Cited by

“[W]e base our opinion solely on legal issues advanced by the parties themselves.” ¶ 15 (1998).

3 We recognize that, although opinions of the Attorney General are advisory, “the reasoned opinion of a state attorney general should be accorded respectful consideration.” ¶ 28 (1998).

Consistent with this policy statement, Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I83-128, at 2 (1983) concluded that the enumerated exceptions to the Open Meeting Law “should be construed narrowly.” ¶ 28 (1998) (stating that “reasoned opinion[s] of a state attorney general should be accorded respectful consideration”).

However, “we must read the [ordinance] as a whole and give meaningful operation to each of its provisions.” ¶ 35 (1998).

¶ 36 (1998) (permitting consideration of ballot materials when interpreting an initiative); ¶ 12 (App. 2019) (“[Courts] may look to dictionaries to ascertain and apply a word’s plain meaning unless the context suggests the electorate intended a different meaning.”

¶ 36 (1998) (stating that we may consider ballot materials in construing initiatives).

Recognizing this opinion is based on the "legal issues advanced by the parties themselves," Ruiz v. Hull , , 446 ¶ 15, , 989 (1998), the court has received briefs from Lanna Mesenbrink, Reed's surviving spouse and personal representative; Arizona Voice for Crime Victims and the National Crime Victim Law Institute.

5 STATE V. KEMMISH Opinion of the Court materials and publicity pamphlets circulated in support of the initiative.” ¶ 36 (1998); see also Gear, 239 Ariz. at 345, ¶ 11 (citing the Act’s publicity pamphlet).

¶9 When interpreting a statute, we give words “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.” ¶ 33 (1998) (citing Cnty.

¶ 28 (1998) (stating that although attorney general opinions are advisory, they may be used as persuasive authority).

¶ 36, (“In construing an initiative, we may consider ballot materials and publicity pamphlets circulated in support of the initiative.”) (citation omitted).

¶ 36, (“In construing an initiative, we may consider ballot materials and publicity pamphlets circulated in support of the initiative.”) (citation omitted).

¶ 15, 957 4 STATE V. GLASSEL Opinion of the Court P.2d 984, 989 (1998) (observing that “we base our opinion solely on legal issues advanced by the parties themselves”).

§ 9-462.06(K) to consider the entirety of the statutory scheme, which separately authorizes standing to a “person aggrieved by a decision of the legislative body or- board[.]” ¶ 35 , (“When construing statutes, we must read the statute as a whole and give meaningful operation to each of its provisions.”).

¶ 28 , (stating, although they are not binding, “reasoned opinion[s] of a state attorney general should be accorded respectful consideration”).

We interpret a constitutional “[a]mendment as a whole and in harmony with other portions of the Arizona Constitution.” ¶ 24 , , (“Each word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be [void], inert, redundant, or trivial.”).

¶25 P.2d 984 (1998), in which this Court held that the Arizona constitutional amendment adopting English as the state official language violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

This state interest remains compelling.4 See State v. Gibbs, 758 A.2d 327, 341 (Conn. 2000).5 4 P.2d 984 (1998), which concerned Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution, the “English 7 C. Dismissal of Juror 46 ¶17 Given Cota’s drug addiction and widespread drug use among his friends and family, testimony at the guilt and penalty phases focused

¶ 12 , Transamerica Title Ins.

Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc.

¶ 15 , ("we base our opinion solely on legal issues advanced by the parties themselves”).