Cited by

But “[l]egislative history is not a substitute for clear legislative language.” ¶ 15 (2022); (“Rejection by the house or senate, or both, of a proposed bill is an unsure and unreliable guide to statutory construction.”).

at 408 ¶ 67 (Timmer, VCJ., concurring and dissenting in part) (“By deducting the signatures disqualified by the county recorders and also applying the invalidity percentage rate to the total number of eligible signatures initially identified by the Secretary, disqualified signatures are counted twice.”); (“We recognize that the method we have set forth will still result in a percentage of the invalid signatures in the random sample being deducted twice.”).

cf. Scalia & Garner, supra ¶ 15, at 256 (“Statutory history—the statutes repealed or amended by the [enacted] statute under consideration”—“form[s] part of the context of the statute.”).

(“Where the legislature uses a term within one [subsection] and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

rejected a proposed amendment” that would support such an interpretation), (refusing to “speculate on the intent of the legislature in failing or refusing to adopt clarifying amendments [to a statute]” because “one could also argue that the legislature considered the proposed legislation unnecessary”).

While it is true that courts will not generally read a term into a statute where it is omitted from one provision and used in another, construing A.R.S.

("Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.").

“[L]egislative history and historical background of an enacted statute provides guidance in ascertaining the intent of the legislature[, but] this principal has no application to proposed, but unenacted, legislation.” ( ) (emphasis in original).

(“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

(stating “[w]here the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded”).

¶ 15 (2017) ( (quotations omitted)).

(“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

(“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

-99 (1990) (“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

¶ 47 Normally, “[rjejection by the house or senate, or both, of a proposed bill is an unsure and unreliable guide to statutory construction.” City of Flagstaff v. Mangum, *434

“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”

(‘Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

(“Where the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded.”).

¶ 6 , restricts voting for municipal initiatives to municipal elections.

a case which dealt with whether local initiative petitions had been timely filed.

§ 19-122(A) permits “any citizen,” not just those of the affected city, town, or county, to challenge the clerk’s refusal to forward petitions and to file suit to uphold a referendum petition, , for the proposition that, in the absence of local legislation prescribing the manner for exercising the referendum power, state law applies.

(relief by appeal inadequate if it would result in delay beyond scheduled election).

(supreme court will consider moot issue "if significant questions of public importance are presented and are likely to recur”) (citations omitted); Big D Constr.