Cited by

d Equal Elections Clause has no federal analog and this Court has not previously interpreted the provision, our first task is to determine the meaning of our Constitution’s mandate that elections be “free and equal.” ¶19 “When interpreting the scope and meaning of a constitutional provision, we are guided by fundamental principles of constitutional construction.”

Co., 170 Ariz. at 383; (“If the language is clear and unambiguous, we generally must follow the text of the provision as written.”).

¶15 Our primary goal in interpreting Section 36-2862(C)(1)(e) “is to effectuate the electorate’s intent in adopting it.” See Saban Rent-a-Car LLC, 246 Ariz. at 95, ¶ 21 ().

(noting “publicity pamphlet” was prepared and distributed “to apprise the voters of the purpose and intent behind” the ballot measure).

¶ 42 (2020) (“Our primary purpose when interpreting the Arizona Constitution is to ‘effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.’” ().

A. ¶28 Our primary purpose when interpreting the Arizona Constitution is to “effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.”

In short, judicial construction is neither necessary nor proper.”

¶42 Our primary purpose when interpreting the Arizona Constitution is to “effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.”

-20 (1994) (recognizing the value of “a publicity pamphlet to apprise the voters of the purpose and intent behind the [ballot proposition]” in ascertaining its intended effect); ¶ 16 (1999)

Indeed, the "city charter is itself of constitutional origin," Jett v. City of Tucson , , 120-21, , 431-32 (1994), because the Arizona Constitution creates the charter city alternative and authorizes adoption of charters.

See Jett v. City of Tucson , , 119, , 430 (1994).

¶22 While consideration of the history and purpose of the AMMA is not necessary to apply its plain language, ¶ 9 (2008) (), an construed together as though they constitute one law.”) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2005)); see also A.R.S.

(removal of city magistrates from office); Walker, 60 Ariz. at 237 , Luhrs, 52 Ariz. at 448 , -18 , (pay for police officers’ lu

(concluding that when the language of a constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, “we generally must follow the text of the provision as written”).

“ ‘If the language is clear and unambiguous, we generally must follow the text of the provision as written.’ ” Id.

“‘If the language is clear and unambiguous, we generally must follow the text of the provision as written.’” Id.

These principles of construction apply to the interpretation of Arizona’s constitution, requiring us to interpret its provisions “to effectuate the intent of those who framed [them].” see also Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac.

of the electorate that adopted it.”

of the electorate that adopted it.”