A. An elector of a county, city, town or a political subdivision of such county, city or town, may contest the right of a person declared elected to an office to be exercised therein, or declared nominated to an office at a primary election, or a question, proposal, measure or proposition submitted to and voted on by the electors on the same grounds and in the same manner as contests of election to a state office or question, proposal, measure or proposition submitted to the vote of the electors of the state.
B. The contest may be brought in the superior court of the county in which the elector resides. If the contest involves an office voted on by the electors, the summons shall be served upon the contestee, or, if the contest involves a question, proposal, measure or proposition voted on, then the summons shall be served upon the person upon whom summons in a civil action against the county, city, town or subdivision affected is served.
Notes of Decisions
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite, 296 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Section 16-674, on the other hand, does not give the option of filing in Maricopa County.”
Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 4× “¶ 4 A director is subject to recall under the laws governing recall of county officers, A.R.S. § 16-674 (1996), “by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the division which he represents,” A.”
Archer v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Pima Cnty., 800 P.2d 972 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 16-674, referring to the contest of county or other elections, provides: An elector of a county, city, town or a political subdivision .”
Smith v. Bd. of Directors, 716 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 16-674 provides, in pertinent part: “An elector of a .”
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“§ 16-674 and include illegal votes. Appellant contends that the disqualification of a voter based upon his residence can only be accomplished by a challenge prior to his voting.”
KATAN v. City of Prescott, 221 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“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.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-674(A) — 2 cases
Hancock v. Bisnar, 132 P.3d 283 (Ariz. 2006).
“¶ 4 A director is subject to recall under the laws governing recall of county officers, A.R.S. § 16-674 (1996), “by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the division which he represents,” A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-674(B) — 1 case
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite, 296 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“Section 16-674, on the other hand, does not give the option of filing 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.