Sotomayor v. Burns
| Citation | 13 P.3d 1198,199 Ariz. 81 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-00-0305-SA.,CV-00-0305-SA. |
| Parties | Alejandra SOTOMAYOR and Salvador Gabaldon, Petitioners, v. Brenda BURNS, President of the Arizona Senate and Co-Chair of the Legislative Council; Jeff Groscost, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Chair of the Legislative Council; Representative Lori Daniels, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Herschella Horton, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Marilyn Jarrett, member of the Legislative Council; Representative John Loredo, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Robert McLendon, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Jim Weiers, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Russell Bowers, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Jack Brown, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Chris Cummiskey, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Ann Day, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Darden Hamilton, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Peter Rios, member of the Legislative Council; Betsey Bayless, Secretary of State; all in their official capacities, Respondents-Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
13 P.3d 1198
199 Ariz. 81
v.
Brenda BURNS, President of the Arizona Senate and Co-Chair of the Legislative Council; Jeff Groscost, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Chair of the Legislative Council; Representative Lori Daniels, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Herschella Horton, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Marilyn Jarrett, member of the Legislative Council; Representative John Loredo, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Robert McLendon, member of the Legislative Council; Representative Jim Weiers, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Russell Bowers, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Jack Brown, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Chris Cummiskey, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Ann Day, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Darden Hamilton, member of the Legislative Council; Senator Peter Rios, member of the Legislative Council; Betsey Bayless, Secretary of State; all in their official capacities, Respondents-Real Parties in Interest
No. CV-00-0305-SA.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.
December 8, 2000.
Janet A. Napolitano, Attorney General by W. Scott Bales, Joseph A. Kanefield, Phoenix, Attorneys for Respondent Bayless.
Gallagher & Kennedy by John E. Lundin, Jeffrey D. Gross, Phoenix, Attorneys for Respondents Burns and Groscost.
Arizona State Senate by Glenn M. Davis, Phoenix, Attorney for Respondents Rios, Cummiskey, Loredo, and Horton.
OPINION
ZLAKET, Chief Justice.
¶ 1 This special action challenges the Arizona Legislative Council's written analysis of Proposition 203, "English Language Education for Children in Public Schools," for inclusion in the state's voter information pamphlet. Petitioners claim that the Council violated the impartiality requirement of Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 19-124(B) (West Supp.1999) by misstating current bilingual education law; overstating parental rights to apply for waivers under the initiative; and exaggerating parental ability to obtain alternative programs. We considered the case without oral argument and issued our decision accepting jurisdiction and granting relief on August 18, 2000. We decided that the first paragraph of the Council's analysis had to either be deleted or revised to provide an impartial description of existing law, free of argument or advocacy. We further determined that the petitioners' remaining claims were untimely.
¶ 2 The jurisdictional basis and legislative background for this type of challenge are set forth in Citizens for Growth Management v. Groscost, 199 Ariz. 71, 13 P.3d 1188 (2000). The question presented is whether the Legislative Council fulfilled its responsibility to "prepare and file ... an impartial analysis... of each ballot proposal of a measure or proposed amendment." Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 19-124(B).
¶ 3 The Council completed a draft analysis of Proposition 203 and made it available to the public on June 15, 2000. Open hearings were held on June 27 and July 6. At the July meeting, the Council adopted final language which was transmitted to the Secretary of State on July 13, 2000. Petitioners first objected by sending a letter to Council Chairman Groscost dated August 1, 2000. They then filed a special action in this court on August 14. Respondents received copies of the pleadings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayer Unified School Dist. v. Winkleman
...claim accrued. Three of these cases dealt with election and voting issues, which necessarily involve truncated timetables. See Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, ¶ 9, 13 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2000) (two-month delay barred claims because litigants in election cases must pursue such cases with all ......
-
Ariz. Democratic Party & Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
...prejudices the opposing party or the administration of justice."); Beltran v. Razo, 788 P.2d 1256, 1258 (App.1990); Sotomayor v. Burns, 13 P.3d 1198, 1200 (Ariz. 2000). The Committees did not file their complaint in this action until more than a week after the voter registration deadline ha......
-
Weinstein v. Weinstein (In re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13)
...law to contrary). Laches is the “equitable counterpart to the statute of limitations, designed to discourage dilatory conduct.” Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2000). “Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the......
-
Broschat v. Francone
...dilatory conduct.'" In re Indenture of Trust Dated Jan. 13, 1964, 235 Ariz. 40, ¶ 22, 326 P.3d 307, 315 (App. 2014), quoting Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2000). Even where the applicable statute of limitations has not yet expired, laches can bar a claim if the ......