I've long argued against the legality of "First Things First" and the Prop 105, "Voter Protection Act" initiatives. First Things First sets up an alternative tax system and a shadow appropriations system that spends state money in ways that aren't approved by the Legislature or Governor. I think it's clear that this shadow system which--was established in statute, not appendend to the state Constitution--conflicts with the Bicameralism and Presentment sections of the state Constitution. In other words, you can't set up a law in order to bypass the Legislature and Governor on annual appropriations.
I believe that Prop 105 is unconstitutional because it violates the republican form of government guarantee in the federal Constitution. Prop 105 says that if a law is passed by initiative, it can't be changed by the Legislature. However the US Constitution says that we have the right to live in a Republic, not a direct democracy. There are already large chunks of state statute that are off limits to the legislature--what's it going to be like in 50 years? Or 100? The answer is that amendments to statute will have to be decided by referendum. That's not a republic and the Constitution guarantees that Arizona stays a republic.
Most of the attorneys who have commented on my previous posts have raised procedural objections. The have said that the issues are political questions and wonder if the courts would take them up, and they ask who has standing to sue.
Folks who follow these issues nationally are realizing that the Supreme Court's decision in the CA Prop 8 case has upended the initiative process.
Justice Kennedy, in his dissent from the majority, warned that “the Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other states that have an initiative or popular referendum system, and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.”
In other words, if the Legislature were to decide that Prop 105 and First Things First are unconstitutional, and Attorney General Horne agreed, then--at least for federal court--no one else has standing to defend them.
So while those who opposed CA Prop 8 may cheer that the California AG didn't defend the law....remember that it goes both ways.