The Arizona Supreme court heard arguments Thursday over the recently approved minimum wage hike. The attorney for businesses hoping to void the law asked for an interpretation that could undermine a citizen’s right to pass laws.
Attorney Brett Johnson argued the measure violates a constitutional provision, requiring any voter-enacted law have a source of revenue to pay for expenses the state is forced to incur. And because Proposition 206 would require the Industrial Commission, which enforces labor laws, to come up with rules to deal with paid sick leave, he said there are costs.
But Justice Ann Scott Timmer said there are implications to such a literal interpretation.
"Doesn't that construction essentially eliminate the citizens' ability to pass any initiative? It's difficult to imagine an initiative in this day and age that wouldn't require a letter or something ministerial required by the government," Timmer said.
Johnson said such an interpretation would likely mean very few voter-approved laws would pass muster.
Prop 206 raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour on January 1. The measure also included a provision requiring mandatory sick pay.