Cited by

“A statute regulating a provision of our constitution is permissible if it ‘does not unreasonably hinder or restrict the constitutional provision and if the [statute] reasonably supplements the constitutional purpose’ of the provision.” Stanwitz, 245 Ariz. at 348 ¶ 14 (alteration in original) (quoting Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, ).

See Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, (disagreeing that referendum proponents could “amend their petitions to comply with the verification provision” outside the time permitted for initiating the referendum effort).

of Tucson, Inc., (stating that referenda are subject to strict compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements (-6 (1972))).

¶ 14 (2018) (quoting Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, ).

See Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, -6 (1972) (statute 9 JONES v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE Opinion of the Court “prescribes what the petition for referendum shall contain, how it shall be signed, and by whom it shall be verified” (quoting AAD Temple Bldg.

at 429 (internal citation omitted) (first quoting Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, and then quoting Cottonwood Dev.

Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer

ho “reduce the number of erroneous signatures, guard against misrepresentations, and confirm that signatures were obtained according to law” (citations omitted)); W. Devcor, Inc., 168 Ariz. at 431–32 (explaining that circulator’s verification of signatures through an affidavit under Section 1(9) serves as an “important check” that signatures collected are valid); Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, (explaining that a circulator’s affidavit protects against fraud and corruption in the circulation o

Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer

of Tucson, Inc., –50 (1982) (invalidating referendum petitions that did not attach resolution); Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, –6 (1972) (holding referendum petitions invalid where amendments were not made within time limits); –56 (1936) (holding that initiative failed to comply with publication requirement).

Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer

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, , see also Roberts, 71 Ariz. at 69 , 223 P.2d at 814 (“The fact that a constitutional provision is self-executing does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject but such legislation must be in harmony with the spirit of the constitution.”)

Consistent with that policy, our courts have held that, unless the failure to comply strictly with a statutory requirement is expressly made fatal, that failure “does not make the signatures appearing on the petitions null and void, but merely destroys their presumption of validity.” Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, see Forszt, ¶¶ 11-12, 15, 130 P.3d at 540-41.

See Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, , (recognizing legislature’s authority to safeguard people’s right to referendum by enacting legislation that supplements constitutional referendum provisions).

In Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, our supreme court noted the limited permissible scope of statutory referendum requirements: “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 sta

v. Foothills Area Coal., -49, -97 (1982); Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, ).

¶ 32 Moreover, the trial court’s rulings undermine the well-established principle in Arizona that referendum proponents must “comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions” because “the referendum is an ‘extraordinary’ power, Direct Sellers (Ass’n v. McBrayer, , ], that permits a ‘minority to hold up the effective date of legislation which may well represent the wishes of the majority.’” Western Devcor, , quoting Cottonwood Dev., 134 Ariz. at 49 , 653 P.2d at 697 .

2 Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer

“Where a power so great as the suspension of an ordinance or of a law is vested in a minority, the safeguards provided by law against its irregular or fraudulent exercise should be carefully maintained.” Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, -6 , -54 (1972) (quoting Aad Temple *5 Bldg.

v. Foothills Area Coalition, , (petition that did not include copy of measure being referred was invalid); Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. *649 3, 6, (omission in affidavit that petition circulator was a qualified elector destroyed presumption of validity of petition).

Defendant alternatively contends that the legislation does not restrict the constitutional provision but merely supplements it, citing Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer

The fact that a constitutional provision is self-executing does not, however, bar legislation on the subject, Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, , and referendum petitions must strictly comply with constitutional and statutory requirements to ensure that the constitutional right is not abused or improperly expanded.

Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer