Ruling on new minimum wage shows Ariz. Supreme Court’s independence

The Arizona Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling Tuesday rejecting the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s challenge to Prop. 206 should teach them a lesson: Fight for or against an initiative on the front end — at the ballot box. Thankfully, the court breathed new life into our trust in the state’s checks and balances.

The voter-approved measure raised the minimum wage in January to $10 an hour, from $8.05. It will reach $12 an hour by 2020. The chamber, which didn’t really campaign against it, argued in court that the new wage forces state government to spend money it doesn’t have, and thus makes it unconstitutional.

The business group’s lawyer, Brett Johnson, even argued that no initiative should stand if it requires the state to spend a dollar, which effectively meant voters could never approve anything.

Jim Barton, the lawyer representing the “pro” side of Prop. 206, said Tuesday’s victory means Arizonans’ hard work to gather signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, and the subsequent court battles, paid off. “Now they have a raise,’’ he said. Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who defended Prop. 206, wrote in a statement that his “job is to uphold the rule of law. The Constitution is designed to protect our rights. It’s not a tool to be used to undermine the will of the people.”

The leading critics of Prop. 206 — Gov. Doug Ducey and Chamber of Commerce honcho Glenn Hamer, whose group led the legal fight — graciously accepted the court’s ruling, as they should. Ducey, who objected to the measure but didn’t campaign against it, said the court has spoken and the state will abide by the ruling.

By rejecting the challenge by the chamber, the justices protected the will of voters and showed political independence. This is the first major case the court has decided after Ducey expanded the Supreme Court from five to seven members. Critics said the move amounted to stacking the bench.

The chamber had a weak legal argument. Still, the justices appeared to base their decision solely on the law. We don’t know whether they’ll inject their conservative views in future cases, but I want to welcome their initial legal independence. Arizona needs to trust its institutions, particularly the courts, our guardians of democracy.