Randolph v. Groscost
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
McGregor, justice.
i.
¶ 1 In November 1998, the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers (the Commission) recommended, and Arizona’s electorate approved, Proposition 302, which raised legislative salaries to $24,000 per year and purported to change the method for setting legislators’ per diem reimbursements. This case presents two related issues: (1) did the Commission exceed its authority when it recommended changes in the legislative per diem payments; and (2) if so, can we sever the per diem provision from the salary provision, or must we declare Proposition 302 invalid as…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Collins v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- State v. PrentissArizona Supreme Court · 1989
- Rios v. SymingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1992
- Earhart v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- Eberle v. NielsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. MartinArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. MyersArizona Supreme Court · 2000
- Karen Fann v. State of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 2021
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.