§ 3.7.2.6.3.2 Constitutionality of Statutes.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.3.2 Constitutionality of Statutes. A statute’s constitutionality is a matter of law. See Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 213 Ariz. 274, 277, ¶ 5, 141 P.3d 754, 757 (App. 2006); SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State ex rel. Napolitano, 198 Ariz. 434, 438, ¶ 13, 10 P.3d 1221, 1225 (App. 2000). The issue thus is reviewed de novo. See Thiele v. City of Phoenix, 232 Ariz. 40, 42, ¶ 11, 301 P.3d 206, 208 (App. 2013); Salib v. City of Mesa, 212 Ariz. 446, 450, ¶ 4, 133 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2006).

In reviewing the trial court’s determination, the appellate court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but draws its own legal conclusions. See Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa Cty., 213 Ariz. 241, 245, ¶ 11, 141 P.3d 416, 420 (App. 2006). The appellate court may affirm the trial court’s ruling if it is correct on any ground. See Enter. Leasing v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 221 Ariz. 123, 125-26, ¶¶ 9, 14, 211 P.3d 1, 3-4 (App. 2008). The appellate court begins with the strong presumption that the statute is constitutional. See State v. Nichols, 201 Ariz. 234, 236, ¶ 7, 33 P.3d 1172, 1174 (App. 2001); Ariz. Libertarian Party v. Schmerl, 200 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 13, 28 P.3d 948, 952 (App. 2001); Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 301, ¶ 16, 987 P.2d 779, 787 (App. 1999).

When a state statute conflicts with the state constitution, the constitution must prevail. See Dobson v. State, 223 Ariz. 119, 124, ¶ 17, 309 P.3d 1289, 1294 (2013). The appellate court reviews the validity of a statute de novo and, if possible, construes it so as to uphold its constitutionality to avoid constitutional conflicts. See In re Leon G., 204 Ariz. 15, 19, ¶ 9, 59 P.3d 779, 783 (2002); Baker v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 209 Ariz. 561, 564, ¶ 10, 105 P.3d 1180, 1183 (App. 2005).

When a plaintiff asserts a statute is facially unconstitutional, the issue is a matter of law that may be resolved by a judgment on the pleadings. See Cain v. Horne, 218 Ariz. 301, 304, ¶ 4, 183 P.3d 1269, 1272 (App. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 220 Ariz. 77, 202 P.3d 1178 (2009); see also Emmett McLaughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima Cty., 203 Ariz. 557, 558, ¶ 1, 58 P.3d 39, 40 (App. 2002). Ordinarily, the party challenging a statute’s constitutionality has the burden of proving it unconstitutional. See Baker, 209 Ariz. at 564, ¶ 10, 105 P.3d at 1183; Mara M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 201 Ariz. 503, 505, ¶ 15, 38 P.3d 41, 43 (App. 2002). Legislative enactments are presumed...