PHOENIX — It is now up to the state’s high court whether voters will get a chance to require home builders to provide a warranty.

 In an order Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court said it want briefs from both side by the end of the day Tuesday on th question of whether Proposition 201 meets the legal requirement to be on the ballot.

 The order does not set a date for a decision. But lawyers have informed the justices that the counties need to know before th end of the month — when they are scheduled to start printing pamphlets which describe each of the ballot measures.

 Central to the legal fight are contentions by officials by th state’s two home builder associations that the initiative wording is legally flawed.

 Attorney Lisa Hauser contends that state law requires the actual language of each initiative to point out what changes are being proposed by putting those new provisions in capital letters. She said that helps people decide whether or not they want t actually sign the attached petitions to put the measure on th ballot.

 She said — and initiative backers have conceded — that was not done in all cases here. But Hauser lost the first round of the fight when Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers rule earlier this week that the error was legally harmless.

 Myers also rebuffed Hauser argument that the initiative, being pushed by the Sheet Metal Workers International Association lacks the legally required formal title. And she had no bette luck with her contention that the 100-word summary, which the la requires be printed on the petitions themselves, did no sufficiently describe the changes being proposed.

 The main provision of Proposition 201 would require all home builders to provide a 10-year warranty on new homes.

 Current law contains no such requirement. Instead, it simple gives homeowners up to eight years from the date of construction to sue over claimed defects.

 Another section of the measure removes a provision in existing law which says if homeowners who sue and lose are required to pay the legal fees and costs of expert witnesses of the builder The initiative also has language designed to give some protections to people before they actually have a home built for them.

 One of these says that when a price is listed for a specific model home, the developer must build and outfit it exactly the way for that price. That precludes a would-be buyer from finding out later that things like the upgraded carpeting and cabinets in the model cost extra.

 It also would permit a buyer to cancel a contract within the first 100 days and get 95 percent of the deposit returned.’