Cited by

of Maricopa, ¶ 17 (2014) (ruling legislators had standing even if they did not try to repeal a law or refer it to the voters)); ¶¶ 17–18 (2006) (ruling legislators had standing even if they did not try to override the Governor’s veto).

Redistricting Comm’n v. Brewer, 3 PUENTE ET AL. V. ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE Opinion of the Court ¶ 18 (2012); ¶ 7 (2006) (phrasing the inquiry in the conjunctive).

DISCUSSION ¶6 The three branches of government in Arizona share an equal duty in applying and upholding our state constitution, but “our courts bear ultimate responsibility for interpreting its provisions.” ¶ 8 (2006); see also Kimel v. Fla.

v. Napolitano, ¶¶ 10-11 (2006).

¶ 7 (2006) (“‘Political questions,’ broadly defined, involve decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches of government and raise issues not susceptible to judicial resolution according to discoverable and manageable standards.”).

v. Napolitano, ¶ 8 (2006).

See infra ¶ 40; ¶ 7 (2006) (“’Political questions,’ broadly defined, involve decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches of government and raise issues not susceptible to judicial resolution according to discoverable and manageable standards.”).

§ 40-254(E); –86, ¶ 11 (2006) (“Limiting the actions of each branch of government to those conferred upon it by the constitution is essential to maintaining the proper separation of powers.”).

v. Brewer, ¶ 11 (2009) (finding no legislative authority to transfer tobacco tax funds to the general fund); –86 ¶ 11 (2006) (holding that a dispute over “[l]imiting the actions of each branch of government to those conferred upon it by the constitution” makes it “one of those rare cases that justify the exercise of our special action jurisdiction”).

Redistricting Comm’n, 229 Ariz. at 355 ¶ 34 (citing Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177); ¶ 8 (2006) (“Although each branch of government must apply and uphold the constitution, our courts bear ultimate responsibility for interpreting its provisions.”).

v. Napolitano, ¶¶ 10–11 (2006).

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803) (stating that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”); ¶ 8 (2006) (stating that “[a]lthough each branch of government must apply and uphold the constitution, our courts bear ultimate responsibility for interpreting its provisions”).

Although we do not “decide matters entrusted to other branches,” we remain obliged to “determine respective constitutional boundaries.” ¶ 28 (2018) (Bolick, J., concurring); ¶ 8 (2006) (“[D]etermin[ing] whether a branch of state government has exceeded the powers granted by the Arizona Constitution .

732 , 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) ); see also Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano , , 485 ¶ 7, , 1026 (2006) (defining "[p]olitical questions" as "decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches of government and raise issues not susceptible to judicial resolution according to discoverable and manageable standards").

Cf. Forty-Seventh, , 485 ¶ 8, (“To determine whether a branch of state government has exceeded the powers granted by the Arizona Constitution requires that we construe the language of the constitution and declare what the constitution requires.”).

732 , 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (citation omitted); ¶ 7 , (applying the same standard in Arizona courts).

487 ¶ 15, (distinguishing Bennett, 206 Ariz. at 527 ¶ 29, 81 P.3d at 318 ).

¶ 15, (distinguishing Bennett, 206 Ariz. at 527 ¶ 29, 81 P.3d at 318).

Tucson II, 273 P.3d at 630; see also Walker, 60 Ariz. at 238-39, 135 P.2d at 226-27; (noting courts ultimately responsible for interpreting constitution).

¶8 Generally, political questions “involve decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches of government and raise issues not susceptible to judicial resolution according to discoverable and manageable standards.” ¶ 7

¶ 10, (finding that “[t]his Court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs against state officers,” including the governor); (same)

See City of Tucson v. Walker, 60 Ariz. at 238-39, 135 P.2d at 226-27; ¶ 8, (noting that courts are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution).