"This means that the court understood this is a clear, straightforward proposition with a single purpose: to protect marriage," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale-based organization that defended the initiative and has supported similar measures nationwide.

Proposition 106 was challenged by opponents for the same reason. Called Conserving Arizona's Future, the initiative would automatically preserve 694,000 acres of state land and give the Arizona State Land Department more power in planning and selling parcels to benefit education.

A group backed by the Arizona Cattlemen's Association and Home Builders Association of Central Arizona filed the challenge. Those groups are backing a competing plan for the Land Department, Proposition 105, that calls for preserving 43,000 acres of land and giving the Legislature the option of preserving another 400,000 acres.

Now the two plans head for a ballot showdown. If both are approved at the polls, the one with the most votes wins. Still, parts of the other plan could become law if the winning measure does not have the same provision.

The third legal challenge involved a different aspect of state law: the requirement that ballot measures that cost the state money identify a funding source other than the state general fund. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns had sued over Proposition 207.

That measure, called the Private Property Rights Protection Act, restricts the use of eminent domain and requires governments to reimburse property owners when a zoning or other action reduces their property values.

The league had argued that the measure, backed by the national group Americans for Limited Government, could cost state and local governments millions of dollars.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge had ruled that while that is possible, opponents couldn't challenge until after the election if voters approve the measure.

This is cache, read story here