OPINION
¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant, State of Arizona ex rel.
¶ 2 We determine that the IRC has capacity to seek the declaratory and injunctive relief sought here. We also hold that the OML applies to the IRC to the extent it does not conflict with the relevant provisions of the Arizona Constitution establishing the IRC, and the communications here are not protected by legislative immunity insofar as they relate to hiring a mapping consultant. However, because the State has not appealed the superior court’s decision that there is no reasonable cause to support the investigation of the acts alleged to be in violation of the OML, we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and the injunction against a further investigation under the OML of the alleged acts.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In August 2011, the Attorney General issued written civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) to the IRC commissioners.
¶ 4 After the Commissioners refused to comply with the CIDs, the Attorney General filed a petition seeking to enforce the demands pursuant to his authority under A.R.S. § 38-341.06 (Maricopa County Superi- or Court Case No. CV2011-016442). The Appellees then filed a complaint against the Attorney General seeking: (1) injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the IRC was not subject to the OML; and (2) a determination that the Commissioners enjoyed legislative privilege for the acts under investigation (Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV2011-017914).
¶ 5 The Attorney General moved to dismiss the IRC’s lawsuit, asserting that the IRC lacked standing to sue for the purposes stated in the complaint. The Attorney General argued that the IRC had the authority to sue and be sued only as granted by the Arizona Constitution, which is limited to suits involving the redistricting plan and the adequacy of resources for its operation.
¶ 6 The superior court consolidated the two actions and the IRC simultaneously responded to the motion to dismiss and filed a motion for summary judgment in which the Commissioners joined. The IRC asserted that pursuant to its constitutional charter it had standing to sue to fulfill its constitutional mandate of independence and, in any event, the court should waive any standing requirements because the issues raised were of great public importance and would not result in the issuance of an advisory opinion. The IRC also maintained that it was entitled to summary judgment on its complaint because the IRC was not subject to the OML, but rather to the separate mandate of openness found in Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(12), of the Arizona Constitution (hereinafter “Open Meeting Clause”). The IRC argued that the Open Meeting Clause not only supplanted the OML, but also that Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10), of the Arizona Constitution
¶ 7 The State responded to the IRC’s motion and also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
¶ 8 At oral argument on the motions, the State informed the superior court that it was no longer pursuing a summary judgment ruling that the serial communications alleged in the petition for enforcement violate the OML.
¶ 9 The superior court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and its cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted the IRC summary judgment. First, the court found that it was unnecessary to determine whether the IRC’s limited jural status enabled it to seek a declaratory judgment. Rather, any standing requirement did not apply because of the public interest and importance of resolving the issue of whether the IRC is subject to the OML.
¶ 10 Second, the court held the OML does not apply to the IRC. It reasoned that, unlike other constitutionally created boards and commissions, the constitution does not expressly permit the legislature to enact rules for the IRC; instead the constitution itself provides detailed rules for the IRC. The court noted that the OML existed at the time the voters amended the constitution and created the IRC, and they could have subjected the IRC to the OML had it been desired by incorporating the OML by reference, reiterating its requirements in the constitution, or by authorizing the legislature to prescribe additional rules. The court also noted that the voters approved entirely new open meeting language that, compared to the OML, was more stringent in some respects and less stringent in others. The court determined that the Open Meeting Clause was not coextensive with the OML and, although openness of IRC meetings was important, it was more important to insulate the IRC from interference by political branches which would occur by subjecting the IRC to the OML.
¶ 11 Third, the superior court alternatively determined that the doctrine of legislative immunity protects the official acts of the IRC and its commissioners, and the choice of a mapping consultant is a legislative task rather than an administrative act, thus making the communications involved privileged. The court noted that the allegation of wrongdoing was not about improper handling of the application process or determining contractual compensation, but rather the IRC commissioners failed to perform official legislative acts by improperly agreeing on a consultant.
¶ 12 Fourth, the superior court determined that because the State conceded it was not seeking a ruling whether the alleged serial communications were a violation of the OML, even if the court found the OML applied to the IRC, “it would appear that the State has not stated ‘reasonable cause to believe there may have been a violation’ of the [OML]” and
¶ 13 Finally, the court concluded that given its holdings, neither the Attorney General nor any county attorney may proceed with the investigation except as provided by the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
¶ 14 The court issued a final signed judgment incorporating the above holdings, stating in part as follows:
[T]here is no basis for the prosecution of the investigative demands served on the individual IRC commissioners. Likewise, even if the [OML] applied to the IRC, the State has not stated reasonable cause to believe there may have been a violation of A.R.S. § 38-431.06.
Thus, the .court also “enjoin[ed] the State of Arizona, through the Attorney General, the Maricopa County Attorney or any other County Attorney, from proceeding with an [OML] investigation of the IRC and its Commissioners.”
¶ 15 The State timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21 (2003) and -2101(A)(1) (Supp.2012).
ISSUES ON APPEAL
¶ 16 The State raises three issues on appeal, whether: (1) the IRC lacks capacity to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the applicability of the OML and legislative immunity; (2) the ballot initiative creating the IRC exempted it from statutory requirements, including the OML; and (3) legislative immunity applies to the IRC’s process of selecting a mapping consultant, and therefore shields it from inquiries about potential violations of the OML.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶ 17 We review de novo whether summary judgment is warranted, including whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the superior court properly applied the law. Dreamland Villa Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Raimey,
¶ 18 We review the superior court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Satterly v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc.,
¶ 19 We review the superior court’s-interpretation of the constitution and statutes de novo. Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County,
¶ 20 “Statutes are presumed constitutional and the burden of proof is on the opponent of the statute to show it infringes upon a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.” State v. Casey,
DISCUSSION
1. Arizona Constitution Article 4, Part 2, Section 1
¶ 21 In the November 2000 general election, voters passed Proposition 106, which established the IRC as a constitutional entity. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1. Prior to the 2000 election, Article 4, Part 2, Section 1 contained two subsections specifying that legislative districts were established by the legislature. Upon the passage of Proposition 106, the constitution was amended to add twenty-one subsections giving that legislative authority to the IRC. Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1. “[T]he constitutional provisions creating and governing the IRC ... were designed to remove redistricting from the political process....” Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n v. Brewer,
■ Subsections three through nine pertain to the establishment of an IRC every ten years and the selection process for five commission members that comprise the IRC.
■ Subsection ten gives the Governor power to remove a commissioner “for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” provided two-thirds of the senate concurs in the removal and only after the commissioner is served written notice and provided an opportunity to respond.
■ Subsection twelve defines a quorum of the IRC as “[t]hree commissioners, including the chair or vice-chair.” It prescribes that official action of the IRC requires “[t]hree or more affirmative votes.” The subsection also mandates that “[w]here a quorum is present, the [IRC] shall conduct business in meetings open to the public” and further provides that “48 or more hours public notice” for such meetings is required.
■ Subsection thirteen forbids a commissioner from being a registered public lobbyist or holding a state public office during the commissioner’s term and for three years thereafter.
■ Subsections fourteen through seventeen govern the purpose of the IRC to establish congressional and legislative districts, describes the mapping process, and list the goals to consider in creating districts. Specifically, subsection fourteen mandates that “[t]he commencement of the mapping process ... shall be the creation of districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state” and “[a]djustments to the grid shall then be made as necessary to accommodate the [six enumerated] goals” in § 14(A) through (F).
■ Subsection seventeen provides that “[t]he provisions regarding this section are self-executing.”
■ Subsection nineteen grants the IRC “procurement and contracting authority” and permits the IRC to hire staff and consultants including legal representation with fiscal oversight from the department of administration.
■ Subsection twenty specifies that the IRC “shall have standing in legal actions regarding the redistricting plan and the adequacy of resources provided for the operation of the [IRC].” It further provides that the IRC “shall have sole authority to determine whether the Arizona attorney general or counsel hired or selectedby the [IRC] shall represent the people of Arizona in the legal defense of a redistrieting plan.”
■ Subsection twenty-three describes the commissioner’s term limits for each IRC and states the IRC “shall not meet or incur expenses after the redistrieting plan is completed, except if litigation or any government approval of the plan is pending, or to revise districts if required by court decisions or if the number of congressional or legislative districts is changed.”
II. The State’s motion to dismiss and the IRC’s standing and capacity to sue
¶ 22 The State moved to dismiss the IRC’s complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The State argued the IRC has standing only in cases “regarding the redistrieting plan and the adequacy of resources provided for the operation of the [IRC]” as provided by Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(20), of the Arizona Constitution, and thus, the IRC failed to state a claim. On appeal, the State asserts that the superior court erred by failing to determine that the IRC lacked the capacity to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in this case.
¶ 23 The IRC maintains that the State failed to challenge the superior court’s determination that, because the case was of critical public importance and likely to reoccur, prudential concerns with standing can be disregarded. The IRC also argues that the grant of standing in Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(20) is not a limitation on the IRC’s capacity to litigate, but actually expands the IRC’s standing beyond areas in which its involvement may otherwise be questioned (e.g. challenges to legislative appropriations), and that capacity may be inferred. In addition, the IRC maintains that any questions of standing or capacity are irrelevant because the Commissioners joined in the IRC’s motion for summary judgment, and the State did not contest the Commissioners’ capacity to sue, thus making any consideration of the IRC’s capacity to sue academic. See Gemstar,
¶ 24 Standing and capacity to sue or be sued are related but distinct concepts. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties § 26 (citing Graziano v. County of Albany, 3 N.Y.3d 475,
¶ 25 We do not understand the State to be arguing that the superior court erred by permitting a waiver of standing requirements, but only that it erred by failing to determine the IRC’s capacity to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief.
¶ 26 By expressly providing the IRC has the capacity to sue in these two types of cases and the ability to select and hire counsel, the constitution necessarily contemplates the IRC’s capacity to sue and be sued. Even the State "acknowledges the “Commission’s capacity to sue was expressly granted in enabling legislation.” As discussed above, capacity does not depend on the type of claim asserted and only relates to whether the entity’s status is such that it can come into court. Clearly the constitution provides the IRC the ability to come into court.
¶ 27 Moreover, the State has not challenged the Commissioners’ capacity to sue or their standing in this lawsuit. The Commissioners joined the IRC in its arguments and pleadings. Assuming arguendo that the IRC did not have capacity to bring this type of action, the Commissioners have capacity to sue and have standing because they have a direct interest in seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the CIDs. See Keggi v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
III. The OML applies to the IRC
¶ 28 The State argues the superior court erred because the court determined that voters would have expressly made the IRC subject to the OML had they so desired. The State maintains that because the OML existed at the time the constitution was amended to create the IRC, and the OML applies to “all public bodies,” which includes “commissions” as defined by A.R.S § 38-431(6), voters would have expressly exempted the IRC from the OML had they so intended. In other words, the State argues that an exemption from the OML would have to be express because, in the State’s view, “[exclusion from the [OML] is the exception, not the rule.” The State further argues that because the OML and the language in the Open Meeting Clause are not in conflict, they must be read harmoniously.
¶ 30 Because we determine that the application of the OML to the IRC is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by the text or structure of the constitution, we determine the IRC is subject to the OML.
A. The legislature has plenary power to enact laws that do not interfere with the constitution
1. Express grants of legislative authority are unnecessary
¶ 31 The legislature need not be expressly granted authority to act when it would otherwise be entitled to do so. Earhart v. Frohmiller,
¶32 Thus, our Supreme Court has determined that “the rule of construction which requires the finding of express authorization [for legislation] is inappropriate when applied to the Constitution of the State of Arizona ... [because] it is not applicable to the construction of state constitutions generally.” Earhart,
2. Constitutionally implied prohibitions on the legislature’s plenary power
¶ 33 Despite the broad power of the legislature, those powers can be limited by implied prohibitions in the state constitution. In Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers,
¶ 34 Thus, we must determine whether an implied prohibition exists by a consideration of the constitution itself and the effect that particular legislation has on the constitution. The IRC argues that the following factors support a finding of an implied prohibition of subjecting it to the OML: (1) the legislature was not expressly granted the authority to
a. The IRC is a unique constitutional entity
¶ 35 The IRC maintains it is one of the few constitutional entities for which the constitution does not expressly grant the legislature any law-making authority. Specifically, it maintains that it joins the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 36, in this respect and contrasts itself with the Corporation Commission, see Ariz. Const. art. 15, § 6, and Board of Education, see Ariz. Const. art. 11, § 3, which are expressly subject to legislative authority.
¶ 36 As discussed above, the lack of an express grant of legislative authority is not dispositive. Thus, the fact that the constitution gives the legislature express authority to enact laws governing the Board of Education and the Corporation Commission does not resolve the question here, particularly considering the Corporation Commission and Board of Education were established at statehood and covered complex and expansive subjects requiring additional legislation. See State ex rel. La Prade v. Cox,
¶ 37 Nor are we persuaded by a comparison with a more recently created constitutional entity, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. Unlike the IRC, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments is embodied in Article 6, which governs the judiciary, so it is not comparable to the IRC in its ability to be governed by legislative controls. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 36. More importantly, its history and distinguishable textual provisions support why a former attorney general concluded, and the legislature ultimately provided, it was not subject to the OML.
¶ 38 The IRC argues that the fact that Article 4, Part 2, Section 1 is self-executing reflects the voters’ intent “to prevent the legislature from hampering or shackling the [IRC’s] work.” However, “the fact that a constitutional provision is self-executing does not forever bar legislation on the subject. If such legislation does not unreasonably hinder or restrict the constitutional provision and if the legislation reasonably supplements the constitutional purpose, then the legislation may stand.” Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer,
¶ 39 Thus, we examine whether the OML is in conflict with the letter or the spirit of Article 4, Part 2, Section 1.
c. The IRC was purposely created to be tree from legislative influence and the reach of the attorney general
¶ 40 The IRC argues that the IRC was created to be free from the partisan legislature and, therefore, subjecting the IRC to the OML would violate that independence. We disagree that the intent of the voters who created the IRC would be thwarted by applying various provisions of the OML to the IRC.
¶ 41 Our Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he constitutional provisions creating and governing the IRC ... were designed to remove redistricting from the political process....” Brewer,
¶ 42 We understand the IRC to more specifically argue that the legislative or executive branches will abuse their powers under the OML to interfere with the IRC’s work. The IRC points to the CIDs in this case and the Governor’s recent unsuccessful attempt to remove an IRC commissioner last year. See Brewer,
¶ 43 The IRC also argues that the political branches have an “unusually limited” role in the IRC’s work and the only mention of the attorney general is one which specifically divests responsibilities the office otherwise holds. In addition, the IRC maintains that “[b]y enacting a specific, exclusive mandate of openness and by providing for enforcement of that mandate through a narrowly tailored removal provision, the voters specifically chose to keep the vast power of the partisan, incumbent [a]ttorney [g]eneral far away from the [IRC].”
¶ 44 We disagree with the IRC that its enabling clauses meant that a “partisan” attorney general was to have no power to enforce the OML and that it was free from all legislative controls. First, the investigatory powers granted to the attorney general under A.R.S. § 38-431.06 did not exist when the proponents of Proposition 106 applied for a signature petition with the Secretary of State. Thus, the timeline of events belies an implied determination that the voters intended to keep the IRC far away from attorney general enforcement of the OML.
¶ 45 Second, that the IRC is granted discretionary authority to utilize the services of the attorney general in at least one type of legal action does not smack of a divestment of responsibility. Indeed, were the IRC to select the attorney general to represent it in the defense of a redistricting plan, it would be the attorney general’s responsibility to represent the IRC. We fail to see how this relationship with the attorney general somehow compromises the IRC’s independence.
¶ 46 Third, the constitutional provision authorizing the Governor with concurrence of the legislature to remove an IRC commissioner does not suggest total insulation from the other branches of government, but rather limited control over IRC commissioners if there is substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct in office. But for the express removal provision, the Governor would not possess the power to remove an IRC' commissioner. In addition, as the IRC acknowledges, the Governor’s removal authority is not targeted towards or limited to the Open Meeting Clause. The Governor’s removal authority appears in a subsection of the constitution that precedes the Open Meeting Clause and contains language indicating that it is generally applicable. Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(10) (permitting Governor to remove' an IRC commissioner for “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” provided two-thirds of the senate concurs in the removal).
¶ 47 While it is unquestionably true that the IRC was created to ensure redistricting is independent from partisan politics in the legislative and the executive branches, a determination that wholesale exclusion from the OML must be implied by the constitution does not necessarily follow or further the purpose of the independence contemplated by the express provisions of the constitution. Only if the OML, as a whole, so conflicts with the constitutional provisions of the IRC as to constitute an interference with or frustration of the IRC should the OML as a whole not apply. See Atkinson, Kier Bros., Spicer Co. v. Indus. Comm’n,
¶ 48 Similarly, if particular provisions of the OML conflict with or frustrate the constitutional provisions dealing with the IRC, we can hold that only those sections of the OML do not apply to the IRC, provided we can do so without doing violence to the statutory
d. Competing provisions of the constitution and the OML
i. Public meetings
¶ 49 The IRC argues that the Open Meeting Clause is narrower than the OML with respect to the nature of a public meeting for two reasons. First, the IRC contends the constitution provides that a public meeting is required only when a quorum is “present” and “[t]he question whether three people could be ‘present’ in a series of bilateral telephone calls is plainly different than deciding whether the same calls were a [meeting which is defined as a] ‘gathering, in person or through technological devices’ under the OML.” Second, the IRC claims that while the Open Meeting Clause refers to a quorum “conducting business,” a meeting under the OML is much broader because “[i]n addition to ‘tak[ing] legal action,’ a ‘meeting’ under the OML means ‘the gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum ... at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations.’” The IRC suggests that because the requirements in the constitution are narrower than the OML, if it complies with the constitution it will violate the OML. We disagree.
¶ 50 A comparison of the Open Meeting Clause and the OML as to the nature of a public meeting does reflect differences as illustrated below.
[[Image here]]
¶ 51 Thus, the constitution requires that “[w]here a quorum is present, the [IRC] shall conduct business in meetings open to the
public....” Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(12). Under the OML “[a]ll meetings of any public body shall be public meetings....” A.R.S. § 38-431.01(A).
¶ 52 We do not interpret being “present” as required by the constitution to be narrower than a “gathering” under the OML. Under both the Constitution and the OML a public meeting is required where there is a quorum of members.
¶ 53 We also disagree with the IRC that a meeting under the OML includes more than conducting business under the Open Meeting Clause. A meeting under the OML includes discussing, proposing, deliberating, and taking legal action.
¶ 54 Conduct means “[t]o direct the course of,” or “[t]o guide or lead,” or “[t]he act of directing or controlling.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 295-96 (1994). It also has been defined as “the act, manner, or process of carrying on.” Merriam-Webster online dictionary, http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct (last visited Dec. 6, 2012). Business means “[c]ommercial, industrial, or professional dealings.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 212 (1994). It has also been defined as “an immediate task or objective.” Merriam-Webster online dictionary, http ://www.merriam-webster. eom/dictionary/ business (last visited Dec. 6, 2012).
¶ 55 Thus, “legal action” pursuant to the OML is subsumed within the definition of “conduct business” pursuant to the constitution. Any time the IRC meets to conduct business in compliance with the Open Meeting Clause, it will necessarily comply with OML’s requirement of gathering to discuss, propose, deliberate, or take legal action.
ii. Notice provisions
¶ 56 The constitution requires that meetings open to the public require “48 or more hours public notice.” Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(12). In contrast, the OML requires 24 hours public notice. AR.S. § 38-431.02(0). Because the constitution’s explicit requirement is more restrictive than the OML, by complying with the constitution’s notice requirement, the IRC will necessarily be in compliance with the OML. The legislature cannot diminish the length of time notice must be given to the public that is explicitly provided in the constitution. See State v. Roscoe,
¶ 57 The constitution does not explicitly state what type of notice is required and where it must be posted. By complying with the OML on this aspect, the IRC cannot violate the constitution. Similarly, the Open Meeting Clause does not expressly address the IRC’s ability to meet in executive session.
iii. Enforcement and penalty provisions for violations
¶ 58 The IRC argues that by expressly including the Open Meeting Clause and a removal provision by the Governor in the constitution, the voters intended that the only penalty for violations of the Open Meeting Clause is removal by the Governor. It argues that the standard for removal by the Governor is stringent, and that the constitution does not make a violation of the Open Meeting Clause itself cause for removal. In contrast, under the OML, in addition to a writ of mandamus to require a meeting be open to the public (A.R.S. § 38-431.04),
¶ 59 Thus, we must determine whether the application of these differing penalties interferes with, frustrates, or diminishes the constitution as opposed to reasonably supplementing the constitution. See Atkinson,
¶ 60 Adding potential penalties for failing to hold public meetings does not directly affect the core purpose and function of the IRC to create a redistricting plan. The legislation does not purport to govern the process or requirements for creating the plan, nor does it alter the approval process. Nor does the legislation affect the process of selecting IRC commissioners such that the goal of creating an independent commission is subverted. The penalty provisions relate only to tangential aspects of the IRC’s functioning as to how it fulfills its responsibilities to make the redistricting process open to the public.
¶ 61 Nor do we see how equitable relief for a violation of the OML per se conflicts with Article 4, Part 2, Section 1. Some types of equitable relief are already available through a common law special action, including writs of mandamus and prohibition.
¶ 62 Equitable relief sought through a special action might also include a request to declare a decision by the IRC made in violation of the OML as null and void. Unlike the Open Meeting Clause, the OML includes a mandatory provision that voids actions taken in violation of the OML unless the action is ratified. See A.R.S. § 38-431.05(A). Assuming without deciding that this mandatory statutory provision violates Article 4, Part 2, Section 1, such relief under the OML may be severed from the rest of the OML without subverting the legislature’s intent in enacting the OML. Similarly, even assuming a $500 civil penalty or an award of attorneys’ fees violates the constitution, it does not follow that the other provisions of the OML cannot apply.
¶ 63 A more serious concern regarding the applicability of the OML involves a court’s ability to remove a commissioner if a violation was committed with the intent to deprive the public of knowledge, see A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A), because the sole constitutional provision for removal of an IRC commissioner vests such power with the Governor with concurrence by two-thirds of the Senate. Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(10). Again, even assuming this provision was unconstitutional, we do not think that it is so integral to the OML that the penalty cannot be severed without leaving the rest of the OML intact. Although we do not decide whether this provision or the other penalty provisions violate the constitution because these issues are not squarely before us, we nevertheless acknowledge the provisions because they are a part of our larger analysis in determining whether the OML is impliedly prohibited from being applied to the IRC. Even assuming certain penalty provisions unconstitutionally interfere with the IRC’s redistricting duties, or potentially jeopardize the IRC’s independence,
iv. Separation of powers
¶ 64 The IRC argues that, even assuming some of the OML provisions apply, the investigative powers and penalty provisions in the OML would violate separation of powers if they were applied to the IRC. The IRC also argues that the OML violates separation of powers because it creates new duties for the IRC. We disagree.
¶ 65 Article 3, of the Arizona Constitution provides:
The powers of the government of the state of Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial; and, except as provided in this constitution, such departments shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.
¶ 66 A violation of the separation of powers doctrine occurs when one branch of government usurps another branch’s powers or prevents that other branch from exercising its authority. E.g., J.W. Hancock Enters. v. Ariz. Registrar of Contractors,
¶ 67 First, as to the enforcement and investigatory powers, the IRC does not assert that another branch of government is exercising its legislative powers or preventing it from exercising its legislative powers, but merely that the executive branch’s use of its investigatory power under the OML would “chill[ ] the independence of the commissioners.” The IRC asserts that the IRC’s “constitutional integrity is threatened when, without neutral oversight [the attorney general can] ... issue compulsory investigative demands.”
¶ 68 We are not persuaded by this argument because there is neutral oversight by the judiciary reviewing the propriety of CIDs and refusing to enforce CIDs or enjoining an investigation under A.R.S. § 38-431.06. Indeed, the IRC successfully utilized the neutral oversight provisions of the OML in this case.
¶ 69 The IRC makes a conclusory assertion that “after-the-fact protection is insufficient to vindicate the rights of the [IRC] and its members,” because “[t]he mere fact of the investigation risks delegitimizing the [IRC’s] redistricting work.” This is essentially an argument that an investigation may make the
¶ 70 Second, the IRC argues that, just as the legislature was not free to impose additional duties on the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, as determined by Myers,
¶ 71 We do not agree that requiring compliance with the OML unconstitutionally adds duties to the IRC for purposes of a separation of powers analysis. We find Myers distinguishable because the problematic provision in the constitutional amendment in that case frustrated the separation of powers between the branches of government and thus violated the constitution. In addition, contrary to the IRC’s assertion, imposing additional duties fundamentally altering a constitutional mandate is different than imposing rules by which to fulfill existing constitutional duties. As Article 4, Part 2, Section 1 makes clear, in furtherance of fulfilling its mandate of redistrieting, the IRC has the tangential responsibility to conduct its business in public meetings. The OML requirements do not impose upon the IRC’s core redistrieting duties, but rather merely provide rules by which its tangential responsibility to conduct business in public can be fulfilled and enforced. See Allred,
¶ 72 Thus, we conclude that requiring the IRC to comply with the OML does not violate separation of powers.
IV. Legislative privilege and immunity
¶ 73 The superior court determined that, even assuming the OML applies, the IRC is protected from the CIDs here, by legislative privilege. We disagree.
¶ 74 Legislative immunity bars criminal and civil liability for legislative acts, and includes a testimonial and an evidentiary privilege. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n v. Fields,
¶ 75 This Court has previously determined that IRC commissioners have legislative privilege when formulating a redistrieting plan, id. at 139-40, ¶¶ 23, 30,
¶ 76 To come to this conclusion we had to determine whether the IRC’s redistricting acts were legislative in nature because “the privilege does not apply to the performance of ‘administrative’ tasks.” Id. at 137, ¶ 18,
¶ 77 We explained in Fields that:
[w]hether an act is “legislative” depends on the nature of the act. An act is legislative in nature when it bears the hallmarks of traditional legislation by reflecting a discretionary, policymaking decision that may have prospective implications, as distinguished from an application of existing policies.... Further, a legislative act occurs in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act.
¶ 78 The IRC argues that the selection of a mapping consultant is a legislative function that is integral to the IRC’s constitutional mandate without which it would not be able to perform its duties. It therefore argues that “the [Attorney General’s investigative] inquiry is not into an administrative decision akin to the hiring or firing of a single employee, but a policy determination having prospective consequences.” It maintains that the enforcement provisions under the OML “are unconstitutional to the extent they empower the [attorney [g]eneral or [c]ounty [attorney to compel testimony ... as related to a discretionary matter.”
¶ 79 The constitution gives the IRC “contracting authority” and discretion to “hire staff and consultants for purposes of this section.” Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(19). The decision whether to hire a mapping consultant and whom to hire are discretionary decisions. However, while such decisions are related to the legislative process and may facilitate the creation of districts, they do not in themselves bear the “hallmarks of traditional legislation by reflecting a discretionary, policymaking decision.” See Fields,
¶ 80 The act of hiring a mapping consultant is unlike the acts in Fields or Minority Coalition, which involved Article 4, Part 2, Sections 1(14) to 1(16) and the actual creation of districts and discretionary determinations of where to draw districts based upon the guidance afforded by the constitution. Rather the decision to hire a particular consultant to draw a map to “commence[ ] ... the mapping process ... [by] creating] ... districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state,” Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(14), precedes the IRC’s discretionary policy-making decisions as related to its legislative function of redistricting. Moreover, the discretionary decision to hire a mapping consultant cannot be said to have the “force of law” with “prospective application.” See Fields,
V. Reasonable cause to investigate under A.R.S. § 38-431.06
¶ 81 The superior court determined that, even assuming the OML applies, there was no reasonable cause for the CIDs. See A.R.S. § 38-431.06(D) (“If a court finds that the demand is proper, including ... there is reasonable cause to believe there may have been a violation of this article....”). Thus, the court enjoined any further investigation pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.06 of the acts alleged to be in violation of the OML as stated in the petition for enforcement. We affirm that decision for several reasons.
¶ 82 First, the State did not assert this issue or argue that this was error in its opening brief. In its reply brief, the State only argues that it can use other methods of investigation under A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B), and without authority, argues the superior court cannot enjoin further investigation.
¶ 83 Second, at oral argument the State conceded that any challenge to the superior court’s determination that there was no reasonable cause for the OML investigation is moot because the State did not appeal the issue.
¶ 84 Third, we expressly reject the State’s argument that it can circumvent the injunction issued by the superior court by simply using other methods of investigation under A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B). The superior court clearly enjoined any and all OML investigation of the communications alleged in the petition for enforcement. The State seems to argue that, because it only utilized A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(l) in this matter, the county attorney is not precluded from further utilization of A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(2) through (5).
¶ 85 Our interpretation of A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B) is confirmed by the statute as a whole. Section 38-431.06(C) states:
The written investigative demand shall: 1. Be served on the person in the manner required for service of process in this state.... 2. Describe the class or classes of documents or objects.... 3. Prescribe a reasonable time at which the person shall appear to testify.... 4. Specify a placefor the taking of testimony or for production of a document or object....
It is clear that subsection (C) contemplates that a CID will issue pursuant to subsection (B)(1) and that the CID will utilize the methods described in subsections (B)(2) through (5). Similarly, subsection (D) contemplates an objection or noncompliance with a CID issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(l) that seeks to investigate by the methods in subsections (B)(2) through (5) as evidenced by the language: “If a person objects to or otherwise fails to comply with the written investigation demand served on the person pursuant to subsection C....” Moreover, subsection (D) empowers the courts to determine whether there is “reasonable cause” for the investigation, and to determine whether the information sought or document demanded by the CID is relevant to the alleged violation. This necessarily means that the court has the power to review any of the investigative methods under A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(2) thorough (5), that such demands can only be made through the issuance of a CID under A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(l), and that those methods are not independent from the CID itself.
¶ 86 Any other reading of the statute would be illogical and the State cites no authority for its contrary interpretation. Not only does it strain the imagination to envision how a demand for testimony or documents under subsections (B)(2) through (5) would occur but for the issuance of a CID as prescribed by subsection (B)(1), but such an interpretation would cause internal inconsistencies within the statute itself as described above, and would call into question the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(2) through (5) by giving executive officials unbridled powers to force someone to testify under oath or produce documents under oath without first issuing a CID.
¶ 87 The lack of reasonable cause for the investigation here is reason alone to affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. See Hill,
CONCLUSION
¶ 88 There are no issues of genuine material fact precluding summary judgment. The IRC has the capacity and standing to bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief. As a matter of law, the OML applies to the IRC. The communications alleged in the petition for enforcement, insofar as they pertain to hiring the mapping consultant, are not protected by legislative privilege. There is, however, no reasonable cause to support the OML investigation. We affirm the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and the injunction against further investigation under the OML of the acts alleged in the petition for enforcement.
Notes
. As explained at Footnote 4 infra, the superior court disqualified the Attorney General from representing the State. However, the Attorney General is still a party to the litigation. For purposes of convenience, we will refer to the Appellant as the State.
. We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions material to this decision have occurred.
. The CIDs requested testimony under oath, see A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(2)-(3), and production of documents, see A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(4), including any documents reflecting correspondence between IRC. commissioners.
. After argument on the Commissioners’ and IRC’s motion for disqualification, the Attorney General was disqualified and the Maricopa County Attorney was substituted as counsel for the State. The Attorney General’s disqualification is not at issue here.
. The State challenges the superior court’s denial ' of its motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether the court erred as a matter of law in denying the motion to dismiss because such determination had an effect on the final judgment. See Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co. v. Romley,
. The State did not expressly articulate its challenge to the IRC's capacity and instead based its argument on standing. When a challenge is not raised with specificity and addressed in the superior court, it will not generally be considered on appeal. Winters v. Ariz. Bd. of Educ.,
. To the extent the State is challenging the IRC’s standing, we reject that argument for two reasons. First, unlike the federal courts, in Arizona standing does -not have a constitutional dimension because the state constitution does not have a "case or controversy” requirement. State v. B Bar Enters.,
Second, standing requirements can be waived if the circumstances are exceptional, such as in cases of critical public importance. Sears v. Hull,
. The State also contends that "[i]f the [IRC] commissioners are not subject to the [OML], they would undoubtedly argue that application of laws such as the Public Records Act [A.R.S. §§39-121 et seq.] and the conflict of interest statutes [A.R.S. §§ 38-501 et seq.] cannot be applied to them, lest the courts intrude on the commissioners’ implied constitutional authority.” We give little weight to such argument because these provisions are not at issue in this case and because it misstates the IRC’s position. The IRC is not arguing that, unless the constitution provides that a statute applies to it, it is exempt from that statute. Rather, it argues that because its enabling, self-executing legislation provides for its own open meeting requirements, the intent of its drafters must have been to exempt the IRC from the OML.
. Ariz. Const. art. 11, § 3 ("The powers, duties, compensation and expenses, and the terms of office, of the board [of education] shall be such as may be prescribed by law.”); Ariz. Const. art. 15, § 6 ("The law-maldng power may enlarge the powers and extend the duties of the corporation commission, and may prescribe rules and regulations to govern proceedings instituted by and before it....”).
. When Article 6, Section 36 was first enacted and until the 1992 general election, subsection E provided that the commission shall hold hearings "either public or executive, as it deems advisable.” It also required that "[v]oting shall be by secret, written ballot." Arizona Secretary of State, Publicity Pamphlet at 53 (1992) (hereinafter “Publicity Pamphlet”). For these reasons, a former Arizona Attorney General opined that because there was an express authorization for executive session and mandated secret ballots, the commissions created by Article 6, Section 36 were not subject to the OML. Op. Ariz. Att'y Gen. 179-229,
. The State has never asserted that the public meeting at which the mapping consultant was selected violated the OML (e.g. improper notice, agenda, vote) but rather only asserted that a violation of the OML occurred by failing to hold public meetings prior to the vote. Thus, the issue of nullifying the decision to select the mapping consultant under the OML is not before this Court, nor was it before the superior court.
. In relevant part, " '[plublic body' means the legislature, all boards and commissions of this state....” A.R.S. § 38-431(6). In 2012, the legislature amended the statute to provide that. “[p]ublic body includes all commissions and other public entities established by the Arizona Constitution ... and this article applies except and only to the extent that specific constitutional provisions supersede this article.’’ The legislative notes pertaining to the 2012 amendment indicate that the legislature amended the statute "to clarify that the [IRC] ... was and is subject to the open meeting statutes ... except for those limited instances in which the more specific provision in the Arizona Constitution applies.” We rely on the version of the statute prior to the 2012 amendment because the amendment to the statute is not material to our decision. Moreover, if we determined that the constitution impliedly prohibited the OML from applying to the IRC, the amendment would be unconstitutional.
. That the constitution defines quorum and the OML does not suggests only that the constitution controls the definition of a quorum as it relates to IRC meetings.
. We do not reach the issue of whether serial phones calls between IRC commissioners constitutes a quorum because that is not at issue in this appeal. As discussed at ¶ 8 supra and Section v. infra, the State specifically withdrew its allegations that serial phone calls violated the OML and it did not appeal the superior court’s determination that there was no reasonable cause to conduct an investigation under the OML.
. "Legal action” is defined as “a collective decision, commitment or promise made by a public body pursuant to the constitution, the public body’s charter, bylaws or specified scope of appointment and the laws of this state.” A.R.S. § 38-431(3).
. The State also argues that the IRC has implicitly acknowledged that it must comply with the OML because it has utilized executive session and other aspects of the OML in fulfilling its mandate. We do not find this argument persuasive. To the extent the IRC has complied with the OML because it relied on the OML for guidance or the Attorney General’s advice, we are not persuaded such actions constitute an admission that the IRC believed it was bound by the OML. More importantly, although we give deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it is charged with enforcing, it is ultimately the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the meaning and applicability of statutory and constitutional provisions. U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix,
. Unlike the constitutional provisions governing the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, there is no express provision governing the IRC’s ability to meet in executive session or any provisions for the development of rules of procedure that govern executive sessions. See supra Footnote 10. Even if we were to infer that the IRC had authority to meet in executive session for the purpose of meeting with the IRC’s attorney because the attorney-client privilege is recognized at common law, Upjohn Co. v. United States,
. Because any citizen with standing can file a mandamus action under the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, the statutory mandamus enforcement option, A.R.S. § 38-431.04, does not subject the IRC to anything different than a special action. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1; id. at com. notes.
. Compare Direct Sellers,
. A.R.S. § 38-431.06(D) states in relevant part:
If a person objects to or otherwise fails to comply with the written investigation demand served on the person ... the attorney general or county attorney may file an action in the superior court for an order to enforce the demand. ... If a court finds that the demand is proper, including that the compliance will not violate a privilege and that there is not a conflict of interest on the part of the attorney general or county attorney, that there is reasonable cause to believe there may have been a violation of this article and that the information sought or document or object demanded is relevant to the violation, the court shall order the person to comply with the demand, subject to modifications the court may prescribe.
(Emphasis added.)
As discussed at Section V infra, we reject the State’s argument that the attorney general or county attorneys may issue new CIDs pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B) regarding the same actions alleged in the petition for enforcement in this matter.
. To the extent the IRC is arguing that the statute must be unconstitutional because it gives the attorney general and county attorneys unbridied power to force a person to submit to interrogation and produce documents, we reject that argument. See supra VII 42, 68; infra Section V.
. The State’s conclusoiy citation to A.R.S. § 12-1802(4) (2003) in its reply brief is inapplicable. Section 12-1802(4) provides that an injunction shall not be granted ”[t]o prevent enforcement of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit.” As our supreme court has made clear, an injunction may be granted when a public official is acting unlawfully. State ex rel. Berger v. Myers,
. As discussed at Footnote 3 supra, the CIDs issued here sought to require testimony under oath and the inspection of documents. These investigative methods are embodied in A.R.S. § 38-431.06(B)(2) through (4).