Cited by

–34 ¶ 23 (2021) (“[W]e will not rewrite a statute to save it.” ( ¶ 9 (2020))).

See, e.g., Williams, 2026 WL 2409127, at *2 ¶ 9; ¶ 9 (2020); cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 247–51 (2012) (discussing the “constitutional-doubt canon” which requires a court interpret a statute in a manner which avoids placing the statute’s constitutionality in doubt).

“Because there is a strong presumption in favor of a statute’s constitutionality, the challenging party bears the burden of proving its unconstitutionality.” see State ex rel.

2, § 13 (“No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or 12 SILVERMAN, ET AL. V. ADES Opinion of the Court immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.”); ¶ 9 (2020) (requiring courts to give statutes a constitutional construction if possible).

at 169–73 ¶¶ 21–41 (Feldman, J., dissenting) (rejecting that approach); ¶ 9 (2020) (observing that the Court should not rewrite statutes).

¶ 1 (2020), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the statute enhancing criminal penalties for threatening or intimidating based on membership in a criminal street gang is unconstitutional because it violates substantive due process.

“We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo.” ¶ 9 (2020).

“The presumption of constitutionality may require us to interpret a statute to give it a constitutional construction if possible, but we will not rewrite a statute to save it.” ¶ 9 (2020).

¶ 9 (2020) (stating the presumptions and construction as to constitutionality).

To succeed on their facial challenge, Plaintiffs “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statutes] would be valid.” ¶ 10 (2020) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)).

¶5 “We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo.” ¶ 9 (2020) (citation omitted).

As I have argued elsewhere, “[i]t is essential to our system of justice, and to its endurance, that every person enter the courtroom on a level playing field.” ¶ 30 (2020) (Bolick & Pelander, JJ., concurring).

We disagree and affirm his convictions

Several months after the parties submitted their briefs in this matter, our supreme court decided State v. Arevalo, holding paragraph 13-1202.B.2 facially unconstitutional because it increased an accused’s punishment “based solely upon gang status in violation of substantive due process.” ¶ 1 (2020).