American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission

Arizona Supreme Court

American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission

633 P.2d 404, 129 Ariz. 595, 1981 Ariz. LEXIS 222

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 27, 1981

DocketNo. 15527

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 633 P.2d 404 (American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 633 P.2d 404, 129 Ariz. 595, 1981 Ariz. LEXIS 222 (Ark. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

HAYS, Justice.

A petition for special action was filed by American Bus Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business in Arizona as Trailways, seeking relief from the actions of the Arizona Corporation Commission in continuing to regulate corporations carrying persons or property for hire. We accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, as it was apparent that this was a [597]*597matter of statewide concern requiring early resolution. Motions to file amicus curiae briefs were filed by other trucking companies and by the transport association. These motions were granted.

In April of 1979 the Arizona Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1015, a referendum proposition to be voted on by the people of Arizona in the November 1980 election which proposed amendments to article 15, sections 2 and 10, Arizona Constitution. These amendments purported to remove from the Corporation Commission the power to regulate buses, taxicabs, trucking and moving companies, and airlines operating within the state.

Legislation was enacted by the legislature conditioned on the passage of the constitutional amendment which transferred the responsibility for regulation of the safety operations of motor carriers from the Corporation Commission to the Department of Transportation. This legislation was to go into effect July 1, 1982.

The constitutional amendment was approved by the voters and was proclaimed by the governor to be law on November 24, 1980. The petitioner asserts that despite the foregoing, the Corporation Commission continues to regulate motor carriers, and that the Commission can no longer limit the petitioners’ activities and routes to those authorized under previous certificates of convenience and necessity.

The respondent Commission urges that although the constitutional amendment became law on November 24, 1980, it will not become operative until July 1, 1982. There is little question that all parties actually contemplated that the effective date of deregulation of carriers was to be July 1, 1982. The implementing legislation bears an effective date of July 1,1982. The 1980 Publicity Pamphlet explaining the constitutional amendment indicated that if the amendment passed, it would be effective July 1, 1982. A wide range of news articles, editorials and the like emphasized to the voters the fact that deregulation would not come about immediately but would allow time for adjustments to the new approach.

The petitioner, however, points out that the ballot contains no reference to an operative date, or date the amendment is to go into effect. Further, says petitioner, since there is no contrary indication, the operative date and the date it became law by proclamation are one and the same. There is no ambiguity in the information on the ballot; hence, under proper rules of construction, no resort may be had to outside sources, such as the Publicity Pamphlet, supporting legislation or the news media. Adams v. Bolin, 74 Ariz. 269, 247 P.2d 617 (1952).

Petitioner concedes that an amendment to the constitution can become law on the day it is proclaimed and yet by its terms not become operative until some later date. State ex rel. Jones v. Lockhart, 76 Ariz. 390, 265 P.2d 447 (1953). It further admits that if there is an ambiguity which requires construction, the courts can use the Publicity Pamphlet to assist in this determination. Ward v. Stevens, 86 Ariz. 222, 344 P.2d 491 (1959). But, petitioner insists, there is no ambiguity here which demands construction.

Following is the ballot format of the proposed amendment as presented to the voters:

[598]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI