Many times, regarding the constitutionality of statutes, I have come across the long standing legal doctrine that the statute is presumed constitutional and that the challenger bears the burden of proving otherwise.
The following opinion in Biggs speaks to statutes that are not a violation of fundamental rights, leaving the fundamentality question unanswered.
Determining constitutionality is a question of law, which we review de novo [ a new case analysis]. When the statute in question involves no fundamental constitutional rights . . . we presume the statute is constitutional and will uphold it unless it clearly is not. (¶ 9).
The justification for this doctrine is explained in the Arizona appellate court opinion in Vong,
“The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.”
In other words, our elected representatives, who had enabled the challenge statute to begin with, will react to the outrage of the people and correct their legal folly. Yeah, right! Not in this dysfunctional climate! The courts will not interfere, not even when the statute is a horrendous violation of the Constitution.
With respect to determining constitutionality, the court must examine the statute itself, its wording and grammar (including punctuation), and the intent of the drafter or framers of the statute. The intent of the legislature, with respect to HOA-Land statutes in all states, has become very important as numerous constitutionality challenges have arisen lately. The Court in Biggs made the importance of the intent of the framers very clear,
The Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it. We give effect to the purpose indicated, by a fair interpretation of the language used, and unless the context suggests otherwise words are to be given their natural, obvious and ordinary meaning. (¶ 10).
The intent and purposes of the Framers was long upheld by the FCC as concerning the media providing equal opportunity to reply on public issues. “The FCC believed that broadcast licenses (required for both radio and terrestrial TV stations) were a form of public trust and, as such, licensees should provide balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues.”
But President Reagan did not see it that way when he vetoed fairness legislation in 1987.
“This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Reagan said in his veto message. “In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable.”
As it has come to pass, the power of the people has been slowly eroded and replaced by that of the business special interests. In Arizona, for instance, the legislative bill manual advises against inserting “legislative intent’ wordings as it may require the sponsors to defend themselves at a later time. “4.19. Generally, intent sections (also called “purpose” or “legislative findings” sections) should not be used in a bill.”
And so, the people, and especially the “citizens” of HOA-Land, are faced with an insurmountable obstacle to fairness and justice when attempting to challenge the constitutionality of HOA statutes.
 Biggs v. Betlach, No. CV-17-0130-PR (Ariz. November 17, 2017).
 Vong v. La Vie, CA-CV 13-0423, (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 2014).
 Supra, n.1, ¶ 10.