Arizona Supreme Court Affirms Citizens’ Broad Rights to Propose Local Ballot Measures

By Joseph Kanefield and Eric H. Spencer¹

The Arizona Supreme Court recently held in Roundtree v. City of Page that the circumstances under which citizens can place a local initiative measure on the ballot are very broad, so long as they propose something that may be deemed a “law.”

The case involved an initiative advanced by a group of Page residents who sought to limit the size and number of lanes on a stretch of Lake Powell Boulevard. The Arizona Court of Appeals held the measure was “administrative,” not “legislative,” and therefore not legally qualified to be placed on the ballot. The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the initiative was indeed legislative and therefore allowed the measure to proceed to the ballot. 

In reaching its conclusion, the Arizona Supreme Court determined the three-part test for classifying whether a local referendum is legislative or administrative, as distilled from Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485, 489 (1991), is not readily adaptable to the initiative context. That test considers whether a referendum is (1) permanent or temporary, (2) of general or specific, limited application, and (3) a matter of policy versus a form of policy implementation. Thus, the court suggested that the Wennerstrom test may no longer be the relevant inquiry in initiative cases. In fact, the court also diminished the significance of the Wennerstrom test even in the context of referenda, now characterizing the test as “not dispositive” and stating “[l]ike many tests courts use to determine constitutional compliance, this test is a means to determine constitutionality rather than an end in itself.”

Here, the court held that in determining whether an initiative is legislative in nature, the proper focus is on the initiative’s context. Here the court determined the initiative proposed a law because by preserving Lake Powell Boulevard as it existed on October 1, 2023, the citizens sought to change public policy by limiting the use of public funds to narrow the street. The court rejected the City’s argument that the initiative was administrative because the street widening project was only implementing a previously-established City policy.  

The court, however, rejected the initiative’s proponents’ argument that the Arizona Constitution authorizes initiatives on any matter. The court interpreted the plain language of the Arizona Constitution to hold that initiatives and referenda apply only to legislation.

By attempting to clarify the distinction between a legislative and administrative initiative in this manner, city and town electors will likely have more flexibility to propose initiatives and overrule policy decisions of city and town councils. The pendulum appears to have shifted. However, with no clear replacement for the Wennerstrom test, cities and towns may continue to struggle with where to draw the line between legislative and administrative acts.

The Snell & Wilmer team is experienced in helping those engaged in local matters determine when and whether local issues may be subject to the initiative process and will continue to monitor developments in this area of the law.