A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.
4. On account of illegal votes.
5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal.
B. The contest may be brought in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa county.
C. In a contest of the election of a person declared elected to a state office or of an initiated or referred measure, constitutional amendment, or other question or proposal, which has been declared carried, the attorney general may intervene, and upon demand, the place of trial of the contest shall be changed to Maricopa county, if commenced in another county.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Moore v. City of Page, 713 P.2d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Moore v. City of Page, 713 P.2d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “*155 GROUNDS FOR ELECTION CONTEST For their part, the appellees contend that Moore is not legally entitled to bring this action because he supposedly failed to assert any grounds for relief under A.R.S. § 16-672, which governs election contests.”
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite, 296 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “¶20 We reject Prutch’s contention that § 16-674(B) must be read in conjunction with § 16-672(B) to permit him to file his complaint in Maricopa County.”
Archer v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Pima Cnty., 800 P.2d 972 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “* * * * * * A.R.S. § 16-672, referring to contests of state offices, provides: Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election.”
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“§ 16-676(A), which provides: “In any contest brought under the provisions of § 16-672 or 16-674, upon the filing of the answer, or if no answer is filed, upon the expiration of the time specified in the summons, the court shall set a time for the hearing of the contest, not…”
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 10× “§ 16-673 raising three statutory bases for a challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 which include “misconduct” by an election board or officer; “[o]n account of illegal votes”; or “[t]hat by reason of erroneous count of votes the 1 https://azsos.”
Bowyer v. Ducey (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 8× “That 17 case was filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 and was also filed after Governor Ducey 18 certified the election results on November 30, 2020.”
Strong Communities v. Yavapai/arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 16-672. Here, as the court noted, Plaintiffs do not allege any right, status or other legal relation to establish standing.”
Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “An election challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”
Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “An election challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(A) — 2 cases
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020).
“§ 16-673 raising three statutory bases for a challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 which include “misconduct” by an election board or officer; “[o]n account of illegal votes”; or “[t]hat by reason of erroneous count of votes the 1 https://azsos.”
Strong Communities v. Yavapai/arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“See A.R.S. § 16-672. Here, as the court noted, Plaintiffs do not allege any right, status or other legal relation to establish standing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(A)(1) — 3 cases
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020).
“§ 16-673 raising three statutory bases for a challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 which include “misconduct” by an election board or officer; “[o]n account of illegal votes”; or “[t]hat by reason of erroneous count of votes the 1 https://azsos.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(A)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(A)(4) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(A)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-672(B) — 1 case
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite, 296 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“¶20 We reject Prutch’s contention that § 16-674(B) must be read in conjunction with § 16-672(B) to permit him to file his complaint in Maricopa County.”
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.