Bennett v. Napolitano
| Decision Date | 04 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-03-0245-SA.,CV-03-0245-SA. |
| Citation | 81 P.3d 311,206 Ariz. 520 |
| Parties | Ken BENNETT, President, Arizona State Senate; Franklin "Jake" Flake, Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives; Timothy Bee, Majority Leader, Arizona State Senate; Eddie Farnsworth, Majority Leader, Arizona House of Representatives, Petitioners, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Governor of the State of Arizona; Arizona Department of Administration and Betsey Bayless, Director; General Accounting Office of the Arizona Department of Administration; D. Clark Partridge, Arizona State Comptroller; Arizona Department of Agriculture and Jack Peterson, Director; Arizona Department of Economic Security and William Bell, Acting Director; Arizona Department of Health Services and Catherine R. Eden, Director; Arizona State Land Department and Mark Winkelman, Commissioner; Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System and C.J. Hindman, Acting Director; Arizona Department of Education and Tom Horne, Superintendent; and Arizona State Parks Board, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. by John J. Bouma, Andrew F. Halaby, Danielle J. Malody, Jeffrey C. Warren, Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioners.
Office of the Governor, by Timothy A. Nelson, General Counsel, Nicole C. Davis, Deputy General Counsel, and Lewis and Roca LLP by Scott Bales, Kimberly A. Demarchi, Phoenix, Attorneys for Governor Napolitano.
Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Mary O'Grady, Solicitor General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Respondent State Agencies and Related Officials.
Logan T. Johnston, III, Phoenix, Attorneys for AHCCCS and C.J. Hindman.
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest by Timothy M. Hogan, Phoenix, Amicus Curiae for School Finance Reform Group.
¶ 1 On June 12, 2003, the legislature enacted and transmitted to the governor four bills comprising the state's operating budget for fiscal year 2004—the general appropriations bill (House Bill 2531) and three omnibus reconciliation bills (ORBs) consisting of the Public Finance ORB (House Bill 2533), the Education ORB (House Bill 2534), and the Health and Welfare ORB (House Bill 2535).
¶ 2 On June 17, 2003, the governor item vetoed some thirty-five separate provisions from the four bills, and, as required, sent a message to both legislative chambers stating the reasons for her vetoes. Ariz. Const. art. V, § 7. On June 19, 2003, with no further action on the vetoed items, the legislature adjourned sine die.
¶ 3 On July 15, 2003, petitioners—state legislators Ken Bennett, President of the Senate, Franklin "Jake" Flake, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Timothy Bee, Senate Majority Leader, and Eddie Farnsworth, House Majority Leader—brought this special action challenging the governor's use of the item veto in twelve specified instances and alleging, as to each, that the governor exceeded her veto authority under the Arizona Constitution. On September 4, 2003, petitioners withdrew their challenge to one of the twelve vetoes, leaving eleven.
¶ 4 Of the eleven vetoes challenged, nine involved provisions in the general appropriations bill, and two pertained, respectively, to provisions in the Education and the Health and Welfare ORBs.
¶ 5 In separate appropriations to five governmental departments in the general appropriations bill, the legislature provided in each instance (a) a single operating allocation, (b) various specifically directed allocations in smaller amounts, and (c) a separate "lump sum reduction." In each appropriation, the lump sum reduction required the particular department to reduce overall spending by a specified sum.1 The governor item vetoed each of the five lump sum reductions.2
¶ 6 The sixth, seventh, and eighth item vetoes directed at the general appropriations bill also involved reductions in funding. In the appropriation to the Department of Health Services, the legislature imposed a $10,000,000 reduction labeled an "offset for receipts." 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 262 § 44. The governor vetoed the offset.
¶ 7 In the appropriation to the Department of Economic Security, the legislature imposed a $14,906,000 reduction for "federal match rate savings." The legislature explained this provision:
The reduction associated with the federal match rate change represents a reduction in the state general fund appropriation associated with temporary changes to the federal matching assistance percentage designed to give fiscal relief to states. There shall be a corresponding $14,906,000 increase in federal expenditure authority to the department.
Id. § 29. The governor vetoed the match rate savings reduction.
¶ 8 In the appropriation to the Department of Health Services, the legislature imposed a contingency reduction to be taken from the allocated funds pursuant to the following formula:
If the department receives more than $1,188,000 in federal 317 monies for vaccines purchase for state fiscal year 2003-2004, the state general fund amount of the state fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriation for the vaccines special line item equal to the amount by which the federal monies exceed $1,188,000 up to $576,000 shall revert to the state general fund.
Id. § 44. The governor vetoed the contingency reduction.
¶ 9 The ninth and final item veto within the general appropriations bill involved an appropriation of $1,800,000 to the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Id. § 9. With this appropriation, the legislature identified the Heritage Fund as the source of the funds. Id. The governor vetoed the source but left the appropriation intact and asserted that, in the absence of a source of monies, the $1,800,000 would be disbursed from the state general fund. Petitioners challenge the veto, claiming the governor lacked authority to direct monies from the general fund to the Arts Commission.
¶ 10 The tenth item veto was directed at the Education ORB in which the legislature ordered a fifty percent reduction in the amount of "rapid decline" funding a school district is eligible to receive. 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 264, § 40. The governor vetoed the reduction.
¶ 11 The eleventh item veto was directed at the Health and Welfare ORB in which the legislature amended Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-2907 to remove adult emergency dental care from coverage under the
Sec. 6 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2003-04 FTE positions 250.2 Operating lump sum appropriation $12,436,700 Agricultural employment relations board 23,300 Animal damage control 65,000 Red imported fire ant 23,200 Lump sum reduction 566,700 Total appropriation — department of agriculture $11,981,500 Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 265, § 21. The governor vetoed the amendment.
¶ 12 Petitioners also raise an issue relating to the Public Finance ORB which, among other things, appropriated $75,000,000 to be used as partial reimbursement due a class of Arizona taxpayers, pursuant to the settlement of a judicial matter.3 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 263, § 69. The governor vetoed the appropriation, causing the monies to remain in the general fund. Petitioners concede the validity of this veto but claim the language in the governor's veto message will authorize future spending not approved by the legislature.4
¶ 13 The Arizona Constitution gives the governor two distinct veto powers: (a) a general power, which allows veto of an entire bill on any subject, and (b) a line item power, which authorizes the governor to veto "one or more" items of appropriation in "any bill" that contains "several items of appropriations." Ariz. Const. art. V, § 7.
¶ 14 Petitioners claim the eleven vetoed items were not appropriations.5 They urge that we hold the vetoes unconstitutional and that we order the governor and all affected state officers and departments to implement the legislature's budget package without regard to the vetoes. This court has original jurisdiction over the issuance of extraordinary writs against state officers. Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5(1); see also Rios v. Symington, 172 Ariz. 3, 833 P.2d 20 (1992)
.
¶ 15 We accept jurisdiction of the petition. We conclude, however, without reaching the merits, that two threshold questions determine the outcome of this case: first, whether the petitioners have demonstrated facts sufficient to achieve requisite standing to maintain the action; and second, whether prudential concerns dictate the exercise of judicial restraint such that the court should abstain from consideration of the dispute.
¶ 16 This court has, as a matter of sound judicial policy, required persons seeking redress in the courts first to establish standing, especially in actions in which constitutional relief is sought against the government. Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 71, 961 P.2d 1013, 1019 (1998). In Sears, we denied standing to citizens seeking relief against the governor because they failed to plead and prove palpable injury personal to themselves. Id. at 69-70, 961 P.2d at 1017-18. A contrary approach would inevitably open the door to multiple actions asserting all manner of claims against the government.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs
...is not jurisdictional, but instead is a prudential doctrine."); Bennett v. Napolitano , 206 Ariz. 520, 524 ¶ 16, 529 ¶ 41, 81 P.3d 311, 315, 320 (2003) (declining review on the merits for lack of standing). And, despite differences between federal and state standing requirements, we "have p......
-
West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford
...disposition of funds or illegal creation of debt or illegal disposition of public property of incorporated town); Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 527, 81 P.3d 311 (2003) (taxpayer standing to challenge expenditure of public funds for illegal or unconstitutional purpose); Wilmington v.......
-
Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phx.
...that of the United States, does not expressly limit courts to only deciding matters which involve a case or controversy. Bennett v. Napolitano , 206 Ariz. 520, 525, ¶ 19, 81 P.3d 311, 316 (2003). We find, however, "that as a matter of sound jurisprudence a litigant seeking relief in the Ari......
-
Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phx.
...the doctrines of standing and ripeness "as a matter of sound judicial policy." Bennett v. Napolitano , 206 Ariz. 520, 524 ¶ 16, 81 P.3d 311, 315 (2003). Because in this case the underlying concerns for standing and ripeness are the same, we simply use the term "ripeness" to apply to both do......
-
Chapter 175, SB 1406 – contributions; committed youth; repeal; committee (NOW: public accommodation; exemptions; enforcement; sanctions)
...2009) (The Arizonans with Disabilities Act allows an "aggrieved individual" to institute civil action); see also Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 524-525 15, 19 (2003) ("[A] litigant seeking relief in the Arizona courts must first establish standing to sue," as the standing issue is a ......