Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-673 (2026)

Statement of contest; verification; filing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The elector contesting a state election shall, within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor, file in the court in which the contest is commenced a statement in writing setting forth:

1. The name and residence of the party contesting the election, and that he is an elector of the state and county in which he resides.

2. The name of the person whose right to the office is contested, or the title of the measure, or constitutional amendment, or other proposition as it appeared upon the official ballot.

3. The office the election to which is contested.

4. The particular grounds of the contest.

B. The statement shall be verified by the affidavit of the contestor that he believes the matters and things therein contained are true.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 16-642(B) states that a contest of an election held by "a special district as defined in title 48,” the title governing irrigation districts, is to be "as described in § 16-673." 5 . In their answer to the statement of contest, the Electees admitted that each of the…”
Jennings v. Woods, 982 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “¶ 11 On December 30, 1998, West responded, claiming the mandamus action was in reality an election contest that was barred by the limitations provision of A.R.S. § 16-673(A) which allows five days from certification *278 of the canvass—November 23, 1998 in West's case—to…”
Smith v. Bd. of Directors, 716 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” *599 A.R.S. § 16-673(A), the statute governing the procedure for contesting a state election, provides a five-day statute of limitations.”
Graham v. Tamburri, 377 P.3d 323 (Ariz. 2016). “In arguing that Graham was required to verify his complaint, Tamburri cites § 16-673(B). That statute, however, requires complaints to be verified in election contests.”
KATAN v. City of Prescott, 221 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 16-673 (2006). The City argues that Katan failed to file his complaint within five days of the September 8 canvass, so his claims were untimely and should have been dismissed.”
Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 4× “Under A.R.S. § 16-673, an “elector contesting a state election shall, within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor, file in the court .”
Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 4× “Under A.R.S. § 16-673, an elector contesting a state election “shall, within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor, file in the court .”
We the People Ex Rel. v. Governor Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 4× “” A Statement of Contest is authorized under A.R.S. § 16-673 and must be brought within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor.”
Bowyer v. Ducey (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs also argue that 3 A.R.S. §16-673 supports the timeliness of their Complaint because it requires an elector to 4 file a challenge to the election in state court within five days of certification of the election.”
Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. Cnty. of Cochise Cochise Cnty. Jail Dist. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 16-673(A), 16-674(A). In special-district elections, the canvass is not complete until a presentation to the board of supervisors is conducted.”
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “Appellant filed her contest under A.R.S. § 16-673 raising three statutory bases for a challenge under A.”
Robert Graham v. Frank Tamburri (Ariz. 2016). “In arguing that Graham was required to verify his complaint, Tamburri cites § 16-673(B). That statute, however, requires complaints to be verified in election contests.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-673(A) — 5 cases
Jennings v. Woods, 982 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1999). “¶ 11 On December 30, 1998, West responded, claiming the mandamus action was in reality an election contest that was barred by the limitations provision of A.R.S. § 16-673(A) which allows five days from certification *278 of the canvass—November 23, 1998 in West's case—to…”
Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 16-642(B) states that a contest of an election held by "a special district as defined in title 48,” the title governing irrigation districts, is to be "as described in § 16-673." 5 . In their answer to the statement of contest, the Electees admitted that each of the…”
Smith v. Bd. of Directors, 716 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “” *599 A.R.S. § 16-673(A), the statute governing the procedure for contesting a state election, provides a five-day statute of limitations.”
Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. Cnty. of Cochise Cochise Cnty. Jail Dist. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. §§ 16-673(A), 16-674(A). In special-district elections, the canvass is not complete until a presentation to the board of supervisors is conducted.”
We the People Ex Rel. v. Governor Doug Ducey (Ariz. 2021). “” A Statement of Contest is authorized under A.R.S. § 16-673 and must be brought within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-673(A)(1) — 1 case
Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 16-642(B) states that a contest of an election held by "a special district as defined in title 48,” the title governing irrigation districts, is to be "as described in § 16-673." 5 . In their answer to the statement of contest, the Electees admitted that each of the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-673(B) — 2 cases
Graham v. Tamburri, 377 P.3d 323 (Ariz. 2016). “In arguing that Graham was required to verify his complaint, Tamburri cites § 16-673(B). That statute, however, requires complaints to be verified in election contests.”
Robert Graham v. Frank Tamburri (Ariz. 2016). “In arguing that Graham was required to verify his complaint, Tamburri cites § 16-673(B). That statute, however, requires complaints to be verified in election contests.”
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.