Cited by

(noting that the absurdity doctrine applies only if application of the plain meaning of the statute is “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion” (alteration in original) ()).

¶17 The State also argues holding a physician’s recommendation letter to be equivalent to a registry identification would afford non-residents greater rights than Arizona residents, and therefore the superior court’s ruling “works an absurd result.” (a result is absurd “if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of [persons] with ordinary intelligence and discretion”).

¶ 5 , (when constitutionality of provision is challenged, “we presume that [it] is constitutional, and the party challenging its validity bears the burden of establishing that the legislation is unconstitutional; any doubts are resolved to the contrary”); , (‘When the constitutional language is ambiguous or when a construction is urged which would result in an absurd situation, the court may look behind the bare words of the provision in order to determine the conditions which give rise to it an

When a statute is ambiguous or when a proposed construction “would result in an absurd situation,” Bussanich v. Douglas, 152 Ariz. 447, 450, we may then “consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.” Hayes, 178 Ariz. at 268, 872 P.2d at 672.

See, , (rejecting as absurd a construction that would result in disparate treatment between public and private employees under the state’s workers’ compensation scheme, despite statutory use of the phrase “private employment”).

(-50 , -47 (App.1986), finding absurd a construction that would result in disparate treatment between public and private employees under the State’s workers’ compensation scheme, despite statutory use of the phrase “private employment”); see also, e.g., Wheeler v. Yuma Sch.

See *461 , 185 P. 136, 140 (1919)

Delbridge, 182 Ariz. at 50 , 893 P.2d at 50

which Arizona courts repeatedly have referred in analyzing the drafters’ intent and interpreting provisions of the Arizona Constitution, , , County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , , yields nothing to cloud the apparent meaning.

We will consider a constitutional provision absurd “if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of [persons] with ordinary intelligence and discretion.”