# Adams v. Bolin

> Arizona Supreme Court · July 16, 1952 · 74 Ariz. 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632444

## Case

- **Full name:** ADAMS Et Al. v. BOLIN, Secretary of State
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 16, 1952
- **Citations:** 74 Ariz. 269; 247 P.2d 617; 33 A.L.R. 2d 1102; 1952 Ariz. LEXIS 200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stanford
- **Judges:** Prade, Stanford, Udall, Phelps, De Concini
- **Cited by:** 83 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632444

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining when interpreting a provision, “each word, phrase, clause[,] and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant[,] or trivial”
- explaining when interpreting a provision, “each word, phrase, clause and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial”

## Opinion text

STANFORD, Justice
(dissenting).
The Legislature is empowered, but limited under the referendum provisions of the Constitution, to refer laws enacted by it. 'Concurrent Resolution No. 4 now refers to a vote of the people, not a law “enacted by the Legislature” but a proposal only to become law when approved by the voters. The Legislature is thus attempting to submit to the voters, as an initiative measure, a proposal to repeal the Employees’ Retirement Act.
The Employees’ Retirernent Act, having been initiated, is not subject to repeal or amendment by the Legislature. The majority opinion, however, is of the opinion that not having been adopted by a majority of the electors as appears on the roll of registered voters, the power still exists in the Legislature to repeal or amend notwithstanding the measure was adopted as an initiative measure. The answer, of course, to that proposition is that Concurrent Resolution No. 4 was neither a “repeal nor amendment”.
Not having repealed the Retirement Act by concurrent resolution, the only question therefore before the court is whether the Legislature has been given the power to initiate, and to submit to the voters a measure under the initiative provisions of .the Constitution.
While the Legislature has power to enact legislation, not prohibited by the State or Federal constitutions, it is not an inherent legislative power to delegate the law-making power to the people, either by initiative or referendum. People ex rel. Thomson v. Barnett, 344 Ill. 62 , 176 N.E. 108 , 76 A.L.R. 1044 .
The authority to initiate, or refer laws, springs from the Constitution itself, as a power delegated, not as power inherent in the Legislature.- Therefore, such power may be exercised only in the manner as delegated. Clements v. Hall, 23 Ariz, 2, 201 P. 87 .
The referendum powers give the Legislature, or 5% of the voters, authority to have placed upon the ballot any measure enacted by the Legislature, for approval or veto, while under the Initiative no authority to submit laws proposed by the Legislature is delegated to the Legislature, but is limited to a petition signed by 10% of the qualified electors. The Legislature therefore has no power to initiate a law by concurrent resolution, and Resolution No. 4 under consideration is unauthorized *287 and is an unconstitutional exercise of the legislative powers.
Art. 4, pt. 1, sec. 1(5), of our Constitution provides that any measure submitted to the qualified electors shall become law when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and section 1(6) of the same Article follows and denies the Governor the right to veto, and the Legislature the right to repeal or amend, any measure approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors. The majority opinion reads into the Constitution as though “qualified electors” had the words following “as appears on the registration roll of voters”, although and notwithstanding that Art. 4, pt. 1, sec. 1 (5) defines the necessary qualified voters to enact the measure as being the majority of votes cast thereon.
No initiated or referred measure since statehood has been adopted by a majority of the qualified electors. To accept the interpretation now given the Initiative and Referendum measures means that the Governor could have vetoed any measure that has ever been adopted, and the Legislature may now repeal or amend any initiated or referred measure enacted since statehood.
When only 50% of the voters exercise their right to vote it will be seen how impossible it becomes to hereafter place beyond the power of the Legislature to immediately repeal any law enacted by the people.
It has been the accepted construction of the language of the Constitution, by all Governors, the Legislature, and the courts, that initiated and referred measures were beyond the power of the Legislature to disturb. The majority opinion has completely nullified the interpretation of that provision of the Constitution prohibiting the Governor from vetoing, or the Legislature from repealing, initiative and referred measures. Hereafter only an amendment of the Constitution itself by the people can restore and preserve the laws enacted through the Initiative and Referendum.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632444. Public record. Not legal advice.