“should be bundled with a vote on an open primary.” Opponents also contend that if Proposition 121 were adopted, it would require changes in a large number , of Arizona statutes. ¶ 21 We are not persuaded. The fact that the objectives of a constitutional measure could be achieved by an alternative means does not itself establish a violation of the separate amendment rule. See Korte, 199 Ariz. at 178 ¶ 16, 16 P.3d at 205 (noting that “a proposal can comply with the [separate amendment] rule even though alternative proposals exist”). The separate amendment rule does not require that a constitutional amendment identify the most narrowly tailored means for achieving identified goals, only that the provisions have a sufficient common purpose or principle. See id. ¶ 15, 16 P.3d at 205 (<HOLDING>). Nor does the fact that a proposition, if
holding that the fifth amendment does not require the government to pay for that element of value based on the use of respondents fee lands in combination with the governments permit lands holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection holding that multifaceted approach to amending provisions in article 10 regarding state trust lands did not violate separate amendment rule holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment