Legislative Council analysis in Arizona

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2013But we disagree with the Committee’s assertion that the Secretary’s description of the Act “as a tax increase is unquestionably inaccurate.” As noted in Tobin , “[t]hough ‘fairly debatable,’ ... the initiative’s proposed tax may fairly be described as a ‘new' or additional ‘tax increase,’ ” and such a description “is neither inaccurate nor partial.” 231 Ariz. at 194 -95 ¶ 17, 291 P.3d at 988-89 (“[T]he initiative proposes statutory changes that would impose a new, permanent, and legislatively unalterable tax, the revenues of which would be directed to different and broader uses than those unde

2013But we disagree with the Committee’s assertion that the Secretary’s description of the Act “as a tax increase is unquestionably inaccurate.” As noted in Tobin , “[t]hough ‘fairly debatable,’ ... the initiative’s proposed tax may fairly be described as a ‘new' or additional ‘tax increase,’ ” and such a description “is neither inaccurate nor partial.” 231 Ariz. at 194 -95 ¶ 17, 291 P.3d at 988-89 (“[T]he initiative proposes statutory changes that would impose a new, permanent, and legislatively unalterable tax, the revenues of which would be directed to different and broader uses than those unde

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2013“An impartial analysis and description,” we further held, “requires the legislative council to eschew advocacy and to adopt, instead, an evenhanded assessment that neither omits, exaggerates, nor understates material provisions of an initiative measure.” Id. at 593 , 886 P.2d at 1349 . ¶ 13 Likewise, the language used in the Legislative Council’s analysis “must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.” Id. at 590 , 886 P.2d at 1346 (quoting Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 , 841 S.W.2d 139, 140 (

2000It would be anomalous to suggest that only one of the two descriptions must be neutral, especially since a separate section of the pamphlet is set aside for argument and advocacy. ¶ 9 We have previously stated that the legislature may only enact laws that supplement or promote the constitutional right of initiative; it may not unreasonably burden or restrict that right. [2] Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 5 , 503 P.2d 951, 953 (1972).

2000It would be anomalous to suggest that only one of the two descriptions must be neutral, especially since a separate section of the pamphlet is set aside for argument and advocacy. ¶ 9 We have previously stated that the legislature may only enact laws that supplement or promote the constitutional right of initiative; it may not unreasonably burden or restrict that right. [2] Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 5 , 503 P.2d 951, 953 (1972).