The state legislature established a Constitutional Defense Council, whose members were the head of the two house of the legislature and the Governor. The CDC purpose is “restoring, maintaining, and advancing the state’s sovereignty and authority over issues that affect this state and the well-being of its citizens by taking any action it deems appropriate.” After some disagreements with the Attorney General, the CDC’s authorizing statute was amended to remove the Attorney General’s vetor power over suits it wanted to file, and his power to authorize funding for outside counsel to bring cases. The Attorney General challenged the amendments as a violation of the separation of powers. The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General of Arizona has no common law powers and no Constitutional powers, but only powers given to the office by statute. The Attorney General “in his discretion may bring an action in the name of the state to enjoin the illegal payment of public monies” according to Arizona statutes. This statute gave the Attorney General standing to challenge the actions of the CDC. The Arizona Supreme Court also concluded that the CDC was a legislative body, because the controlling votes were held by legislative appointees, and the budget was approved by a legislative committee. The court then applied a four-part test to determine if the legislature was usurping executive functions: 1) the “essential nature” of the powers being exercised, 2)”the degree of control by the legislative department in the exercise of the power,” 3) the objective of the Legislature, and 4) the practical consequences of the action, if available. Analyzing each of these factors, the Court found that 1) “conducting litigation on behalf of the state, as authorized by the Legislature, is an executive function, because doing so carries out the purposes of the Legislature.” 2) the amendments were clearly designed to “enhance the Legislature’s control and remove the Attorney General or any representative of the executive from any semblance of control.” 3) the amendments show “intent to take over an executive function by eliminating the Attorney General from the litigation process and adding two members of the Legislature as advisory members to CDC.” 4) there was a practical effect, because the Dept. of Corrections, which was statutorily required to be represented by the Attorney General, was being represented in a specific case by the CDC. There was therefore an actual conflict. The court concluded