Citizen Power and Local Roads: What the Arizona Supreme Court Clarified

A recent Arizona Supreme Court decision, Roundtree v. City of Page, has clarified something many may not have realized: citizens in Arizona cities and towns can use the initiative process to make or change local laws. As long as an initiative establishes a policy and includes a way to enforce it, it is valid and belongs on the ballot.

On PBS Arizona Horizon, I recently discussed this ruling, where the Court sided with citizens of Page who challenged a city project to narrow a major thoroughfare. The Court’s unanimous opinion confirms that Arizona voters have always had this constitutional power. It just needed to be clarified in the context of traffic and transportation laws.

From Administrative to Legislative

The case began when residents of Page objected to a city plan to reduce lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard to spur downtown revitalization. They drafted an initiative to stop the project, but the city clerk refused to place it on the ballot, arguing that road design decisions were “administrative” matters reserved for city officials.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The justices made clear that determining the size and character of a city’s main roads is a policy decision, not a mere administrative one. By contrast, something like firing a specific city manager would be administrative. But setting general qualifications for that role, or setting the future of a main artery through town, is legislative, and therefore fair game for the initiative process.

This distinction matters. It provides a framework and a wake-up call for city clerks evaluating proposed initiatives: citizens may propose even traffic laws, so long as the proposal sets forth a policy and a means for implementation.

What This Means in Practice

The ruling opens the door to citizen involvement in areas once thought to be the exclusive domain of city councils and engineers. Consider some real-world possibilities:

• Reversible (“suicide”) lanes: Phoenix residents who believe 7th Avenue and 7th Street’s reversible lanes are too dangerous could draft an initiative to remove them—if the measure also explains how to implement the change.
• Speed cameras: Paradise Valley residents tired of photo enforcement could pursue a ballot initiative to eliminate them, just as Tucson voters did in 2015.
• Speed limits: Citizens in Mesa or Glendale could propose changes to local speed limits, provided the initiative sets both the policy and a way to effectuate that policy.

The common thread: a valid initiative must spell out what the new policy is and how the city should carry it out.

The Tall Order of Ballot Access

Of course, just because citizens can does not mean it is easy. Each city sets requirements for how many signatures are needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot. In Phoenix, for example, nearly 94,000 valid signatures are required to place such an initiative on the ballot this year; a daunting task for any grassroots group.

That difficulty acts as a natural filter. Only issues with broad public support are likely to gain the momentum and organizational effort needed to make it onto the ballot.

A Long-Standing Power, Newly Clarified

It is worth noting that none of this is brand new. The Arizona Constitution has long empowered citizens to initiate local laws. What the Court did here was to clarify that traffic laws and regulations, often assumed to be purely administrative, are in fact within the scope of that power. This would extend to other areas of policy.

This clarity helps not only citizens but also city clerks and local governments, which now have firmer guidance on what belongs on the ballot and what does not.

A Win for Civic Participation

I was proud to file an amicus brief supporting citizens’ right to initiate laws in this case. The unanimous ruling is more than a technical clarification. It is a reaffirmation of Arizona’s commitment to direct democracy.

It means citizens have a real, constitutional tool to shape the character of their communities, whether by influencing traffic safety, transportation planning, or other local policies. City councils will still play a critical role, but they must now govern with the awareness that citizens can, and sometimes will, take matters directly to the voters.

That balance is healthy. It ensures accountability, encourages transparency, and reminds us that in Arizona, the people remain the ultimate policymakers.

Emily Ward is a business litigation attorney focusing on complex and high-dollar business disputes in Arizona. She concentrates on business litigation, public policy, and appeals, litigating high-stakes cases for both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts across the country. She can be reached at eward@fennemorelaw.com.  

---

---