were provisions original section read follows: the Legislature, ment “ omitted (6) have govern- would ‘(6) The veto subsection or ref- not extend initiative majority or shall by a vote “approved words
273 model gon furnished the constitution by a ma- approved erendum measures Oregon The sentence in consideration. qualified electors.’” jority comparable (6) section our Subsection adopted originally It is that as thus seen power- governor of the “The reads: veto from precluded governor alone was to measures referred shall not extend measures initiative referendum vetoing people.” 4, (6) Art. Our Subsection § qualified approved by of the majority a prohibition not to refer- extended the Legisla- By amendment electors. red measures. measures but it prohibition and included in the ture was prohibition But be noted it is that the repeal or deprived power to was Oregon section was to “[referendum] measures amend initiative or referendum people” then measures referred to the quali- “approved by majority vote a provided “any that measure referred to and after the Both before fied electors.” shall take effect and become the prohibition extended _ approved by majority it is a “ap- referendum measures initiative and thereon, votes cast otherwise-.” qualified proved by majority vote It is thus seen that our constitution makers electors.” intentionally Oregon deviated “ap- It is if the words suggested also provided model that the veto qualified proved by majority vote the Governor and the should say they to mean what electors” were not not extend referendum to initiative or “approved to mean intended but were measures by majority vote of voting qualified electors majority of the qualified patent It is most electors. “voting thereon” thereon”, that words “approved that the by majority words sentence, easily been added to the could electors” inten- were 21, 1 sec. of Consti- as was done in tionally meticulously selected. provided it amend- tution wherein Nothing firmly is more settled shall to the Constitution become ments circumstances, ordinary than under where part “if a thereof there ambiguity is involved no or absurdi approve shall thereon voting ty, a statutory provision or constitutional ” ** Sup.) (Emp. We believe ratify requires interpretation. no Automatic this contention. merit in there is County, Registering Mach. Co. v. Pima 36 367, journal pro- 1034; Ariz. Super P. Board of On examination convention, Maricopa County Pratt, visors of v. ceedings 1220; Ariz. pt. 57 P.2d Industrial 1 of of Art. Comm. provisions wherein Price, 1099; Ariz. P. Palm relating to initiative and Constitution, Development discussion, City Phoenix, croft v.Co. under find we were P.2d 46 Ariz. that the Ore- A.L.R. repeatedly stated *5 exception 103 tial years Ariz. 51 P.2d election it is the rare modified qualified of We are not aware when elec- A.L.R. 811. more than of the 75% inconsistency that will arise absurdity or clear that actually tors vote. It is all too provision by construing the constitution the difference makers knew says. to mean what it there- cast majority between a the votes Pima 1035] or where the meaning, it is the meaning. ous and for this injustice, court to ascertain must be mined intention the statute cases) of a (Citing plain a clear no is to In Automatic literal “In statutory occasion for it is said: County, supra, rules of statute ascertain primarily determining cases.)” and definite interpretation given its absurdity (Citing cases) But where unambiguous and purpose to itself, construction. intent language Registering Mach. Co. v. statutory construction. great and give from the resorting to the Legislature. primary is, and, [36 plain meaning fundamental apply Ariz. would contradictions, is of doubtful true course, effect to the and obvious language duty meaning there conveys lead (Citing intent, statute deter- vari- rules 285 P. rule tors basis on ing on a state or computed.” votes cast for all at section required percentages are modified duced two have the electors and vided that electors” stance is ten per stitution, [*] * reference to Art. on and fied electors. This is So, required centum subsections general Subsection *.” provides qualified which the might Section required per where it was “five initiative or referendum In election county per order Subsection per that “The whole number of sign electors. 1(7) of .taken (2) number of candidates centum of the centum of the qualified other propose any measure pt. such measure shall last referendum. centum one provided that together made clearer vote of the preceding (3) petition five Plowever, (3) qualified electors shall referring to per pt. 1(2), Con- governor qualified qualified shall be 1. This petition indicate is centum 'be the fil- These quali- these elec- pro- “ten re- in- is a marked distinction be There required percentages qualified by majority 'a electors, tween law to be literally do com- approved by and a law electors plied (7), with because Subsection voting thereon. the electors majority of modifies Subsections and 3 and makes knowledge, common a matter definitely It is clear that for an initiative meas- in the by the records officeof the per disclosed ten ure centum State, presiden- required Secretary that even in is not but rather only per ten au- Legislature was without all candi- was that the cast for the votes centum of thority particular code sec- to amend the general election governor dates for an initiated ground that it was on preceding. last that it was It was determined measure. cases appellants urged by It is been enacted measure but had 417, 248 P. Hubbs, Ariz. of Willard v. *6 4, pt. 1, before the amendment of 515, 260 Kerby, 32; McBride v. 32 Ariz. was, type 1(6), in- therefore, that Superior Conway 435; ex v. P. State rel. amended or itiated measure that could be 983; 69, v. Court, Ariz. 131 P.2d State 60 repealed by Legislature. just It the was 131; 61, 125, Pelosi, 51, P.2d 68 199 Ariz. by the as if the section had been enacted Commission, 70 Ariz. Ward v. Industrial therefore, was, Legislature. It not neces- their 271, 765, controlling in 219 P.2d are sary the court make this statement: for may statements that initiative measure course, adop- is, “It that after such true by Legis repealed amended not be or amend- to the constitutional (referring lature. 4, pt. (6)) ment to Art. sec. 1 no measure 1, presented these the direct None of cases approved by a referendum could be re- dis- question there is vital as to whether a pealed by Legislature”. or amended referred tinction between an or 417, Apparently Ariz. 248 P. [30 33.] approved by measure not enacted or a genesis this statement was the qualified electors and majority vote of the concept thought or that all initiative or re- merely by approved measures or enacted approved ferred measures or are majority of the votes cast thereon. immune from or re- time for the first asserts that instant case peal, repeated thought has been and makes an is such distinction there since, but we its submit that author never cases, issue of it. statements these presented had question him the direct laws that initiated and referred effect to the presented in the instant that is case. repealed or may not amended laws be ex- overruled to the Legislature, are pointed out We have made state directly the statements tent “approved words vote implication initiated or infer that or qualified plain are electors” and leave or laws not enacted referred no room for construction. But if rules of qualified majority vote of of, construction should availed be one repealed by or may not be amended many pertaining rules to constitutional Legislature. provisions meaning that some be is must phrase given to each Constitution presented case Hubbs v.
The Willard giving grammati their unless words Legislature amended a this situation: penal meaning and common will code and contention cal create some section 276 situation, 479, plain 68 P.2d
impossibility unworkable or Ariz. 694. What Hall, purpose put absurdity. 34 this limitation was lead to for which Porter v. 308, 411; to amend ex rel. Davis Ariz. 271 P. 884; Osborne, 125 P. initiative or referred measures? v. 14 Ariz. 494; State, P. 146 Was to extend to all initiative or re- Ariz. Gherna v. 94; approved? Ann.Cas.1916D, Hughes, ferred v. measures enacted Perkins interpreta provision suggests The constitutional Ariz. P.2d 261. In If statute, city city given the answer attention is is tion of a ordinance no. provision give full the limitation principle charter the cardinal lawmaker, the legislature on runs those intent of meas- effect to the approved by majority ures that word, phrase, and sentence each clause If this meaning part will of electors. latter given be that no must so phrase, void, City “approved by majority vote inert, be redundant trivial. electors”, susceptible Yates, Ariz. P. of Phoenix v. more meaning, than one then this court 2d 1147. it according must enforce to its terms. in this can had case Some assistance Frohmiller, Millett v. 66 Ariz. in Maxwell holding reference our P.2d 125, 166 P.2d 64 Ariz. Fleming, *7 interpret and To enforce this constitu- phrase was held that the “ma- wherein it provision tional its terms according to will jority votes cast of all at such election” impossible create unworkable sit- in, City means Charter ex- the Phoenix uation, it absurdity. nor will result in says majority the actly total what it —a according To it enforce to its terms will election, opposed cast the as vote at to only mean that those initiated and referred majority votes cast for one the majority measures receive the By there upon. analogy, can offices voted electors will be immune phrase “majority the question that be no repeal. from amendment or We appearing cast thereon” of the votes fully are aware stated reasons actu- Arizona, 4, pt. 1, Constitution ating the constitution makers to reserve exactly says what it ma- 1(5) means —a people the the to enact laws and cast votes jority of the initiative refer Legislature. measures measure, opposed as to a referendum cognizant We are also of the mischief it the votes cast at majority of election. felt powers was the reservation of these objects remedy reach and the would have held that strict Again we rules contemplated. that was But with the will not be resorted ad- grammar technical plain purpose the initiative stat vent defeat County, Mahoney Maricopa general was no concept there ute. period legislature At within a two measures were sacrosanct.
and referred years (Emp. following such enactment.” adoption constitution- our time Subdiv. Sup.) (c) Wash.Const. of Seventh amendment of Section and the provisions al appear It would Amendment. from the best Oregon had felt was 1(6), reported many n conceivedand cases constitutions expressed ideas inherent express municipal charters contain inhibi- only Oregon with- But reservations. tions, absolutely specified or for time power governor from held the veto against repeal, abrogation or amendment power extended and his veto alone, Legislature municipal councils, In California veto referred measures. of initiative or referendum measures. governor on from the was withheld provi- examination of these constitutional peo- adopted by initiated or (cid:127)measures reported sions and the referring cases precluded Legislature ple and the prohibitions and charter act, repealing law or amending or plainly depict that there was no universal adopted by to the Constitution general concept inviolability polls initiative under the at initiated or referred measures. Reference Calif.Const., Article 'section provisions. in each instance par- must be had to the proceed- journal of the According ticular provision. constitutional or charter convention, California ings case, before We have been referred to no and our provision constitution mak- industry none, was before our own has furnished in which appear that the California language ers and it would the exact under consideration has the Ari- provision furnished the idea for respect been considered. In this we are on enlarge the zona constitution makers to attempting own in our to construe the prohibition to include the “approved words vote of the in this qualified and referred acts. But Regardless electors.” of the fact they respect constitution was ex- simple explicit California we have veto withholding and concise a.ct nevertheless tried to make thorough ini- to measures them, examination of taking into consider- “adopted by pari materia, tiated or ation the sections in the cir- they polls”. Id. under which adopted, cumstances were purposes accomplished their provision Washington constitutional *8 use, they and the evils to which were ad- our constitution makers. before was also All dressed. this and contemplation search comparable provision from the Con- The leads us to the conclusion that the words Washington state of reads of the stitution simply they say. mean what law, ap- act, “No or bill follows: as by majority Wyoming of the electors vot- The case of proved a State ex rel. Blair Brooks, repealed Wyo. 874, L.R.A., P. shall be amended or ing thereon N.S., 478, by excellent is borne language, furnishes some reason- not out nor is ing by way analogy harmony spirit it fortifies in with the of the we it conclusion that have reached this While in Constitution. is true that a voters, by majority Wyoming plurality In a case. case the a of the votes 1, approved a office,yet vote of a cast elects constitutional candidate for an Constitution, a when voter fails amendment. art. to cást vote for his § required any particular had candidate a office,, ratification for “majority preference of the At electors”. the election of the elector has not is, 37,561 these, 12,160 legally expressed, votes were been cast. Of and there adoption nothing voted in in favor of the record against favor of or against such voted it. The candidate. The ‘elector’' word was, question approval it defined in did receive the (section Constitution “a art. as majority 6) (definition omitted). electors”? The follows: explanation court In There is said no. thereof no room doubt to what as expounding in its reason for its con- meant convention clusion, when it used it said: word in ‘electors’ sec- provision word, art.
“The 20. The Constitution is according explicit the definition proposed given in Such it its terms. those who only framed the amendment can be ratified Constitution, a means those' majority who are and, of the electors. It to vote; would be entitled say, says anomalous in majority view of Constitution a section electors, whole, means, taken as a that it was intended the absence of actually qualifying phrase, a majority mean those who voted of those amendment, upon words, who are other entitled vote. is made more evident from the fact that the majority electors, of some of the a ex- phrase ‘if majority ratified requires cluding pro- It others. provision electors’ follows that the posed amendment to be submitted to proposed amendment shall be submitted state, the electors of the those who are to the state; electors vote, and it a.majority entitled electors,’ ‘the words without qual- other is, the electors—that electors of ification, majority of whom is re- majority state—and not of those ac- quired to ratify the amendment, clearly upon tually voting question, means proposed state. such amendment is rati- language Any is broader in meaning fied. other construction would au- than counting a mere thorize all who did electors who question actually vote on the favor proposition. adoption, construction which Neither residence of the elector nor *9 many true that legislation. Although it is against this can militate (cid:127)failure to vote incorporated general ideas worthwhile gen- proposition. ‘elector’ The word measures, it also true that in initiative includes, only those who -not eric. It open they advantage do not have the yet vote, qualified, those who are hut analysis, and oftentimes incor- debate and of franchise. fail to exercise harmony provisions porate that are out would, effect, give To hold otherwise general with and contradict the scheme of ‘electors’ narrower to the word people legislation. If think giv- meaning than restricted more repeal amendment of initiat- or en to it the Constitution.” per desirable, is not five centum of lawed are: cases to the same effect Other qualified force a referen- electors can Brown, Davenport Ill. People ex rel. again against dum it and will Sutterfield, 478; rel. ex Dobbins v. express opin- opportunity to their have an Hetfield v. Trustees 391; People ex rel. Mo. ion thereon. 28; Edward, Village Ft. 70 N.Y. There are on a total of hooks sixteen 595, 207 City, 111 Kan. P. Clayton v. Hill measures, one initiated of which became a 13,941votes, by 16,754 another votes 18,936 votes. suggest that to and We now have appellants another for Counsel by peti- laws that fourteen were referred between initiative and a distinction make tion, 11,- approved by receiving two of them less than ma- measures votes, receiving more electors and two less than those jority 12,000 votes, four receiving of them by majority vote of less the votes 14,000 receiving than votes and two them harmony throw out of would thereon cast votes; 15,000 than three were provisions of our less referred Constitution the various n on Legislature. The total number of subject of and referred initiated cast all for the candidates seriously gov- votes for oonfused create and would laws general in the 1950 ernor election was years litiga- take condition that would 195,227. In order initiate a thought that or straighten out. If we tion to of these 33 initiated consequence we were in store this dire require would laws earnestly way, possi- if referred seek a most would signatures petition, to bear valid interpretation. 19,- appellants’ We ble, adopt In order legis- propose electors. permit the opinion that to are of the repeal of or to ill- an amendment amendments initiated to make needed lature present time, law at referred laws or referred meas- considered requires time, part, most one one-half passage that, through times ures as many signatures step obsolete, will for- measure be a received become approved, shackling it was people of relieve the a most ward expensive undertaking; so “(3) laborious The second of these reserved so, fact, many powers much them die a- is the Referendum. Under borning. give To legislature, per five repeal, amend both outright electors, centum the qualified may subject referendum, can result order the submission *10 we, as good; “good” polls any measure, not that members item, of or sec- it, opportunity tion, part any measure, of the court view but the or of for authorized “good” legislature, except as and envisioned laws imme- diately necessary preservation the Constitution. for the public peace, health, safety, of or Appellee’s Proposition 2No. support or for and maintenance of “The has constitutional departments of govern- state power to submit to a the electorate * * and ment state institutions repealing initiated law.” referendum (Emp. Sup.) provisions applicable The constitutional “(5) Any measure or amendment to provision 4, pt. to all in Art. this found proposed the constitution under the in- They Constitution. are: itiative, any and measure to which the authority legislative “(1) The of the applied, referendum is shall be refer- legislature, shall in a state be vested red to a electors, vote of the consisting senate a house of and shall zvhen become representatives, but the reserve by a votes cast there- power propose to laws and amend- upon proclamation on and of the gov- and to ments to the constitution enact ernor, and not (Emp. otherwise.” reject or such laws amendments Sup.) independently polls, legis- at “(6) The power veto govern- reserve, lature; also they use or, power or the legislature, power option, ap- their own at repeal or amend shall not extend to polls act, prove reject any or ap- measures any item, section, part act, proved by a majority vote qual- legislature.” ified electors.” “(2) first these reserved “(14) This section shall not be con- Under is the Initiative. powers deprive strued to legislature per centum power ten right to enact measure.” right propose have electors shall measure, per fifteen centum important The most of the foregoing- right propose any is, course, clauses shall the first. It is often the constitution.” power said all resides the people leg says: “The is The Constitution legislature Arizona power of a state that the be vested authority islative state gov- shall In the sense power. delegated legislature”. Constitu in a The Federal just powers their ernments derive says: herein legislative Powers tion “All such governed, observa- the consent of Congress in a granted be vested fol- shall not does true. But is of course * * 1. The *.” U.S.Const. Art. Sec. power legislative delegated low that by other con (except former is as limited than otherwise circumscribed or restricted vesting of all provisions) the stitutional prohibition, nor power. nothing more than The latter is legislature is power delegated to a state restricted, such exercising statement manner of only legislate within a granted. circumscribed, limited narrow field. described or Perhaps here, not be- what we have said legisla Initially people have all new, ing need no restatement should (1) they dele By subsection power. tive considering recently, iteration. More legisla part of their gated some or constitutionality statute author- of a power, all Mc power, but tive izing personal ex- the reimbursement reserving Kerby, supra, Bride penses Legislature, this of members of the propose the electors concurrent *11 Frohmiller, court, Ariz. in Earhart v. approve or and amendments and to laws 437-438, 224-225, con- P.2d reject legislative The lan enactments. question in and in sidered whole extenso clear, complete guage of the section is and part said: concise. which held
By suggest do not “Some courts these we of statements wholly such invalid have done so because authority acts legislative is un- that the question pro- Except the state constitutions and unrestricted. as trammeled express vided for such repug- no authorization legislation may prohibited be legislation. provisions the Constitution to other of nant laws, the the Federal Constitution and “We believe of the rule construction absolute, authority Legislature is finding express requires of which complete people delegation by inappropriate ap- authorization reservation, delegation, with a and absolute plied to the Constitution of the State of authority, part but of of of such a con- not Arizona, great weight proposal (by referen- right current States, authority throughout the United dum) right of veto. applicable to the it is not construction generally. of state constitutions power legislatures state should the Arizona Sec. 33 of Constitution precisely with and is in fact
not be confused Congress. ‘The enumeration in delegated states that power of opposite construed', rights constitution of not “This section certain shall shall not be legisla- deny deprive any others retained be construed to member of the people’. the Federal assembly right Unlike introduce tive Constitution, are state constitutions not measure.” grants limita- power, but instead are An understanding that our subsections^ generally accepted tions thereof. The incorporated paragraph were in the one except things doctrine is that for those Oregon Constitution makes clear that the necessarily ,by the Federal or inhibited all of our 15 word “section" refers to sub- constitution, legislature the state state sections. may pass act, because the whole suggested Mr. one- Lockwood Justice prohibited by power not the state and meaning: notwithstanding pend- Federal is retained in constitutions yet ency petition (not a referendum vot- representatives elected and their particular measure, upon) as ed cases) (Citing in the state. Legislature deprived of could not be the- * * * * * * legislate enactment to on the new judgment here is “Our standard Kerby, supra. subject. McBride v. same clear. We the Act must find meanings: first,, suggest We two-additional clearly prohibited by either the Federal with should be construed sub- section Ar- Constitution Constitution constitutes, out (1) and abun- section it invalid. And hold izona order to caution, prin- dance of reiteration of the clearly it is looking whether see ciple expressed, there while cognizant of the prohibited rule we right of initiative have reserved presumptions and intendments that all referendum, such reservation shall be- validity and consti- favor are in deprive Legislature construed so as of' tutionality such legislative acts and of. power, legislative plenary its which is all con- construction given ‘will acts be second, power; and the section should be ” possible.’ validity if at all sistent with (3), with subsections which gives construed meaning subsec- intent and The clear the concurrent to refer authority “The (1) (6), denies to vested”, made is fortified and shall state to amend or an initiated *12 by (14); unmistakably subsection clear approved by majority or referred act de- be construed to shall not section “This electors. right legislature to enact of
prive the
Fundamentally,
primary
contention
any measure.”
appellants
by
made
is that subsection (6),
Oregon
of
comparable
prohibiting
section
Con-
from itself
The
amending or repealing an initiated
reads:
or re-
stitution
390,
812,
ita,
816;
151Kan.
99 P.2d
Stetson
by
vote of
ferred act
Seattle,
606,
City
494,
interpreted v.
Wash.
134 P.
be
electors should
496;
City
Seattle,
Knez
State ex rel.
v.
set in
may not
to mean that the
905;
1020,
283, 28 P.2d
33 P.2d
ma- 176 Wash.
motion
resolution
referendum
City Bellingham,
ex
Pike v.
State
rel.
or
chinery by
people can amend
which the
439,
602.
Wash.
48 P.2d
repeal
referred act.
such initiated or
Legislature Arizona
not
has
simplest
answers to
One of
repeal
authority
it
assumed that
had
not
does
contention
that the section
Legislature and
words so
an
restrict the
refer the act of
initiated measure and
thought desira
actually
been
restriction had
if such
to the
but
has
exe-
Constitution, its
ble
the framers of
assumption.
cuted such
simple of
have been
therein would
inclusion
1916,
peo-
measure,
In
an initiated
complete an
accomplishment.
more
ple adopted
“relating
preserva-
to the
act
Legislature has
course,
is,
swer
Para-
game
of fish and
and amending
grant
prohibited
expressly
.all
not
graphs
XVIII,
Penal
and
Title
government.
ed
branch of
to another
Arizona,
Code of the Revised Statutes of
Arizona
than
A
other
states
1913.”
number of
Laws of
In. and Ref. Meas-
pro
which
provisions
ures, page
have constitutional
seasons
act related
repeal
amending
birds,
legislature
game
from
taking
bag
hibit
and
limits for
per
law, either
game
fish,
ing
referred
initiated or
animals and
and fixed the license
years.
Similar
adoption
a term
manently
Following
or for
fees
therefor.
infrequently found in the
not
and
provisions
relating
initiated measure
fish
upon
imposed
game,
agitation
cities
con
charters,
city
was much
and discus-
there
An
statutory mandate.
ex
among
sion
as to
wisdom
stitutional
reported
usefulness,
decisions
law
its then
amination of
view of
have,
legisla
to their
changing
quantities
which
weather conditions
states
those
adopted
cities,
such' restric of game
be
and fish
taken.
It
their
available
tures or
legisla
argued
that the
tions,
that the
should be more
reveals
council)
city
existing,
to submit a amenable to conditions then
(or the
ture
repeal of an
game
bag
initiated that the
fish
for the
seasons and
questioned,
arbitrarily
never been
act has
limits
fixed
should
or referred
time,
depend
periods
ex
exist. State
rel.
seasons
long
assumed
but has been
MacQueen,
82 W.Va.
95 S.E.
weather conditions and the bag
v.
limits
Gabbert
Summers,
667;
Wagner
depend upon quantities
v.
ex rel.
animals
State
L.R.A.,N.S.,
144 N.W.
turn were
birds
controlled
33 S.D.
City
conditions,
Harley
supplies,
206;
rel.
of Wich-
natural food
ex
weather
*13
apparently being
Legislature
appears
etc. The
It thus
then
that from
to
opinion
the
date the
Legislature
the
that it
without
act
of
was
in 1927 re
in
consider
repeal
ferring
repeal
did
a
an initiated measure
the
of
initiated act of
repeal
and refer.
has
it had the
challenged.
act
.been
initiated
1921 the
in
the fact that
superseded
evidenced
has been
all
and matters
repealing
Legislature
relating
enacted an act
game
fish
regulated
are
and
now
the by comprehensive
and ordered
initiated measure of
game
pro
fish and
code
p.
people. See
repeal
viding
to the
act
flexibility
referred
for
as circumstances
de-
444,
this act
referral
On
conditions
S.L.1923.
demand. We have recited this
fish
game
history
feated.
act and its
show
legislative
concept
authority, and
its
passed
again
an
Legislature
In 1925 the
exemplification
good
as an
that flows
1916 relat-
repeal
act of
the initiated
act to
interpretation
from the
made
we
Chap. 6,
game (See
S.L.
to fish and
ing
pt.
1(6)
4,
of Section
Article
peo-
to the
referred
it be
1925),
directed
Constitution,
Legislature
which allows the
re-
in 1926. On
general election
ple at the
to amend
any
initiative act
was defeated.
this act
ferral
has
failed
receive
Legislature
third time the
In 1927for
qualified electors, and,
case,
in the instant
repealing and
referring
an act
passed
repeal.
to refer the
(See Chap.
of 1916.
measure
Appellee’s Proposition
3No.
approved at the
S.L.1927.) This act was
Immediately fol-
in 1928.
election
general
by law,
specially
Unless
authorized
Legislature enacted
election
lowing
injunction
will not lie to restrain
regulating the issuance
emergency
legislative
exercise of
functions nor in
game and fish and
licenses,
taking
any
legisla-
manner to interfere
bag
(See
limits.
the seasons
regulating
process.
tive
Legis.,
8th
Sp.Sess.
5th
Chap. 3, Acts of
legislative authority
March,
Thereafter,
S.L.1928.)
p. 465,
Legisla
of Arizona is
vested
emergency meas-
Legislature
may
ture and the
be exercised
compre-
S.L.1929,
ure, Chap. 84,
enacted
pt.
1, supra.
both. Const. Art.
sec.
game and fish and
relating to
hensive law
A
Legislature
peo-
reference
to the
commission, delegating to
game
creating
ple
part
is a
exercise
close,
shorten or alter
authority function.
prescribed
bag
by the
limits
open season or
“ * * *
* * *
repeatedly amended.
legislature,
has been
This act
act.
S.L.1931;
Chap.
Chap.
may
S.L.
order
submission
(See
*
* *
1933;
52, S.L.1945.)
polls
Chap.
measure
* *
appellant concedes
“The
*.”
legislature
by the
mem-
powerless
restrain
courts
supra.
1(3),
4, pt. 1,
Const.
introducing
ber of the
by the
function is exercised
Such
invalid,
measure,
valid
the measure
passage of
interfere
that the courts cannot
reason
*14
act and
the initiated
in repealing
legislative de-
with the action
referral, the cer
ordering its
same measure
partment.
legal
has a
warrant
What
State
by the
thereof
tification
Secretary^of
enjoin
Secretary
State
court to
Supervisors
of the Boards
to the Clerks
whether
certifying a
from
measure
60-106,A.C.1939), and
(required by Section
the initiative
valid
Is not
invald?
cer
The
thereon.
the vote
petition
process of
step in the
also a
mani
is
by
Secretary of State
tification
legislation?”
requiring dis
festly
act not
a ministerial
cases,
theory
The
cited
legislative
in the
step
It is a mere
cretion.
akin
the well estab
closely
is
course
and the
process by
Legislature
courts will not consider
lished rule that the
legisla
people,
together,
acting
exercise
Superior
political
Court
matters. Renck v.
Legisla
“In this state
tive function.
320,
Maricopa County, Ariz.
187 P.2d
66
the lawmak
constitute
ture
to in
of the courts
656. And the refusal
458,
State, 14
power.”
Ariz.
Allen v.
ing
legislative
terfere in the exercise
L.R.A..N.S.,
1118,
468.
467,
1114,
44
130 P.
minority
function is
-means a
rule
no
statutory
express
the absence of
In
well-nigh
appears to
universal.
but
jurisdiction
power,
courts are without
723, 120
Doughton, 186 N.C.
S.E.
Person v.
or other
interfere,
injunctiori
whether
481; People
Begole,
Foley
ex rel.
v.
98
legislative
wise,
with the exercise
931;
354,
Rob
P.2d
Clements v.
56
Colo.
,
legisla
enactment of
with
function or
30;
erts,
Id.,
230
144 Tenn.
S.W.
129
spoken:
court has
tion.
Mtg.
Home &
State ex rel. Better Built
80;
Davis, 302 Mo.
259 S.W.
Co. v.
enjoin
power
leg-
no
“Courts have
Gates,
State
rel. Abel v.
190
ex
Mo.
City
v.
of Phoenix
functions.”
islative
L.R.A.,N.S.,
881, 2
89
152.
S.W.
Maricopa County,
Court of
Superior
P.2d
814.
65 Ariz.
hold:
We therefore
Legislature has con-
1. That
rule is found in
statement
A clear
power to
or amend an
stitutional
247, 249,
Osborn, Ariz.
143 P.
State
approved by less than
initiated measure
expresses itself
court
117, 118,
our
wherein
qualified electors;
enjoin
Secre-
refusing to
follows
Legislature
has the con-
to initiated
2. That
referring
tary of State
to the elec-
power to refer
stitutional
measure:
law,
“repeal
nor
No.
neither a
an'initiated
lution
repealing
act
tors an
amendment”.
specifically author-
3. That unless
having
Act
repealed the Retirement
Not
lie
injunction will not
law an
ized
resolution,
question
concurrent
(cid:127) legislative
restrain the exercise
therefore before the court is whether
manner
inter-
or in
functions
Legislature
given
power
has been
process.
in the
fere
initiate,
and to
to the voters
submit
provisions of
under the
measure
judgment is affirmed.
Constitution.
.the
has
to en
While
J.,
DE
UDALL,
C.
and PHELPS
legislation,
prohibited by
act
not
CONCINI, JJ., concurring.
constitutions,
in
or Federal
legislative power
delegate
herent
STANFORD,
(dissenting).
Justice
people,
law-making
either
empowered, but
People
rel.
initiative or referendum.
ex
provisions of
the referendum
limited under
Barnett,
Ill.
Thomson v.
176 N.E.
Constitution,
by it.
laws enacted
to refer
108, A.L.R.
*15
4
refers to
No. now
Resolution
'Concurrent
laws,
authority
initiate,
The
to
or refer
people,
a law “enacted
itself,
springs from the Constitution
as a
proposal only to
by
Legislature” but
the
power
power
delegated, not as
inherent
by
voters.
approved
the
when
law
become
Therefore,
Legislature.-
power
the
such
attempting
is
to sub-
thus
Legislature
The
only in the
be exercised
manner
may
as
measure,
voters,
initiative
as
mit
the
to
Hall,
Ariz,
delegated. Clements
Employees’ Re-
repeal the
proposal to
notwithstanding to en- necessary
defines the voters majority of being the
act measure as
votes cast thereon. P.2d measure since or referred
No adopted aby has been statehood CO. v. CALIFORNIA HOMES WINGFOOT accept the in- PHOENIX. VALLEY NAT. BANK OF To electors. of Initiative and given the terpretation now No. 5625. measures means Referendum Supreme Court of Arizona. vetoed measure could have Governor 8, 1952. Oct. adopted, Legis- and the been has ever or amend may now lature enacted since measure referred
initiated or
statehood. *16 of the voters exercise
When 50% it will seen how im- to vote
their place hereafter be- becomes
possible Legislature to im- power of
yond any law
mediately
people.