Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

. j: :1 r\ January 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.1 .'......... Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") S 19-101(A) required a refer- endum petition to describe in one hundred words or less the "principal provisions of the measure" for which referendum was sought. SOST's petition for th.e' referendum on the Resolution described the Resolution by saying it "changes the land uses on [the Property]." SOST's petitiqn for the referendum on the Ordinance descriped the Or- dinance by saying it "changes the zoning of [the Property]." The de-. scriptions for both Measures further said that they would each "change the character of the [town] and impose major impacts on existing resi- dents," and that the Property "should be developed in an environmen- tally sensitive manner and in compliance with [the town's] existing '" protection and subdivision requirements. " The town clerk certified that each referendum petition contained enough signatures to put the Measures on hold pending a vote of the electors of the town. . Thereafter, Sherry Sklar, a qualified elector in town, filed a complaint in court against the town. Sklar asked the court to invalidate both ref- erendums and to prohibit the town from placing either measure on the ballot. Sklar argued that the SOST's petitions were invalid because they were "inaccurate, misleading, and did not contain descriptions of the principal provisions of the matters to be referred," as required by a strict construction of the requirements of A.R.S. S 19-101(A). SOS'f, which had intervened in the action, argued that under a broad interpretation of S 19-101(A)-which it argued was all that was. required-the descriptions. of the referendum petitions were neither de- fective nor misleading. The superior court agreed with Sklar and prohibited the town from placing the referendums on the ballot. SOST appealed. . DECISION: Affirmed. The court of appeals held that SOST's referendum petitions failed to substantively describe any of the material provisions of the Resolution and Ordinance, as was required by S 19-101(A). In so holding, the court said that since referen.dum power allowed "the minority to hold up the effective date of legislation which may well represent the wishes of the majority," referendum petitions had to strictly comply with applicable statutory provisions, such as S 19- 101(A). The court found that a "plain reading" of S 19-101(A) re- quired the primary and most important provisions of the Resolution and Ordinance be identified in SOST's respective referendum peti- tions. Moreover, the purpose of S 19-101(A) was to "ensure that the public hard] immediate and full disclosure of the exact public action Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 71