OPINION
¶ 1 We treat in this special action two issues of first impression: (1) whether Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-4433(H) (Supp.2006), gives the specified parent or legal guardian of the minor crime victim the right to refuse to submit to a pretrial interview, and (2) if so, whether such a right is constitutional. For the reasons that follow, we accept jurisdiction and uphold the trial court’s order denying the motion for a court-ordered deposition of the minor victim’s mother.
I.
¶ 2 On or about September 5, 2005, Scott B. (“Scott”), age three at the time, was treated at a hospital for bruising around his eyes and released the same day. Adam Lincoln was indicted for one count of child abuse, a class four felony and a domestic violence offense, for allegedly choking or strangling Scott. The State listed Annalisa B. (“Mother”) as a material witness. She is the only witness that will testify that Lincoln inflicted the injury. Counsel for Lincoln requested an interview with Mother. Mother refused based on the Victims’ Bill of Rights and A.R.S. § 13-4433(H). Defense counsel moved for a court-ordered deposition of Mother. The trial court denied the motion. This special action followed.
¶3 Special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary.
See State ex rel. McDougall v. Super. Ct.,
II.
¶ 4 As noted, there are two primary issues in this special action. First, does § 13-4433(H) grant the specified parent or legal guardian of a minor victim the right to refuse a pretrial interview of that parent or legal guardian? If so, is it constitutional and within the authority of the state legislature to grant the parent or legal guardian of a minor victim the right to personally refuse a pretrial interview? We review issues of statutory interpretation and the constitutionality of statutes de novo.
City of Casa Grande v. Ariz. Water Co.,
III.
A.
¶ 5 The key portions of § 13-4433 at issue here are as follows:
A. Unless the victim consents, the victim shall not be compelled to submit to an interview on any matter, including any charged criminal offense witnessed by the victim ... that is conducted by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney or an agent of the defendant. *24 H. This section applies to the parent or legal guardian of a minor child who exercises victims’ rights on behalf of the minor child.
A.R.S. § 13-4433. Another statutory provision critical to our construction of § 13-4433(H) is A.R.S. § 13-4403(0 (2001). Section 13-4403(0, which was in place prior to the enactment of § 13 — 4433(H), provides that if a victim is a minor or vulnerable adult, “the victim’s parent, child, or other immediate family member may exercise all of the victim’s rights on behalf of the victim.” A.R.S. § 13-4403(0-
¶ 6 Lincoln argues that § 13-4433(H) only grants to the parent or legal guardian the right to invoke victims’ rights on behalf of the child. The State, on the other hand, argues that § 13-4433(H) gives the specified parent or legal guardian of the minor victim the right to refuse an interview on the parent or legal guardian’s own behalf. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the State, and we hold that § 13-4433(H) grants to the parent or legal guardian of a minor child, who exercises the child’s rights, all the rights contained in § 13-4433, to be exercised on the parent or legal guardian’s own behalf.
B.
¶ 7 “In interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself. Our chief goal is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent.”
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin.,
¶ 8 Further, “apply” means “to put into operation or effect (apply a law).” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 56 (10th ed.2001);
see State v. Wise,
C.
¶ 9 In construing statutes we “give full effect to the intent of the lawmaker, and each word, phrase, clause and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”
Adams v. Bolin,
¶ 10 We must also consider subsection (H) in the context of the entire statutory scheme.
State v. Sweet,
D.
¶ 11 The legislative history also supports our interpretation of § 13 — 4433(H). When “the legislature specifies its purpose in the session law that contains the statute, it is appropriate to interpret the statutory provisions in light of that enacted purpose.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n,
¶ 12 The Legislative Fact Sheet specifically addresses the question here: whether subsection (H) allows the specified parent or legal guardian to invoke the right to refuse an interview on his or her own behalf. It states:
Sections 8-412 and 13-4403, Arizona Revised Statutes, allow a minor victim’s parent to exercise all of the victim’s rights on behalf of the victim. Sections 8 — 412 and 13-4433, Arizona Revised Statutes, do not specify whether the right to refuse an interview extends to parents who are acting on behalf of their minor child. [This provision] [ajllows a parent or legal guardian who is acting on behalf of his or her minor child to refuse an interview with the defense, in both juvenile and criminal court.
Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Legislative Fact Sheet specifically and unequivocally addresses the question before us by permitting the specified parent or legal guardian to refuse an interview. Additionally, one senator also proposed two floor amendments to Senate Bill 1126 which would have created an exception to the bill by allowing the defense to interview a parent or legal guardian if the parent or legal guardian was a witness to the crime committed against the minor child. Brotherton Floor Amendments to S.B. No. 1126, 47th Leg., 2d Sess. (Ariz.2006) (proposed amendments of Sen. Brotherton dated Feb. 9 and 16, 2006). The floor amendments failed. This also affirms the intent of the legislature to allow parents or legal guardians to invoke the right to refuse an interview on their own behalf. Id.
¶ 13 While we recognize that legislative history can be problematic when used to construe statutes,
Hayes v. Cont’l Ins. Co.,
E.
¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that § 13-4433(H) allows a minor victim’s parent or legal guardian who exercises victims’ rights on behalf of the minor to also exercise all victims’ rights specified in § 13-4433 on the parent or legal guardian’s own behalf. This includes the right to refuse an interview on the parent or legal guardian’s own behalf, not just on behalf of the minor child.
IV.
A.
¶ 15 Lincoln argues in the alternative that § 13^1433(H), if construed as we have done, is unconstitutional and thus beyond the authority of the legislature to enact. We presume that a statute is constitutional and “will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the act is in conflict with the federal or state constitutions.”
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Super. Ct,
¶ 16 The rights set forth in § 13-4433(H) permit victim’s rights to apply to a person (a parent or legal guardian who exercises victim’s rights on behalf of a child) who is not expressly enumerated in the constitutional definition of “victim.” The constitutional question presented by defendant is whether § 13-4433(H) is an unconstitutional modification of the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
B.
¶ 17 The Victims’ Bill of Rights grants a victim of a crime the right “[t]o refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant.” Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(A)(5). The Victims’ Bill of Rights defines “victim” as “a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed or, if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person’s spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative.” Id. at § 2.1(C); see also A.R.S. § 13-4401(19) (Supp.2006) (using the same definition of “victim” for purposes of the Victims’ Rights Implementation Act). A parent or legal guardian, as specified in § 13^1433(H), does not fall directly within that definition.
¶ 18 Section 2.1(D) of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, however, specifically authorizes the legislature “to enact
substantive
and procedural laws to define,
implement, preserve and protect
the rights guaranteed to victims by this section.” Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(D) (emphasis added). In
State v. Uriarte,
¶ 19 Similarly, § 13^1433(H) is an exercise of the legislature’s authority to enact a substantive law to “define, implement, preserve and protect” minor victims’ rights. Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(D). A parent or legal guardian of a minor victim who exercises rights on behalf of the minor is in a position to make important decisions for the minor and have communications with the minor concerning the facts of the case. Granting a parent or legal guardian of a minor the right to refuse a pretrial interview further ensures that the minor victim is “provided with basic *27 rights of respect [and] protection” for the enumerated victims’ rights. 1991 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 229, § 2 (legislative intent). Section 13-4433(H) is clearly consistent with the constitutional mandate to “implement, preserve and protect” the enumerated victims’ rights. Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(D). We therefore find that § 13-4433(H) is a valid exercise of the authority granted to the legislature by the Victims’ Bill of Rights under § 2.1(D).
C.
¶20 The defense asserts, however, that this construction of § 13-4433(H) is not within § 2.1(D) of the Victims’ Bill of Rights and impermissibly “adds” a new category of victim to the constitutional definition of “victim” set forth in the Victims’ Bill of Rights. We disagree.
¶ 21 In
Roscoe,
the Arizona Supreme Court held § 13-4433(G) unconstitutional. Subsection (G) stated that “a peace officer shall not be considered a victim if the act that would have made the officer a victim occurs while the peace officer is acting in the scope of the officer’s official duties.” A.R.S. § 13-4433(G). The Court invalidated subsection (G) because it denied the protections of the Victims’ Bill of Rights to peace officers, acting in the scope of their duties, who were otherwise protected by those constitutional provisions.
Roscoe,
¶ 22 Unlike the statutes at issue in
Roscoe
and
Klein,
§ 13-4433(H) does not narrow or restrict rights under the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
Roscoe
and
Klein
involved statutes that deprived victims of rights granted them by the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
Roscoe,
¶ 23 In support of the defense argument, however, is the language in
Roscoe
that the Victims’ Bill of Rights “grants to the legislature the
authority to define
the rights created therein,
not the power to redetermine who is entitled to them.”
¶ 24 Further,
Roscoe
specifically approved legislative action augmenting guaranteed constitutional rights. In
Roscoe,
the Arizona Supreme Court recognized this court’s prior decision in
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. Industrial Commission,
the legislature could properly add workers’ compensation coverage for risks which were not mandated to be covered by the constitution ... although the constitution required the legislature to provide specified workers’ compensation coverage, “it did not restrict the legislature’s power to provide additional coverage."
Id.
(quoting
Lou Grubb,
¶ 25 Additionally, we read the legislative authority granted in § 2.1(D) of the Victims’ Bill of Rights in the context of other constitutional provisions. The legislature has broad legislative powers under the Arizona Constitution that authorize it to enact laws such as § 13-4433(H) so long as those laws do not violate the Arizona Constitution.
See
*28
Ariz. Const, art. 4, pt 1, § 1(1) (“The legislative authority of the State shall be vested in the Legislature____”);
Adams,
¶26 For all these reasons, we hold that § 13-4433(H) is an appropriate exercise of the “preserve and protect” clause in § 2.1(D) of the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
V.
¶ 27 We affirm the trial court’s order denying Lincoln’s motion for a court-ordered deposition of Mother.