Corrections & clarifications: A previous version of this article misstated the name of the Animal Defense League of Arizona.

House Bill 2244 would require citizen initiatives to strictly comply with the law, a tighter standard than the "substantial compliance" requirement in current law.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and Senate President Steve Yarbrough, both Chandler Republicans, have hired the firm of Cantelme and Brown, according to public records requested by The Arizona Republic.

The firm said it will charge the Legislature the same rate it bills school districts who hired them under a 2014 agreement: $310 an hour for principal attorneys, $230 an hour for associates, and $100 an hour each for paralegals and clerks.

That's on top of the representation supplied by Attorney General Mark Bronovich's office.

Mesnard said the expense, which will come from the legislative budget, is justified.

"We've been the punching bag for a number of folks out there who think we are trying to make voting more difficult," Mesnard said. He said that's not the point of the bill, which is scheduled to become law Aug. 9 unless plaintiffs get an injunction.

Lawmakers simply want to hold citizens who run initiatives to the same strict standards that lawmakers have to follow when passing a law, Mesnard said. Currently, citizen initiatives are subject to substantial compliance.

MORE: Drive formed to roll back Arizona citizen-initiative limits

Opponents call law unconstitutional

Attorney Roopali Desai, who is representing various citizens who have run initiatives, laughed at the notion that lawmakers follow strict procedures.

"That doesn't happen," she said. She noted lawmakers have to return every year and fix a number of bills passed in previous sessions. She is arguing the law is unconstitutional because lawmakers are intruding on the authority of the courts to decide if initiatives comply with the law.

Meanwhile, Desai and David Cantelme had their first meeting in court Thursday, where they argued over whether lawmakers should be able to depose the plaintiffs to find out what harm they would suffer if the law takes effect.

“If they haven’t suffered an injury, a real, palpable injury, they have no case," Cantelme told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joshua Rodgers.

But Desai said she worries the lawmakers' legal team would use the depositions to try and determine if the plaintiffs — which include Planned Parenthood, the Animal Defense League of Arizona and the Friends of ASBA Inc. (Arizona School Boards Association) — were planning future initiative drives.

Rodgers limited the depositions, if they happen, to questions about any injury the plaintiffs would suffer from the new law and their grounds for why the law would apply to them.

He set a July 13 date to hear arguments on the request for a preliminary injunction.

Reach the reporter at maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com and follow her on Twitter @maryjpitzl.

READ MORE:

Trump budget plan could lead to slaughter of thousands of wild horses

4 suspects arrested in Tempe double homicide

Police ID suspect in Phoenix Comicon weapons scare

You otter enter this Arizona baby-naming contest