narrows the commissioners’ constitutionally granted discretion to nominate no more than the three candidates whom they determine best meet the constitutionally mandated selection criteria. See supra ¶ 2. Further, H.B. 2600 imposes a two-thirds voting requirement in a context not authorized by the constitution. Cf. Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 36(D) (requiring a two-thirds vote for the Commission to hold an executive session). Even if the change were “merely procedural,” the legislature has no authority to statutorily mandate procedures inconsistent with Arizona’s Constitution. Turley, 27 Ariz.App. at 350, 554 P.2d at 1293; cf. Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 36(E) (authorizing the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for the Commission); Unif. R.P. Comm’ns on App. and Trial Ct. Appointments 5(f) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17 When a state statute conflicts with
recognizing distinction made by majority recognizing that com missions may act by majority vote on any matter other than decision to meet in executive session holding that council discussion in executive session of whether to appeal did not violate the open meeting law given that ultimate decision to adopt ordinance to meet the objections of trial court was made in public recognizing as a matter of law executive privilege for governor recognizing the majority rule