A. The nomination petitions shall be in substantially the following form:
1. Petitions shall be on paper eleven inches wide and eight and one-half inches long.
2. Petitions shall be headed by a caption stating the purpose of the petition, followed by the body of the petition stating the intent of the petitioners.
3. There shall be ten lines spaced one-half of an inch apart and consecutively numbered one through ten.
4. The signature portion of the petition shall be divided into columns headed by the following titles:
(a) Signature.
(b) Printed name.
(c) Actual residence address, description of place of residence or Arizona post office box address, city or town.
(d) Date of signing.
5. A photograph of the candidate may appear on the nomination petition.
B. The following shall appear on the petition:
Instructions for Circulators
1. All petitions shall be signed by circulator.
2. Circulator is not required to be a resident of this state but otherwise must be qualified to register to vote in this state and, if not a resident of this state, shall register as a circulator with the secretary of state.
3. Circulator's name shall be typed or printed under the circulator's signature.
4. Circulator's actual residence address or, if no street address, a description of residence location shall be included on the petition.
C. The secretary of state shall prepare sample nomination petition forms and distribute the forms to all election officers.
D. Circulators who are not residents of this state must be registered as circulators with the secretary of state before circulating petitions. The secretary of state shall provide for a method of receiving service of process for those petition circulators who register pursuant to this subsection. The secretary of state shall establish in the instructions and procedures manual issued pursuant to section 16-452 a procedure for registering circulators and receiving service of process.
E. The secretary of state may authorize for statewide and legislative offices the creation, use and submission of petitions prescribed by this section in electronic form if those petitions provide for an appropriate method to verify signatures of petition circulators and signers. The secretary of state may require use of a unique marking system for petition pages, including a bar code, a quick response code or another similar marking system.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
· cites it 18× “” We found that variances did not render the signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature: We believe that the Legislature intended to require stricter adherence to form by the use of the clear language of…”
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick, 471 P.3d 639 (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 9× “” In context of § 16-315 as a whole, the address provided by any circulator, out-of-state or otherwise, is to ensure there can be ready and accurate service of process in the event of a petition challenge.”
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 675 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “*455 A.R.S. § 16-315(B) requires that all nomination petitions be signed by a circulator who must be a qualified elector of this state.”
Doug Clark v. Jimmie Munoz, Jr., 330 P.3d 958 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 4× “¶ 3 The trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of A.R.S. § 16-315(A), which sets out the required form for nomination petitions.”
Patrick McKenna v. Javier Soto, 481 P.3d 695 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 8× “¶10 McKenna argues the trial court erred by finding the “incomplete date” signatures valid because: (1) § 16-315(A)(4) and the 2019 EPM require a complete date; (2) a partial date cannot “substantially comply” with the complete date requirement; and (3) Soto failed to…”
Clark v. Pima Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 624 P.2d 871 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 4× “*195 Appellants point out that A.R.S. § 16-315(A) requires that nomination petitions be signed with the "signature as registered.”
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 4× “§ 19-118(C); see § 16-315. Finally, under § 19-112(C)–(D), initiative petitions must contain a notarized affidavit, attesting that the circulator witnessed the signature in person.”
Liane Breckling v. Arturo Hernandez (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 4× “With respect to the statutory requirements for registration of out-of-state nomination petition circulators, the trial court observed: A.R.S. § 16-315(D) provides that non-resident circulators must register.”
Robert Backie v. Kim George (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Hernandez, CV-24-0087-AP/EL (May 7, 2024): A.R.S. § 16-315(D) provides that non-resident circulators must register.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(A) — 3 cases
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
“” We found that variances did not render the signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature: We believe that the Legislature intended to require stricter adherence to form by the use of the clear language of…”
Doug Clark v. Jimmie Munoz, Jr., 330 P.3d 958 (Ariz. 2014).
“¶ 3 The trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of A.R.S. § 16-315(A), which sets out the required form for nomination petitions.”
Clark v. Pima Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 624 P.2d 871 (Ariz. 1981).
“*195 Appellants point out that A.R.S. § 16-315(A) requires that nomination petitions be signed with the "signature as registered.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(A)(4) — 2 cases
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
“” We found that variances did not render the signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature: We believe that the Legislature intended to require stricter adherence to form by the use of the clear language of…”
Patrick McKenna v. Javier Soto, 481 P.3d 695 (Ariz. 2021).
“¶10 McKenna argues the trial court erred by finding the “incomplete date” signatures valid because: (1) § 16-315(A)(4) and the 2019 EPM require a complete date; (2) a partial date cannot “substantially comply” with the complete date requirement; and (3) Soto failed to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(A)(4)(a) — 1 case
Patrick McKenna v. Javier Soto, 481 P.3d 695 (Ariz. 2021).
“¶10 McKenna argues the trial court erred by finding the “incomplete date” signatures valid because: (1) § 16-315(A)(4) and the 2019 EPM require a complete date; (2) a partial date cannot “substantially comply” with the complete date requirement; and (3) Soto failed to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(A)(l) — 1 case
Doug Clark v. Jimmie Munoz, Jr., 330 P.3d 958 (Ariz. 2014).
“¶ 3 The trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of A.R.S. § 16-315(A), which sets out the required form for nomination petitions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(B) — 2 cases
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick, 471 P.3d 639 (Ariz. 2020).
“” In context of § 16-315 as a whole, the address provided by any circulator, out-of-state or otherwise, is to ensure there can be ready and accurate service of process in the event of a petition challenge.”
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 675 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1984).
“*455 A.R.S. § 16-315(B) requires that all nomination petitions be signed by a circulator who must be a qualified elector of this state.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(B)(4) — 1 case
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
“” We found that variances did not render the signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature: We believe that the Legislature intended to require stricter adherence to form by the use of the clear language of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(D) — 4 cases
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick, 471 P.3d 639 (Ariz. 2020).
“” In context of § 16-315 as a whole, the address provided by any circulator, out-of-state or otherwise, is to ensure there can be ready and accurate service of process in the event of a petition challenge.”
Liane Breckling v. Arturo Hernandez (Ariz. 2024).
“With respect to the statutory requirements for registration of out-of-state nomination petition circulators, the trial court observed: A.R.S. § 16-315(D) provides that non-resident circulators must register.”
Robert Backie v. Kim George (Ariz. 2024).
“Hernandez, CV-24-0087-AP/EL (May 7, 2024): A.R.S. § 16-315(D) provides that non-resident circulators must register.”
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs (Ariz. 2020).
“§ 19-118(C); see § 16-315. Finally, under § 19-112(C)–(D), initiative petitions must contain a notarized affidavit, attesting that the circulator witnessed the signature in person.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-315(E) — 2 cases
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick, 471 P.3d 639 (Ariz. 2020).
“” In context of § 16-315 as a whole, the address provided by any circulator, out-of-state or otherwise, is to ensure there can be ready and accurate service of process in the event of a petition challenge.”
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs (Ariz. 2020).
“§ 19-118(C); see § 16-315. Finally, under § 19-112(C)–(D), initiative petitions must contain a notarized affidavit, attesting that the circulator witnessed the signature in person.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.