16-622. Official canvass; unofficial results
A. At any time following the close of the polls, except as provided in section 16-550 and section 16-551, subsection C, unofficial returns may be released during the counting of the ballots by vote tabulating equipment, and on completion of the count the unofficial results shall be open to the public. The result printed by the vote tabulating equipment, to which have been added write-in and early votes, when certified by the board of supervisors or other officer in charge, shall constitute the official canvass of each precinct or election district.
B. In any election for a federal office, a statewide office or a member of the legislature or in any election for a statewide ballot measure, all unofficial returns that are released during the counting of the ballots and all unofficial results that are open to the public shall when released to the public be transmitted by telephone, by fax or by other electronic means to the secretary of state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
Van Arsdell v. Shumway, 798 P.2d 1298 (Ariz. 1990).
Van Arsdell v. Shumway, 798 P.2d 1298 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Following the printing of the primary ballot, the appointment of primary election officials, the actual primary election, and the tally of the vote, A.R.S. § 16-622 provides for the “official canvass” and certification of the canvass by the board of supervisors.”
Crosby v. Hon. fish/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 16-622(A). Such a mathematical undertaking does not require the Board to make multiple discretionary decisions or balance goals.”
Petersen v. Fontes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 16-622(A). Such a mathematical undertaking does not require the Board to make multiple discretionary decisions or balance goals.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-622(A) — 2 cases
Crosby v. Hon. fish/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“See A.R.S. § 16-622(A). Such a mathematical undertaking does not require the Board to make multiple discretionary decisions or balance goals.”
Petersen v. Fontes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“See A.R.S. § 16-622(A). Such a mathematical undertaking does not require the Board to make multiple discretionary decisions or balance goals.”
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.