Saggio v. Connelly
| Decision Date | 12 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 18048,18048 |
| Citation | 147 Ariz. 240,709 P.2d 874 |
| Parties | Joseph SAGGIO and Charles K. Harrison, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Kathleen CONNELLY, Clerk of the City of Apache Junction, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Joseph Saggio, Charles K. Harrison, pro se.
David F. Alexander, Apache Junction, for appellee.
Appellants Joseph Saggio and Charles K. Harrison appeal from a judgment by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David L. Roberts, denying their petition for a writ of mandamus. The appellants had sought an order commanding the appellee Kathleen Connelly, City Clerk of Apache Junction, to place a proposed initiative measure on the ballot for the general election in May, 1985.
The facts of the case are not in dispute and show that on January 21, 1985 appellant Harrison filed proposed Initiative Measure AJI-1-84 petitions, containing more than 1,000 signatures, with appellee Connelly. The proposal read in full:
We, the undersigned, citizens and qualified electors of the State of Arizona, City of Apache Junction, Pinal and Maricopa Counties respectfully demand that the following proposed initiative measure calling for an election for the dissolution of the government of the City of Apache Junction, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, State of Arizona; and returning all government functions back to the control of Pinal and Maricopa Counties, State of Arizona, which measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Apache Junction, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, State of Arizona, for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election of the City of Apache Junction, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, State of Arizona, and each for himself says: I have personally signed this petition with my first and last name. I have not signed any other petition for this measure. I am a qualified elector of the City of Apache Junction, Pinal or Maricopa County, State of Arizona.
On advice of the Apache Junction city attorney, Connelly wrote a letter dated January 30, 1985 to Harrison stating that the initiative measure, "as submitted, fails to conform to that of a proposed ordinance, reasonably constructed and enforceable and, as such, does not constitute a proper exercise of the initiative power." She later returned the petitions to Harrison by certified mail.
The appellants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Maricopa County Superior Court. On February 20, 1985, the petition hearing resulted in an order denying the relief requested by appellants, from which order they now appeal. We took jurisdiction of the appeal. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3).
The record shows that the trial court ruled the disincorporation of a city is not a "law or amendment to the Constitution" within the meaning of Article IV, Part I, of the Arizona Constitution; that a city is not empowered by law to legislate its own disincorporation so the initiative is contrary to Article IV, Part I, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 9-132; and finally that Article XIII, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution grants the legislature the power to provide for incorporation of cities and towns and preempts such power being exercised by a city.
Appellants argue that Arizona courts have not examined proposed initiatives to determine whether proponents of a given initiative sought to accomplish a properly legislative act. "Only after legislation becomes law will its constitutionality be tested." Iman v. Bolin, 98 Ariz. 358, 365, 404 P.2d 705, 709 (1965). They maintain that the trial court erred by examining the legality and constitutionality of the proposed measure.
Although the constitutionality of a proposed initiative will not be considered prior to its adoption, we will consider whether an initiative petition is defective in form. Iman v. Bolin, supra. By review of the form of the proposed measure we mean an examination of it to determine whether it is, in fact, legislation.
Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution. McBride v. Kerby, 32 Ariz. 515, 260 P. 435 (1927). Legislative power has been defined as the power to pass rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fann v. State
...does not address initiative or referendum petitions.") (quoting Barth , 40 Ariz. at 556, 14 P.2d 743 ); with Saggio v. Connelly , 147 Ariz. 240, 241, 709 P.2d 874, 875 (1985) ("Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution."); and Kerby v. ......
-
Vangilder v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue
...an election ... at which the electorate would be asked to decide whether [the tax should be enacted]." See Saggio v. Connelly , 147 Ariz. 240, 241, 709 P.2d 874, 875 (1985). ¶11 Second, although Vangilder relies on Braden v. Yuma County Board of Supervisors , 161 Ariz. 199, 777 P.2d 697 (Ap......
-
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa
...legislative and administrative acts. We did not articulate, however, any test for distinguishing between them. In Saggio v. Connelly, 147 Ariz. 240, 240, 709 P.2d 874 (1985), the Apache Junction City Clerk refused to place an initiative measure on the ballot for a general election. We concl......
-
Winkle v. City of Tucson
...The second arises when text of the initiative does not comprise legislation because it fails to enact anything. Saggio v. Connelly, 147 Ariz. 240, 241, 709 P.2d 874, 875 (1985). For an initiative to form legislation, its text must propose "a definite, specific act or resolution" that is mor......