A. Any elector filing any court action challenging the nomination of a candidate as provided for in this chapter shall do so not later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth day, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays, after the last day for filing nomination papers and petitions. The elector shall specify in the action the petition number, line number and basis for the challenge for each signature being challenged. Failure to specify this information shall result in the dismissal of the court action. Within ten days after the filing of the action, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter. The decision is appealable only to the supreme court, and notice of appeal shall be filed within five days after the decision of the superior court in the action. The supreme court shall hear and render a decision on the appeal promptly.
B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency, professional requirements or failure to fully pay fines, penalties or judgments as prescribed in sections 16-311, 16-312 and 16-341, if applicable.
C. In any action challenging a nomination petition, the following persons are indispensable parties to the action and shall be named and served as defendants:
1. The candidate whose petition is the subject of the challenge.
2. The officer with whom the petitions are required to be filed.
3. The board of supervisors and the recorder of each county or the clerk of each city or town who is responsible for preparing the ballots that contain the challenged candidate's name.
D. For the purposes of an action challenging nomination petitions, the board of supervisors and the recorder of each county or the clerk of each city or town responsible for preparing the ballots that contain the challenged candidate's name and each person filing a nomination petition under this chapter appoints the officer with whom the candidate files the nomination paper and petitions as the person's agent to receive service of process. In an action challenging a nomination petition process shall be served immediately after the action is filed and in no event more than twenty-four hours after filing the action, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays. Immediately on receipt of process served on the officer as agent for a person filing a nomination petition, the officer shall mail the process to the person and shall notify the person by telephone of the filing of the action.
E. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall perform petition signature verifications for nomination petition challenges for signatures of qualified electors who are residents of that county and shall provide testimony and other evidence on request of any of the parties to the challenge.
F. Notwithstanding the system used pursuant to section 16-163, subsection D, the most current version of the general county register at the time of filing of a court action challenging a nomination petition constitutes the official record to be used to determine on a prima facie basis by the challenger that the signer of a petition was not registered to vote at the residence address given, or at the address on the general county register if a mailing address was given, on the date of signing of the petition. This subsection does not preclude the challenged candidate from introducing into evidence a certified copy of the registration form of any signer of a petition dated on or before the date of the signing of the petition if the registration form is in the possession of the county recorder but has not yet been filed in the general county register.
G. In addition to the procedures set forth in this section, all petitions that have been submitted by a candidate who is found guilty of petition forgery shall be disqualified and that candidate shall not be eligible to seek election to a public office for a period of not less than five years.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case:
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006).
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 60× “§ 16-314(C); certain signatures were invalid; and Jones had verified petitions containing signatures that he had not himself obtained and that this conduct constituted petition forgeiy.”
Lubin v. Thomas, 144 P.3d 510 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 20× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A), Barbara Lubin filed a lawsuit challenging 160 of the signatures.”
Powers v. Carpenter, 51 P.3d 338 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 5× “section 16-351, Powers filed this action against Carpenter in the superior court on June 26, asserting that because of the withdrawn signatures, Carpenter was no longer eligible to have his name appear on the primary ballot.”
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 675 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 6× “The superior court denied the challenge, and appellants filed an appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A). After hearing oral argument, this court issued an order reversing the judgment and enjoining the defendant City of Tucson from placing Fitzgerald’s name on the primary…”
Mandraes v. Hungerford, 623 P.2d 15 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 10× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351 this court took jurisdiction, heard the case, and entered an order reversing the judgment of the superior court, noting that a written opinion would follow.”
Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera, 282 P.3d 403 (Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 8× “, and sufficiently demanded injunctive relief under A.R.S. § 16-351. Cabrera argues that the court erred in allowing the case to proceed as a special action because it should have instead been filed as a complaint for injunctive relief.”
Klebba v. Carpenter, 139 P.3d 609 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 11× “In Bedard, this Court declined to apply the time-exclusion provisions of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) to a predecessor statute of § 16-351, because "the time elements in the elections statutes [are] to be construed strictly.”
Bohart v. Hanna, 143 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 7× “Appellant asserts that the court should construe the five-day period for fifing an appeal to this court as excluding weekends and holidays.”
Raymond L Malnar v. Elizabeth Joice, 337 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 12× “¶ 5 Joiee appealed to this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A). She does not contest that she failed to comply with § 16-314(D) but argues that the superior court lacked personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, imposed an inappropriate remedy for the violation.”
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
· cites it 4× “in his belief each signer was a qualified elector who resides at the address given as the signer’s residence on the date indicated____” § 16-321(D).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(A) — 39 cases
Lubin v. Thomas, 144 P.3d 510 (Ariz. 2006).
“Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A), Barbara Lubin filed a lawsuit challenging 160 of the signatures.”
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006).
“§ 16-314(C); certain signatures were invalid; and Jones had verified petitions containing signatures that he had not himself obtained and that this conduct constituted petition forgeiy.”
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 675 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1984).
“The superior court denied the challenge, and appellants filed an appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A). After hearing oral argument, this court issued an order reversing the judgment and enjoining the defendant City of Tucson from placing Fitzgerald’s name on the primary…”
Powers v. Carpenter, 51 P.3d 338 (Ariz. 2002).
“section 16-351, Powers filed this action against Carpenter in the superior court on June 26, asserting that because of the withdrawn signatures, Carpenter was no longer eligible to have his name appear on the primary ballot.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(B) — 4 cases
Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175 (Ariz. 2008).
“in his belief each signer was a qualified elector who resides at the address given as the signer’s residence on the date indicated____” § 16-321(D).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(C)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(D) — 2 cases
Raymond L Malnar v. Elizabeth Joice, 337 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2014).
“¶ 5 Joiee appealed to this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A). She does not contest that she failed to comply with § 16-314(D) but argues that the superior court lacked personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, imposed an inappropriate remedy for the violation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(E) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(F) — 10 cases
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006).
“§ 16-314(C); certain signatures were invalid; and Jones had verified petitions containing signatures that he had not himself obtained and that this conduct constituted petition forgeiy.”
Klebba v. Carpenter, 139 P.3d 609 (Ariz. 2006).
“In Bedard, this Court declined to apply the time-exclusion provisions of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) to a predecessor statute of § 16-351, because "the time elements in the elections statutes [are] to be construed strictly.”
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.