Arizona Supreme Court to Address the Scope of Citizens’ Rights to Propose Local Ballot Measures

By Joseph Kanefield, Eric H. Spencer,¹ and Kristen Iteen

In the forthcoming case of Roundtree v. City of Page,² the Arizona Supreme Court will weigh in on a reoccurring political issue that bubbles up in cities and towns across the state: under what circumstances does a proposed law drafted by local citizens sufficiently qualify for placement on the election ballot for a public vote?

Although the constitutional power to place local questions on the ballot are broad, they are not without limit. The Court of Appeals has attempted to provide episodic guidance over the years to help lower courts determine what measures are legislative in nature (and hence qualify for ballot placement) or are merely deemed administrative (and therefore cannot be placed on the ballot).

In a case involving a proposed citizen initiative in Page, Arizona, the Arizona Supreme Court is soon poised to weigh in on this amorphous “legislative” versus “administrative” dichotomy for the first time in nearly a generation.

By way of background, the City of Page decided to revitalize its downtown in an effort to increase economic growth and development. Over the course of six years, the city held public meetings, worked with a planning association, appropriated funds, hired an engineering firm, and entered contracts with construction firms to develop the revitalization project.

The proposed project, however, did not sit well with some residents who circulated initiative signature petitions to limit the project by requiring the size and number of lanes on a stretch of Lake Powell Boulevard to be maintained. After filing the completed petitions with the Page City Clerk, the Clerk rejected the petitions by claiming the initiative involved a purely administrative matter.

The citizens group filed a lawsuit. The superior court denied the citizens’ claims and found that the initiative was administrative because implementation of the downtown revitalization project was the responsibility of City employees.³

The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed in July 2024, holding that an initiative to maintain the size and number of traffic lanes between certain city streets was administrative rather than legislative and thus not legally sufficient for the ballot.⁴ In doing so, the court relied on a set of factors enunciated by the Arizona Supreme Court nearly 35 years ago.

In 1991, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the distinction between a legislative and administrative initiative depends on whether the proposition aims to create new law or implement existing law. To make that determination, courts were directed to analyze whether a proposed initiative was: 1) permanent or temporary, 2) of general or specific application, and 3) a matter of policy creation or policy implementation.

The Page citizens argued that the initiative was permanent because it preserved the roadway indefinitely and was of general application because it prevented any modification of the boulevard. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that not only was the initiative limited to a specific stretch of roadway, but also that the proposed initiative was merely a form of policy implementation, stating that the City established its policy when it adopted its “Strategic City Council Priorities” plan years earlier. Implementation of such project should include a determination by City employees of the required size and number of lanes on city streets, not individual citizens. The Court of Appeals therefore sustained the lower court’s decision to stop the ballot measure election.

The citizens group appealed. In an interesting development, on December 3, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. Oral argument will be held on February 25, 2025, and a decision likely will come several months later.

Since the early nineties, the Arizona Supreme Court has not extensively addressed the Arizona Constitution’s grant of authority in Article 4, § 1(8) to propose initiative measures and referendums or clarify the difference between “administrative” and “legislative” acts. This generational drought in guidance may come to an end as the Arizona Supreme Court considers this case with fresh eyes.

The Snell & Wilmer team will continue to monitor the developments in this case as it could have far reaching implications on the balance necessary to preserve the constitutional right of citizens to propose local ballot measures, while protecting the ability of local governments to administer their cities without undue interference.