Ariz. Sch. Boards Ass'n, Inc. v. State

• Decision Date: 06 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. CV-21-0234-T/AP,CV-21-0234-T/AP
• Citation: 501 P.3d 731,61 Arizona Cases Digest 4
• Parties: ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. STATE of Arizona, a Body Politic, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

61 Arizona Cases Digest 4

501 P.3d 731

ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees,

v.STATE of Arizona, a Body Politic, Defendant/Appellant.

No. CV-21-0234-T/AP

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed January 6, 2022

Daniel J. Adelman, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix; and Roopali H. Desai (argued), D. Andrew Gaona, Kristen Yost, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Arizona School Boards Association, Inc., et al.

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Joseph A. Kanefield, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Brunn W. Roysden III (argued), Solicitor General, Michael S. Catlett, Chief Counsel, Phoenix; and Patrick Irvine, Lyndsey M. Maasch, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona

John C. Richardson, DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae National School Boards Association

Paul F. Eckstein, Austin C. Yost, Samantha J. Burke, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and Arizona Medical Association

Michael G. Rankin, Tucson City Attorney, Regina Nassen, Principal Assistant City Attorney, Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Tucson

Samara M. Spence, Jeffrey B. Dubner, Democracy Forward Foundation, Washington, DC; and Bruce E. Samuels, Jennifer Lee-Cota, Papetti Samuels Weiss LLP, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics

Mary R. O'Grady, Lynne C. Adams, Joshua D. Bendor, Shannon H. Mataele, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Phoenix Union High School District

Kory Langhofer, Thomas Basile, Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Russell Bowers, Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, and Governor Douglas A. Ducey

Rhonda L. Barnes, Jane Ahern, Arizona House of Representatives, Phoenix; and Lisette Flores, Arizona Senate, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Legislative Democrats

Brett W. Johnson, Ian R. Joyce, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Senator Vince Leach, Senator David Gowan, and Representative Regina Cobb

JUSTICE LOPEZ authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, and JUSTICES BOLICK, BEENE, MONTGOMERY, and JUDGE HOWE joined.^* JUSTICE BOLICK issued a concurring opinion.

JUSTICE LOPEZ, opinion of the Court:

¶1 We consider whether four legislative budget reconciliation bills ("BRBs")—House Bill ("HB") 2898, Senate Bill ("SB") 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819—violate the Arizona Constitution's "title requirement" or "single subject rule." See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 13. We conclude that, because these bills violate the title requirement, they are void in part, and because SB 1819 also violates the single subject rule, it is entirely void.

BACKGROUND

¶2 One of the Arizona legislature's fundamental duties is adopting an annual budget. The budget process includes passing a general appropriations bill, commonly referred to as a "feed bill," which funds previously authorized government expenses, Carr v. Frohmiller , 47 Ariz. 430, 441, 56 P.2d 644 (1936), as well as other appropriations. Our constitution requires that appropriations beyond the scope of the general appropriations bill "shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject." Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 20. Such bills are also subject to the general constitutional requirements that "[e]very act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title." Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 13. Two distinct requirements emanate from this provision, which are commonly referred to as the "single subject rule" and the "title requirement."

¶3 The general appropriations bill may not contain substantive provisions. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 20 ("The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the different departments of the state, for state institutions, for public schools, and for interest on the public debt."). Thus, amendments and additions to substantive law necessary to effectuate the annual budget must be passed separately; this is commonly achieved using "reconciliation bills" that are related to and passed along with the general appropriations bill.

¶4 Before 2004, substantive budget amendments were placed into one of three omnibus reconciliation bills ("ORBs"). Each ORB related to one of the following subjects: public finance, education, and health and welfare. Following this Court's opinion in Bennett v. Napolitano , 206 Ariz. 520, 528 ¶ 39 & n.9, 81 P.3d 311, 319 (2003), which recognized that ORBs often addressed multiple subjects and perhaps ran afoul of the single subject rule, the legislature modified its budget process. Since 2004, the legislature has placed substantive budget amendments into eight to ten BRBs, allowing for treatment of a broader range of subjects.

¶5 The 2022 budgetary process commenced with the feed bill—SB 1823—which funded previously authorized expenses of the state's various constitutionally enumerated fiscal obligations. The 2022 budget, approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor on June 30, 2021, included eight BRBs. Of these, the Arizona School Boards Association, along with other organizations and citizens (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), challenged four—HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819—in a complaint filed on August 12, 2021, against the State of Arizona. The complaint alleged that all four BRBs violated the title requirement and that SB 1819 also violated the single subject rule.

¶6 HB 2898 is titled: "An Act Amending [Statutes Listed by Number]; Appropriating Monies; Relating to Kindergarten through Grade Twelve Budget Reconciliation." Plaintiffs alleged that three sections violated the title requirement. Section 12 prohibited public and charter schools from requiring students or staff to use face coverings or receive a COVID-19 vaccine to attend in-person classes. Section 21 prohibited public and charter schools from teaching a curriculum that "presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex." Section 50 authorized the Attorney General to initiate civil actions against public officials, employees, or agents who use public resources to "organize, plan or execute any activity that impedes or prevents a public school from operating for any period of time."

¶7 SB 1824 is titled: "An Act Amending [Statutes Listed by Number]; Appropriating Monies; Relating to Health Budget Reconciliation." Plaintiffs argued two sections violated the title requirement. Section 12 prohibited schools from requiring immunizations for the human papillomavirus or any immunization with emergency use authorization. Section 13 prohibited the state, cities, towns, and counties from "establishing a COVID-19 vaccine passport," or requiring any person to be vaccinated for COVID-19 or businesses to obtain vaccination

status from customers.

¶8 SB 1825 is titled: "An Act Amending [Statutes Listed by Number]; Appropriating Monies; Relating to Budget Reconciliation for Higher Education." Plaintiffs claimed one section violated the title requirement. Section 2 prohibited the Arizona Board of Regents and public universities and community colleges from requiring the COVID-19 vaccine or proof of vaccination

status or placing other conditions on attendance, including mandatory testing or face coverings.

¶9 SB 1819 is titled: "An Act Amending [Statutes Listed by Number]; Appropriating Monies; Relating to State Budget Procedures." Plaintiffs alleged that six sections—4, 5, 33, 35, 39, and 47— violated the title requirement, and that the entire bill violated the single subject rule. The six sections challenged relate to various election procedures and prohibit new COVID-19 mitigation laws that affect private entities. The rest of the bill covers a menagerie of subjects including dog racing permits, the definition of a "newspaper," and authorization of investigations into the practices of social media platforms related to political contributions.

¶10 Plaintiffs requested that the challenged sections of all four BRBs be declared unconstitutional as violative of the title requirement, that SB 1819 be declared unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule, and that the State be enjoined from enforcing the challenged sections and SB 1819 in its entirety. Plaintiffs further requested a declaratory judgment that section 12 of HB 2898 violated the Arizona Constitution on equal protection grounds.

¶11 The State, in addition to contesting the merits of Plaintiffs’ arguments, asserted two justiciability defenses: (1) that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge SB 1819; and (2) that the courts lack authority to determine the BRBs’ validity because the issue raises a non-justiciable political question.

¶12 The trial court issued its judgment on September 27, 2021, ruling that the challenged sections of HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819 violated the title requirement and the entirety of SB 1819 violated the single subject rule. Thus, those sections and SB 1819 were void and unenforceable. Given those declarations, the court denied injunctive relief as moot, stating that relief would be available if noncompliance occurred. It did not decide whether section 12 of HB 2898 violated the equal protection clause. The State timely appealed.

¶13 We granted the State's petition to transfer the appeal from the court of appeals pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 19(a) because the budget issues raised required prompt resolution. See Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer , 221 Ariz. 467, 469 ¶ 2, 212 P.3d 805, 807 (2009). After briefing and oral argument, we issued an order affirming the trial court's judgment with an explanatory opinion to follow. We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.

DISCUSSION

I.

¶14 We first...