The Arizona Supreme Court ruled July 30 that residents of the City of Page have the constitutional right to propose an initiative blocking the city from narrowing a street, reversing lower court decisions that had favored city officials.
The court held unanimously in *Roundtree v. Page* that the proposed citizen initiative "decreeing that a certain street within the City shall never be narrowed, is legislative in nature and therefore falls within the citizens' right to initiate laws at the local level pursuant to article 4, part 1, section 1(8) of the Arizona Constitution."
The case arose from the City's Streetscape Project, which apparently involved plans to narrow a street within Page's city limits. Residents Debra Roundtree and Steven Kidman, along with the Page Action Committee, a registered political committee, challenged the city's authority to proceed without citizen input through the initiative process.
Justice Clint Bolick authored the opinion for the court, joined by Chief Justice Robert Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer Lopez, and Justices John Lopez IV, Kathryn King, Andrew Gould, and retired Justice Rebecca White Berch. The unanimous decision reflects the court's clear position on the scope of citizen initiative rights in Arizona municipalities.
The legal dispute centered on whether residents could use Arizona's constitutional initiative process to restrict municipal street projects. The City of Page and its officials, including City Clerk Kary Holloway and Acting Deputy City Clerk Kim Larson in their official capacities, argued against the residents' right to propose such an initiative.
The case traveled through multiple levels of Arizona's court system before reaching the state's highest court. The Coconino County Superior Court initially ruled in favor of the city under Judge Cathleen Brown Nichols. The Arizona Court of Appeals Division One issued a memorandum decision in the city's favor on July 2, 2024, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision entirely.
The Supreme Court's reversal represents a victory for local citizen participation in municipal governance. By holding that the proposed initiative is "legislative in nature," the court affirmed that residents retain broad authority to shape local policy through the constitutional initiative process, even when it conflicts with city planning projects.
The decision draws on article 4, part 1, section 1(8) of the Arizona Constitution, which grants citizens the power to initiate laws at the local level. This constitutional provision has been a cornerstone of Arizona's direct democracy framework since statehood, allowing residents to bypass elected officials when they disagree with municipal policies.
Several organizations participated as amici curiae, reflecting the broader implications of the case for municipal governance across Arizona. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns, represented by attorney Nancy Davidson, filed briefs supporting the city's position. Additional amici Daniel Luster and Lyle Dimblatt were represented by Fennemore Craig attorney Emily Ward.
The case was argued by experienced municipal law attorneys. James Barton II of Barton Mendez Soto PLLC in Tempe argued for the residents and political committee, while Jon Paladini of Pierce Coleman PLLC in Scottsdale represented the City of Page.
The Supreme Court's decision to remand the case "with instructions" suggests the justices provided specific guidance to the trial court on how to proceed. Such instructions typically clarify legal standards or direct particular outcomes based on the higher court's interpretation of applicable law.
This ruling may have broader implications for municipal authority across Arizona. Cities planning infrastructure projects could face increased citizen oversight if residents organize initiative campaigns to block or modify proposed developments. The decision reinforces the principle that constitutional initiative rights cannot be easily circumvented by local governments.
The case also highlights tensions between representative democracy through elected city councils and direct democracy through citizen initiatives. While city officials argued they should have authority to proceed with planned projects, the court affirmed that constitutional provisions for citizen lawmaking take precedence.
For the City of Page, the decision means returning to square one on the Streetscape Project. The city must now navigate the citizen initiative process if residents move forward with their proposed measure to permanently prevent street narrowing.
The ruling comes at a time when Arizona municipalities face increasing citizen activism on development and infrastructure issues. Residents in various communities have used or attempted to use the initiative process to influence everything from zoning decisions to transportation projects.
Legal observers note that the unanimous nature of the decision strengthens its precedential value. When all seven justices agree on a constitutional interpretation, it typically signals settled law that lower courts and municipalities must follow.
The case now returns to Coconino County Superior Court, where Judge Nichols will implement the Supreme Court's instructions. The specific timeline for further proceedings was not detailed in the available court documents, but the residents and Page Action Committee can likely proceed with their initiative efforts while the city reassesses its street project plans.