Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers, 1 P.3d 706.

32 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
(“[W]e do not look to the constitution to determine whether the [L]egislature is authorized to act.” (quoting Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 12 (2000) (citation modified))).
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
(severing an invalid initiative provision); see also Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 23 (2000) (applying the test to sever an invalid initiative provision).
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
See Citizens Clean Elections Com’n v. Myers, ¶ 35 (2000) (single subject rule “applies only to the acts of the legislature”); (single subject rule is “applicable only to acts of the legislature”); -57 (1932) (same).
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
See Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 36 (2000); -56 (1932).
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
Accordingly, our case law has consistently acknowledged that “we do not look to the constitution to determine whether the legislature is authorized to [act].” Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 12
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 14 , our supreme court stated: “[T]he legislature need not look to an express grant of authority in order to justify an enactment.
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“[T]he power of the legislature is plenary and unless that power is limited by express or inferential provisions of the Constitution, the legislature may enact any law which in its discretion it may desire.” , see also Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, -20, ¶ 10 , -10 (2000) (legislature’s powers are limited only by prohibitions in the state and federal constitutions).
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See, e.g., Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, 196 Ariz. 516, ¶ 1
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, -21, ¶ 14 , -11 (2000).
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 1
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
( , ), or where the issue is one of statewide importance, Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
( , ), or where the issue is one of statewide importance, Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
Thus, if one portion of a statute violates the single subject rule, “only that part which is objectionable will be eliminated and the balance left intact.” 3 , see also Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, , (stating that unconstitutional provision of act was severable from remainder of act).
May v. McNally 49 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
May v. McNally 49 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Although “the legislature need not look to an express grant of authority in order to justify an enactment,” “any exercise of legislative power is subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution.” Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 14
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(citing Block, 189 Ariz. at 276 , 942 P.2d at 435 ); see also Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, -24, *417 ¶ 30 , -14 (2000); Hancock, 142 Ariz. at 405-06 , 690 P.2d at 124-25 .