Bill
Number: H.B. 2244
Quezada Floor Amendment #2
Reference to: APPROPRIATIONS Committee amendment
Amendment drafted by: Leg Council
FLOOR AMENDMENT EXPLANATION
· Amends findings and intent regarding the standard of review for initiatives.
Bill
Number: H.B. 2244
Quezada Floor Amendment #2
Reference to: APPROPRIATIONS Committee amendment
Amendment drafted by: Leg Council
FLOOR AMENDMENT EXPLANATION
· Amends findings and intent regarding the standard of review for initiatives.
First Regular Session H.B. 2244
QUEZADA FLOOR AMENDMENT #2
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2244
(Reference to APPROPRIATIONS Committee amendment)
Page 1, line 12, after "propose" insert "and enact"
Line 14, after "2." insert "Arizona"; after "compliance" strike remainder of line
Strike lines 15 through 19, insert "only for referendum petitions. See Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444, 447 (2005). For initiative petitions, Arizona courts apply a "substantial compliance" standard to avoid "imposing unreasonable restrictions on the people's legislative authority, which 'is as great as the power of the legislature to legislate.'" Id. (quoting Kromko v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 51, 57 (1991)."
Line 21, after "vote" insert "for the legislature"; after "initiative" insert "or referendum"
Line 22, strike "greatly impairs the ability of" insert "prevents"
Line 23, strike ", representing" insert "from undermining"; after "people" strike remainder of line
Strike line 24, insert "by enacting changes that are inconsistent with the purpose of a voter-approved initiative or referendum."
Page 2, strike lines 1 through 6
Renumber to conform
Line 7, after "compliance" strike remainder of line
Strike lines 8 through 14, insert "has resulted in numerous referendum efforts being blocked from the ballot for minor, technical reasons. See, e.g., Arrett v. Bower, 237 Ariz. 74 (App. 2015) (petition sheets bore number of resolution being referred, rather than referendum serial number); Comm. for Pres. of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel, 213 Ariz. 247 (App. 2006) (summary of measure being referred was stapled to petitions rather than printed on them); W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426 (1991) (circulator affidavit, copied from the secretary of state's sample form, contained an error); De Szendeffy v. Threadgill, 178 Ariz. 464 (App. 1994) (same, but sample form was provided by town clerk); Stilo Dev. Grp. USA, LP v. Citizens for Sustainable Growth in Support of 2011‑12‑01‑01, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0151 EL, 2012 WL 1067216 (Ariz. App. Mar. 28, 2012) (referendum committee's statement of organization did not say they were opposed to the measure being referred, which was obvious from the fact they were referring it)."
Page 2, between lines 22 and 23, insert:
"3. Making it more difficult for voters to propose and enact new laws or constitutional amendments through the initiative process.
4. Making it easier for initiatives to be rejected based on technical failures even if the statutory and constitutional requirements were met overall and the signatures collected are valid.
5. After making it more expensive for voters to propose initiatives by enactment of House Bill 2404 as Laws 2017, chapter 52, this legislation further reduces the power reserved to the people by the Constitution of Arizona to propose laws through the initiative process."
Amend title to conform