explaining that “[i]f a city makes unauthorized expenditures, the law may provide a remedy, but the expenditures do not convert a non-referable resolution into a referable one”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[i]f a city makes unauthorized expenditures, the law may provide a remedy, but the expenditures do not convert a non-referable resolution into a referable one”
- concluding that “only the [City] Council’s legislative actions were subject to referendum”
- describing the two types of referendum measures recognized in the Arizona Constitution, one of which “permits the legislature to refer a legislative enactment to a popular vote”
- noting an act is legislative "if it prescribes a new policy or plan" but is administrative "if it merely pursues a plan already adopted" (quoting 5 McQuillin, supra, § 16:53)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CORCORAN, Justice,
specially concurring:
I cast my lot with the majority only because I believe it applies traditional con *496 cepts of what is legislative and what is administrative to this referendum. This case is made difficult because all of the money realized from the approval of the Bond Election by the voters of Mesa is committed to one project. If we were faced with only one project of $1 million of 30 such projects, perhaps we all could agree with the majority.
In many bond elections throughout the state, the specific projects to which designated proceeds of a bond election will be committed are precisely set forth. Perhaps the legislature, boards of supervisors, and city councils should consider tying specific projects to the bond election so that not only will voters know the amount of indebtedness to be incurred and the general purpose for which bond proceeds will be used, but will also know specifically for what project precise sums of money will be used. In that way, informed voters can make informed choices.