Cited by

”[T]he proper place to argue about the potential impact of an initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper articles, advertisements and other forums.” see also Molera II, 250 Ariz. at 22 ¶ 23.

–44 (1936) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes governing the pre-election distribution of initiative publicity pamphlets); –71 (1987) (examining whether an initiative petition complied with certain statutes and constitutional provisions governing “the form of the initiative”); ¶ 1, 342 ¶¶ 9–11 (2002) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes requiring that municipalities “mail pu

allow an election to proceed in violation of the law which prescribes the manner in which it shall be held, they may not, after the people have voted, then question the procedure.” ¶ 9 (2002) (stating that challenges for procedural violations must be brought before the election); (holding that “procedures leading up to an election cannot be questioned after the people have voted, but .

(“The legislative power of the people is as great as that of the legislature.”); Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt.

(“Indeed, we have held that the procedures leading up to an election cannot be questioned after the people have voted, but instead the procedures must be challenged before the election is held.”).

(concluding that the proper time to consider the constitutionality of a proposed initiative is after its adoption when affected litigants can present the issue).

(“[T]he proper place to argue about the potential impact of an initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper articles, advertisements and other forums.”).

(“The legislative power of the people is as great as that of the legislature.”); cf. Ariz. Const. art. 22, § 14 (“Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature under this Constitution may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.”).

See Clean Elections, 209 Ariz. at 243-44, n. 1 , ¶¶ 1 & 7, 99 P.3d at 572-73, n. 1

at 221 , 36 P.2d at 554 ; see also Clean Elections, 209 Ariz. at 244 ¶ 9, 99 P.3d at 573 ; , 177 ¶ 12, , , State ex rel.

(citing Article 22, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution).

8 (“[T]he procedures ‘leading up to an election cannot be questioned’ after the vote but ‘must be challenged before the election is held.’”) ( ); (refusing, after the vote, to invalidate a ballot initiative alleging defects that occurred in the process prior to the election); Renck v. Superior Cour

(holding that “[p]rocedures leading up to an election cannot be questioned after the people have voted, but .

("courts have the power to determine ...

(noting that each provision in a proposition furthered the same purpose).

“The legislative power of the people is as great as that of the legislature.” , (citing Ariz. Const. art XXII, § 14).

1989, ch. 10, § 1); , (inclusion of “surplus material” with petition did not render petition defective; reiterating that “the judicial branch has no power to keep the proposal off the ballot simply because we might believe the matter has not been submitted to the people in a fair form.”) ( , (Feldman, Y.C.J., concurring)).

we considered the very same tort reform issues raised in Proposition 103.

we considered the very same tort reform issues raised in Proposition 103.