41-194.01. Violations of state law by counties, cities and towns; attorney general investigation; report; withholding of state shared revenues; notice of violation
(L21, Ch. 403, sec. 18)
A. At the request of one or more members of the legislature, the attorney general shall investigate any ordinance, regulation, order or other official action adopted or taken by the governing body of a county, city or town or any written policy, written rule or written regulation adopted by any agency, department or other entity of the county, city or town that the member alleges violates state law or the Constitution of Arizona.
B. The attorney general shall make a written report of findings and conclusions as a result of the investigation within thirty days after receipt of the request and shall provide a copy of the report to the governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the member or members of the legislature making the original request and the secretary of state. If the attorney general concludes that the ordinance, regulation, order, written policy, written rule or other action under investigation:
1. Violates any provision of state law or the Constitution of Arizona, the attorney general shall provide notice to the county, city or town, by certified mail, of the violation and shall indicate that the county, city or town has thirty days to resolve the violation. If the attorney general determines that the county, city or town has failed to resolve the violation within thirty days, the attorney general shall:
(a) Notify the state treasurer who shall withhold and redistribute state shared monies from the county, city or town as provided by section 42-5029, subsection L and from the city or town as provided by section 43-206, subsection F.
(b) Continue to monitor the response of the governing body, and when the offending ordinance, regulation, order or action is repealed or the violation is otherwise resolved, the attorney general shall notify:
(i) The governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and the member or members of the legislature making the original request that the violation has been resolved.
(ii) The state treasurer to restore the distribution of state shared revenues to the county, city or town.
2. May violate a provision of state law or the Constitution of Arizona, the attorney general shall file a special action in the supreme court to resolve the issue, and the supreme court shall give the action precedence over all other cases. The court shall require the county, city or town to post a bond equal to the amount of state shared revenues paid to the county, city or town pursuant to sections 42-5029 and 43-206 in the preceding six months.
3. Does not violate any provision of state law or the Constitution of Arizona, the attorney general shall take no further action pursuant to this section.
C. Before a member of the legislature may request an investigation by the attorney general of any written policy, written rule or written regulation adopted by any agency, department or other entity of a county, city or town pursuant to subsection A of this section, the member of the legislature shall first provide a written notification of the alleged violation of state law or the Constitution of Arizona to the chief executive officer or governing body of the county, city or town. If the county, city or town does not repeal or otherwise resolve the violation within sixty days after receiving the notification, the member or members of the legislature may request an investigation by the attorney general pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 86× “§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Jordahl v. Brnovich, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 2× “01, he has the authority to investigate, at the request of a state legislator, whether county actions violate state law; to initiate legal proceedings if he concludes that a county's actions do or may violate state law; and to notify the Arizona State Treasurer of his…”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 43× “§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 15× “¶33 In City of Tucson, the only other case involving § 41-194.01, we expressed “concerns regarding the bond’s purpose, basis, practical application, and constitutionality” but ultimately did not pass on its enforceability given that case’s procedural posture.”
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 5× “The request triggered A.R.S. § 41-194.01, which required the Attorney General to investigate and report whether the Ordinance violates, may violate, or does not violate § 16-204.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “07(G) (may apply for relief when political subdivisions fail to comply with uniform expenditure reporting system); A.R.S. § 41-194.01(A)–(B) (may take action against municipalities for ordinances that conflict with state law).”
Arizona State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Brnovich (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B)(1)(a). According to Plaintiff, the attorneys’ 24 fees statute and the “state shared monies” statute mean a local government risks “financial 25 ruin” by acting contrary to state law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(A) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor (Ariz. 2020).
“07(G) (may apply for relief when political subdivisions fail to comply with uniform expenditure reporting system); A.R.S. § 41-194.01(A)–(B) (may take action against municipalities for ordinances that conflict with state law).”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2020).
“¶33 In City of Tucson, the only other case involving § 41-194.01, we expressed “concerns regarding the bond’s purpose, basis, practical application, and constitutionality” but ultimately did not pass on its enforceability given that case’s procedural posture.”
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson (Ariz. 2021).
“The request triggered A.R.S. § 41-194.01, which required the Attorney General to investigate and report whether the Ordinance violates, may violate, or does not violate § 16-204.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(B) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2020).
“¶33 In City of Tucson, the only other case involving § 41-194.01, we expressed “concerns regarding the bond’s purpose, basis, practical application, and constitutionality” but ultimately did not pass on its enforceability given that case’s procedural posture.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(B)(1) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(B)(1)(a) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Arizona State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Brnovich (D. Ariz. 2020).
“” A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B)(1)(a). According to Plaintiff, the attorneys’ 24 fees statute and the “state shared monies” statute mean a local government risks “financial 25 ruin” by acting contrary to state law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(B)(2) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2020).
“¶33 In City of Tucson, the only other case involving § 41-194.01, we expressed “concerns regarding the bond’s purpose, basis, practical application, and constitutionality” but ultimately did not pass on its enforceability given that case’s procedural posture.”
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson (Ariz. 2021).
“The request triggered A.R.S. § 41-194.01, which required the Attorney General to investigate and report whether the Ordinance violates, may violate, or does not violate § 16-204.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-194.01(B)(l)(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“§§ 42-5029(L) and 43-206(F), which direct the State Treasurer to implement monetary penalties imposed by A.R.S. § 41-194.01. 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.