Many observers expect the Arizona Supreme Court to listen politely this morning to arguments between lawyers for Gov. Jan Brewer and legislative leaders, and then refuse to get involved in their budget fight. I’m not so sure. The governor’s legal counsel, Joe Kanefield, has filed a couple of strong briefs explaining why Brewer is convinced Senate President Bob Burns is violating the state constitution by not sending her the budget bills given final approval on June 4.
The state constitution says “when” bills are passed by both chambers of the Legislature on roll call votes, such bills “shall” be presented to the governor. But the constitution provides no deadline for that to happen. Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams are arguing they get to decide “when” occurs, and that could be as late as when the Legislature adjourns the session.
The fallacy in that argument is the Legislature could, in theory, never adjourn, and therefore legislative leaders could refuse forever to send the governor an adopted bill. That would render specific language in the state constitution meaningless, which the Supreme Court rightly refuses to do.
Burns and Adams appear to be in the weaker legal position. But they are depending on the five justices to view this as a political spat between the governor and the Legislature, not a constitutional crisis that requires court intervention.
The Supreme Court has taken that stance before on some disputes between the legislative and executive branches, especially on time-sensitive matters. As the fiscal year ends in just seven days (presumably the Legislature will send Brewer the budget bills at some point before then), the court could stand aside and let the politics play out.
We should know rather quickly, in a day or two, as the Supreme Court has a habit of immediately issuing instructions in these types of cases, followed several months later with a formal opinion that explains the court’s reasoning.
Twitter