Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-677 (2026)

Inspection of ballots before trial; petition; bond; appointment of inspectors

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. After the statement of contest has been filed and the action is at issue, either party may have the ballots inspected before preparing for trial.

B. The party applying for the inspection of ballots shall file with the clerk of the court a verified petition stating that he cannot properly prepare for trial without an inspection of the ballots and shall file with the petition a bond, approved by the clerk, with two sureties, in the principal amount of three hundred dollars, conditioned that he will pay the costs and expenses of the inspection if he fails to maintain the contest. Thereupon the court shall appoint three persons, one selected by each of the parties and one by the court, by whom the inspection shall be made. If either party fails to name a person to act in making the inspection, the court shall make the appointment.

C. The inspection of the ballots shall be made in the presence of the legal custodian of the ballots, and the compensation of the inspectors shall be fixed by the court and taxed as costs against the losing party.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Clay v. Town of Gilbert, 773 P.2d 233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Clay v. Town of Gilbert, 773 P.2d 233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” The manual inspection of the ballots, performed pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-677 at contestants’ request, revealed that on Question 1, 17 ballots had no hole punches in either number 13 or 14, 5 ballots had an incorrect hole punched, and 2 ballots had hole punches in both numbers…”

Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. Cnty. of Cochise Cochise Cnty. Jail Dist. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 16-677(A)-(B). Given our conclusion that the court erred in dismissing the contest, we do not address this issue.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-677(A) — 1 case

Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. Cnty. of Cochise Cochise Cnty. Jail Dist. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 16-677(A)-(B). Given our conclusion that the court erred in dismissing the contest, we do not address this issue.”

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.