Director of ASU’s Center for Constitutional Design speaks on concurrent resolutions in Arizona

Stefanie Lindquist, executive director of the CCD at ASU Law, confirms that in Arizona, “concurrent resolutions ‘express the will’ of the two chambers but are not presented to the state’s executive branch for approval or veto, so they do not have the ability to overturn existing law.”

Read more

Borrelli, however, writes in his letter that language in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S.Constitution gives state legislatures authority over conducting federal elections. This is what’s known as independent state legislature theory. Lindquist said such an interpretation and usage is “novel” and “untested.”

Though concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law, Lindquist said it remains to be seen whether Arizona’s 15 counties will concur with Borrelli’s interpretation of the Constitution or if the matter will be settled in courts.