Cited by

) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(noting that the absurdity doctrine applies only if application of the plain meaning of the statute is “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion” (alteration in original) (quoting Bussanich v.

see 8 PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. KRISTIN MAYES/HAZELRIGG Opinion of the Court also SolarCity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 8 (2018).

384 (1992) (noting that issue was not addressed directly, but that erroneous advice from county elections director about referendum signatures did not excuse noncompliance); accord Arrett, 237 Ariz. at 80 ¶ 19 (quoting Fidelity, 220 Ariz. at 250 ¶ 14); n.1 (App. 199

(instructing parties to file referendum appeals in the court of appeals).

(“We look first to the language of the provision, for if the constitutional language is clear, judicial construction is neither required nor proper.”); Jett, 180 Ariz. at 119 (“If the language is clear and unambiguous, we generally must follow the text of the provision as written.”).

–84 (1992) (holding referendum would not appear on ballot for failure to comply with signature requirement); W. Devcor, –32 (1991) (determining referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain required circulators’ statements); Saggio v. Connelly, 147 Ari

Co. v. Pima County , , 383, , 4 (1992) ).

(“If enforcing the clear language of the constitution results in an absurd situation, the court may look behind the bare words of the provision to discern its intended effect.”).

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

384, 5 (1992) (although issue not addressed directly, erroneous advice from county elections director about referendum signatures did not excuse noncompliance).

(instructing parties to file referendum appeals in the court of appeals).

Co. v. Pima County, 170 Ariz. 380, 382, Ariz. Podiatry Ass’n v. Dir.

(instructing parties to file referenda appeals in the court of appeals).