Introduction

Roundtree v. Page, decided by the Arizona Supreme Court on 30 July 2025, addresses the long-contested line separating “legislative” and “administrative” measures in local direct democracy. Residents of the City of Page sought to place an initiative on the ballot preventing the reduction of lanes on a specified 1.4-mile stretch of Lake Powell Boulevard. City officials refused to forward the initiative to voters, arguing it was merely an administrative intrusion into an already adopted streetscape project.

The plaintiffs—Debra Roundtree, Steven Kidman, and the Page Action Committee—challenged that refusal. Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals sided with the City, applying the three-factor test drawn from Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa (1991). The Supreme Court, however, reversed, holding that:

This opinion realigns Arizona law with its constitutional text, limits the reach of Wennerstrom, and strengthens citizen initiative powers at the municipal level.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court unanimously reversed the lower courts, ordering the City of Page to place the initiative on the ballot.
• Article 4, part 1, section 1(8) of the Arizona Constitution allows local initiatives only on matters the municipality is “empowered by general laws to legislate.” Hence the dispositive question is whether the proposed measure is legislative in substance.
• While agreeing that only legislative measures may be initiated, the Court held that the Page initiative is indeed legislative because it:
  (a) states a permanent rule of public policy (maintaining the boulevard’s configuration); and
  (b) provides the means of implementation (prohibits expenditure of public funds for the contrary).
• The familiar three-factor Wennerstrom test is not a rigid formula for initiatives; courts must instead focus on whether the measure creates or changes policy rather than merely executing an already-made policy.
• City councils cannot “thwart” the initiative power by pre-delegating implementation authority to administrators or engineers.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485 (1991)
  • Established a three-factor inquiry (permanence, general vs. specific applicability, policy creation vs. policy implementation) for discerning legislative vs. administrative actions in the referendum setting.
  • The Court here clarifies that Wennerstrom addressed a referendum (review of governmental action), not an initiative (proposal of new action). Its factors remain “helpful” but not dispositive for initiatives.
• League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 213 Ariz. 557 (2006)
  • Confirmed judicial authority to block non-legislative measures from the ballot.
  • Cited to reinforce that courts may screen initiatives only for constitutional compliance, not merit.
• Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County, 168 Ariz. 61 (1991)
  • Provided the rule that an act declaring public purpose and setting ways and means is legislative.
  • Adopted here as the controlling definition of “legislative.”
• Williams v. Parrack, 83 Ariz. 227 (1957); Fritz v. City of Kingman, 191 Ariz. 432 (1998)
  • Examples where location-specific or use-specific measures were still deemed legislative.
  • Used to rebut the City’s argument that geographic narrowness mandates administrative categorization.
• Saggio v. Connelly, 147 Ariz. 240 (1985)
  • Distinguished: a mere demand for an election (dissolution) “enacts nothing” and is non-legislative.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Constitutional Text Governs. Sections must be read together: § 2 (“right to propose any measure”) is cabined by § 8 (“as to all matters they are empowered to legislate”). The people share only the legislative—not executive or administrative—powers of their city.

b. Re-casting the Inquiry. For initiatives, the central inquiry is: “Does the measure itself create or repeal a rule of public policy and prescribe means of enforcement?” The government’s prior actions are irrelevant to that inquiry.

c. Application to the Initiative. The Page measure does exactly what legislation does—it creates a rule (no narrowing Lake Powell Boulevard) and enforces it (no expenditure of funds). No further legislative steps are required. Its limited geography does not dilute its legislative nature.

d. Principle of Co-Equal Legislative Power. Citizens may alter or overrule a council’s prior policies; a council cannot insulate its policies by delegating implementation to staff. The people’s legislative power is “co-extensive” with their representatives’.

3. Potential Impact

• Broader Access to the Ballot: City officials can no longer rely on characterizing a measure as “administrative” simply because it impacts a discrete project or location.
• Urban Planning & Capital Projects: Municipalities must anticipate possible citizen initiatives that freeze or redirect infrastructure decisions, even late in the planning cycle.
• Strategic Delegation Limited: Councils cannot preclude initiatives by handing large swaths of discretion to engineers, managers, or agencies.
• Litigation Post-Passage: Substantive challenges to approved initiatives (e.g., impairment of contracts, pre-emption) must occur after voter approval. Courts will not entertain pre-election merits review.
• Guidance Beyond Arizona: Other direct-democracy states may cite Roundtree for distinguishing initiative scrutiny from referendum scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Initiative vs. Referendum: An initiative creates new law; a referendum seeks voter approval or rejection of an already-enacted government measure.
• Legislative Act: Sets policy (the “what”) and prescribes means (the “how”). Once adopted, it binds administrators and is permanent until changed by another legislative act.
• Administrative Act: Executes existing policy, manages day-to-day implementation, and does not set new rules of general application.
• Article 4, Part 1, § 1(8): Arizona constitutional clause granting local initiative power “as to all matters…[a city] is empowered by general laws to legislate.”
• Delegation Doctrine: Legislatures (or councils) may delegate implementation to executive officers, but must first declare the policy.
• Wennerstrom Test: A three-factor guide for referenda: permanence, generality, and policy creation vs. execution. Roundtree limits its application to initiatives.

Conclusion

Roundtree v. Page reaffirms the pre-eminent role of citizens in municipal lawmaking while clarifying that the only meaningful limitation on their initiative power is the constitutional requirement that the measure be “legislative.” By focusing the inquiry on whether an initiative creates substantive policy and its enforcement mechanism—rather than on its breadth, geographic scope, or overlap with prior administrative action—the Court:

• Restores fidelity to the constitutional text and the framers’ intent.
• Constrains municipal efforts to block ballot access through strategic classifications.
• Supplies courts, practitioners, and grassroots movements with a clearer analytical roadmap.

Going forward, initiatives that alter or create policy—even those targeting a single street, parcel, or department—will generally be deemed legislative, placed before voters, and judged on their merits at the ballot box rather than in pre-election litigation. Roundtree thus stands as a potent reminder that, in Arizona, the people remain “co-equal lawmakers” alongside their elected councils.