2Council in June 2012 which increased those rates by seven-tenthsof one percent. The initiative also proposed that “no such taxshall be levied at a rate in excess of the rates” specified inthe measure unless first approved by the voters. The superiorcourt agreed with the Clerk that the description of the proposedmeasure contained in the petitions was misleading and, thus,denied SGN relief.
We disagree with the superior court and hold thesummary was not misleading.
¶¶ 6-11. We also holdSGN substantially complied with other statutory requirements,
¶¶ 12-13, and timely filed the petitions with theClerk.
¶¶ 14-19. We thus direct the Clerk to fileand process the petitions in accordance with applicablestatutes, reverse the superior court’s denial of relief, andremand for further proceedings consistent with this order.
By statute, an initiative petition must include adescription of no more than 100 words of the principalprovisions of the proposed measure (“summary description”).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 19-102(A) (2002), -111(A) (Supp.2011). Accordingly, in its initiative petitions, SGN includedthe following summary description:On June 12, 2012 the Glendale City Councilvoted to increase the transaction privilege