A. In any contest brought under the provisions of section 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 later than ten days after the date on which the statement of contest was filed, which may be continued for not to exceed five days for good cause shown.
B. The court shall continue in session to hear and determine all issues arising in contested elections. After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, and within five days after the submission thereof, the court shall file its findings and immediately thereafter shall pronounce judgment, either confirming or annulling and setting aside the election.
C. If in an election contest it appears that a person other than the contestee has the highest number of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected and that the certificate of election of the person whose office is contested is of no further legal force or effect.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case:
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “Although A.R.S. § 16-676 required the contest hearing to be held no later than November 29, (10 days after the election contest was filed, plus an additional 5 days if good cause is shown), the court set the hearing for December 1.”
Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. 33, 857 P.2d 1308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The trial court conducted an election contest hearing as required by A.R.S. § 16-676, and set aside the override election based upon the following findings: The Court finds that there were many irregularities in the [District's] override election.”
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, IT IS ORDERED affirming the trial court decision and confirming the election of the Biden Electors under A.R.S. § 16-676(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendants/Intervenors to file a Arizona Supreme Court No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-676(A) — 1 case
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Although A.R.S. § 16-676 required the contest hearing to be held no later than November 29, (10 days after the election contest was filed, plus an additional 5 days if good cause is shown), the court set the hearing for December 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-676(B) — 2 cases
Babnew v. Linneman, 740 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Although A.R.S. § 16-676 required the contest hearing to be held no later than November 29, (10 days after the election contest was filed, plus an additional 5 days if good cause is shown), the court set the hearing for December 1.”
Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson (Ariz. 2020).
“Therefore, IT IS ORDERED affirming the trial court decision and confirming the election of the Biden Electors under A.R.S. § 16-676(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendants/Intervenors to file a Arizona Supreme Court No.”
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.