Cited by

211 § 2(C); see also Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., (recognizing the Court’s “duty, whenever possible, to give a construction to a statute which will render it constitutional”).

Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., ¶ 11 (App. 2000).

§ 5-107.01(A) (permit required to conduct racing meetings); see also Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., (legislature “has plenary power” over commercial horseracing in Arizona).

(citing Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., ); ¶ 13 (App. 2009).

Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.

Fund I v. Town of Surprise, -49 (1990), and Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., -58 (1981)).

Because Cooper does not contend § 13-1202(B)(2) implicates a fundamental right or that criminal street gang members constitute a suspect class, this Court will find the statute comports with due process if the law has “any conceivable rational basis to further a legitimate governmental interest.” Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.

Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen's Found ., , 555, , 1058 (1981) ; accord Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620 , 631, 116 S.Ct.

e bond would lead to absurd or impossible results or cause a “severe financial hardship.” The City acknowledges (B)(2)’s mandatory wording (“shall”), but argues we should interpret the bond provision “as directory, and therefore discretionary,” because otherwise it poses “an unconstitutional financial blockade to judicial access.” See Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., 130 Ariz, 550, 554-55, -58 (1981) (interpreting “shall” as permissive rather than mandatory to preserve a statute’s constit

at 532, ¶ 15, 968 P.2d at 605 (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 (1961)); see also Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., (holding that a statute that does not impact upon a fundamental right or suspect class “will be upheld if it has any conceivable rational basis to further a legitimate governmental interest” (citations omitted)).

at 532, ¶ 15 (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 (1961)); see also Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., (noting statutes with a “conceivable rational basis” that further a legitimate governmental interest will be upheld); Church, 173 Ariz. at 350 (noting courts may “consider ‘either the actual basis on which the legislature acted or any hypothetical basis on which it might have acted’”) (quoting Carr v. Beec

We have “a duty to construe a statute so as to give it, if possible, a reasonable and constitutional meaning.” Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.

See, e.g., Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., -55, -58 (1981) (interpreting term “shall” in A.R.S.

Republic Inv., 166 Ariz. at 149, 800 P.2d at 1257; Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., –58, –61 (1981).

1234 (1938); see also Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , (“[T]he law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional.” (citation omitted)).

Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., –55, –58 (1981); HCZ Const., Inc. v. First Franklin Fin.

See Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.

The special law provision prohibits legislation that “unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminates in favor of a person or class by granting them a special or exclusive immunity, privilege, or franchise.” Republic Inv., 166 Ariz. at 148 , 800 P.2d at 1256 (quoting Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).

See Heller, 509 U.S. at 320; Aleman v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 1191, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000) (A law must be upheld “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for it.); Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., 10 VONG et al. v. AUNE Opinion of the Court (Evidence is sufficient under rational basis review if “any set of facts” could “rationally justify” the enactment.).

-66, -67 (1990); Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., and the Colemans have not argued that another standard should apply.

1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Foundation

at 254, ¶ 16 , 53 P.3d at 179 ; Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.