In re Riggins

544 P.3d 64

IN RE: Erica Krystal RIGGINS, Debtor.

No. CV-23-0123-CQ

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed March 7, 2024

Certified Question from the United States Bankruptcy Court, The Honorable Paul Sala, Judge, No. 2:22-bk-08511-PS, QUESTION ANSWERED

Kenneth L. Neely, Nicholas T. Van Vleet, Geoffrey M. Khotim, Neeley Law Firm, PLC, Chandler, Attorneys for Erica Krystal Riggins

Theodore P. Witthoft, Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, P.L.L.C., Scottsdale, Attorneys for David A. Birdsell

James E. Barton, II, Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Daniella Fernandez Lertzman, Barton Mendez Soto PLLC, Tempe, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare

Pamela Bridge, Community Legal Services, Phoenix; J. Leslie McLean, DNA People’s Legal Services, Flagstaff; Anthony L. Young, Alan R. Solot, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Tucson; and Andrew P. Schaffer, Brenda Munoz Furnish, Michelle Johnson Simpson, William E. Morris Institute for Justice, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Community Legal Services, DNA People’s Legal Services, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, and William E. Morris Institute for Justice

Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General, Hayleigh S. Crawford, Deputy Solicitor General, Luci D. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorney General’s Office

April Maxwell, Maxwell Law Group, Mesa, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Consumer Bankruptcy Counsel, LLC

JUSTICE LOPEZ authored the Opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, JUSTICES MONTGOMERY and KING joined. JUSTICE BOLICK, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL and JUSTICE BEENE, dissented.

JUSTICE LOPEZ, Opinion of the Court:

¶1 The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona certified the following question for our review: "Whether the passage of Proposition 209 [("Prop. 209")] repealed or affected the validity of A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) [("subsection (A)(11)")]."

¶2 We hold that the voters did not expressly repeal subsection (A)(11) by passing Prop. 209. Subsection (A)(11) did not exist when Prop. 209 was drafted and circulated; thus, subsection (A)(11) was not presented to the voters for consideration. We further hold that because Prop. 209 does not conflict with subsection (A)(11), it did not implicitly repeal the subsection and we give effect to both legislative enactments. Thus, subsection (A)(11) remains operable.

BACKGROUND

¶3 On July 6, 2022, Governor Ducey signed Senate Bill 1222 ("S.B. 1222"). See 2022 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 346, § 1 (2d Reg. Sess.). This bill amended A.R.S. § 33-1126, which governs the exemptions a debtor may claim over certain types of money assets. In addition to making minor stylistic changes throughout the statute, S.B. 1222 created a now exemption-subsection (A)(11)—for certain kinds of federal and state tax credits.

¶4 On the same day the Governor signed S.B. 1222 into law, Prop. 209’s proponents filed the initiative petition with the Arizona Secretary of State (the "Secretary") for inclusion on the November ballot. Prop. 209 was a comprehensive initiative measure that purported to constrain "predatory debt collection" by amending several existing Arizona statutes, including § 33-1126. In § 33-1126(A)(9), Prop. 209 added an inflation index to the bank-account exemption and increased its value from $300 to $5,000. Prop. 209 did not otherwise amend § 33-1126. Voters approved Prop. 209 on November 8, 2022.

¶5 The version of § 33-1126 that Prop. 209 amended, however, did not include S.B. 1222’s legislative amendments, namely the addition of subsection (A)(11). Arizona law provides that the text of proposed initiatives "shall indicate material deleted, if any, by printing such material with a line drawn through the center of the letters of such material and shall indicate material added or new material by printing the lettera of such material in capital letters." A.R.S. § 19-123(A)(1); accord A.R.S. § 19-112(B). Prop. 209 completely omitted subsection (A)(11) from its text; it was not included as stricken, capitalized, or ordinary typeface text. See Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2022 Publicity Pamphlet 104–05 (2022), https://apps.azsos.gov/election/BallotMeasures/2022/azsos_2022_publicity_pamphlet_standard_english_web_version.pdf.

¶6 The reason for Prop. 209’s omission of subsection (A)(11) is manifest—Prop. 209 was drafted and circulated for signatures well before the legislature passed S.B. 1222 and transmitted it to the Governor. The process of qualifying an initiative for the ballot is protracted and may take months or even years to complete. Initiative proponents must first apply for a serial number with the Secretary, and this application must include the "text of the proposed law." A.R.S. § 19-111(A). Next, the proponents must circulate their petition for signatures, and the signature sheets "shall be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure." Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(9); accord A.R.S. §§ 19-112(B)–(C), -121(A)(3). "The text shall indicate material deleted, if any, by printing the material with a line drawn through the center of the letters of the material and shall indicate material added or new material by printing the letters of the material in capital letters." A.R.S. § 19-112(B) (addressing requirements for signature sheets).

¶7 Initiative petitions must then be "filed with the secretary of state not less than four months preceding the date of the election." Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(4). Upon a successful filing, the Secretary

shall cause to be printed … a publicity pamphlet that contains … [a] true copy of the title and text of the measure or proposed amendment. Such text shall indicate material deleted, if any, by printing such material with a line drawn through the center of the letters of such material and shall indicate material added or new material by printing the lettera of such material in capital letters.

A.R.S. § 19-123(A)(1). Here, because the 2022 election was scheduled on November 8, the filing deadline for Prop. 209 occurred in early July.

¶8 Although the Governor signed S.B. 1222 into law on July 6, it did not take effect until September 24 because the Arizona Constitution delays the effective date of non-emergency legislation to allow challenges via referendum. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(3). Thus, subsection (A)(11) did not legally exist at any point during Prop. 209’s qualification process, and it did not become operative until well after Prop. 209’s filing deadline.

¶9 On December 27, 2022, Erica Riggins ("Debtor") filed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition giving rise to this certified question. In her petition, Debtor claimed an exemption under subsection (A)(11). The Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") objected to Debtor’s claimed exemption, arguing that Prop. 209 repealed the subsection (A)(11) exemption. Observing that "hundreds of bankruptcy cases with the same issue are currently pending in the Arizona Bankruptcy Court," and noting the absence of Arizona authority, "addressing whether a voter initiative can repeal or affect a statutory provision that became effective after the submission of the initiative to the Arizona Secretary of State," the bankruptcy court certified this question to us. We accepted review to resolve this issue pursuant to our jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(6) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-1861.

DISCUSSION

[1] ¶10 We review a question of statutory construction de novo. BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp., 244 Ariz. 17, 19 ¶ 9, 417 P.3d 782, 784 (2018).

I.

A.

¶11 Trustee argues that Prop. 209 expressly and implicitly repealed subsection (A)(11). We first consider whether Prop. 209 expressly repealed the subsection.

[2–5] ¶12 "When interpreting statutes, we begin with the text." Franklin v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 255 Ariz. 409, 411 ¶ 8, 532 P.3d 1145, 1147 (2023). "We interpret statutory language in view of the entire text, considering the context and related statutes on the same subject." Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566, 568 ¶ 11, 432 P.3d 925, 927 (2019). If a statute’s text is plain and unambiguous, it controls unless it results in an absurdity or a constitutional violation. 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, 253 Ariz. 382, 385 ¶ 5, 513 P.3d 1106, 1109 (2022). However, "if the statute is ambiguous, we consider secondary principles of statutory interpretation, such as the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose." Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, 234 Ariz. 322, 325 ¶ 11, 322 P.3d 139, 142 (2014) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is to give meaning, if possible, to every word and provision so that no word or provision is rendered superfluous." Nicaise, 245 Ariz. at 568 ¶ 11, 432 P.3d at 927.

¶13 There is no dispute that an initiative that proposes statutory amendments by deleting text shall "indicate material deleted, if any, by printing such material with a line drawn through the center of the letters of such material." A.R.S. § 19412(B); accord A.R.S. § 19423(A)(1). The purpose of this requirement is "to call attention to" the amended language. Wilhelm v. Brewer, 219 Ariz. 45, 49 ¶ 18, 192 P.3d 404, 408 (2008).

¶14 Here, Prop. 209 failed to notify voters that it would repeal or otherwise affect subsection (A)(11) because the subsection was omitted from (1) the application for serial number filed with the Secretary (A.R.S. § 19-111(A)); (2) the petition sheets that voters signed (A.R.S. § 19-112(B)–(C)); and (3) the publicity pamphlet (A.R.S. § 19423(A)(1)). Consequently, voters were not apprised of subsection (A)(11)’s existence, much less Prop. 209’s purported design to excise it, when voting on Prop. 209. Therefore, the Prop. 209 text that voters approved is the statutory text contained in the publicity pamphlet that omits subsection (A)(11).

¶15...