(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. If the commission finds that there is reason to believe that a person has violated any provision of this article, the commission shall serve on that person an order stating with reasonable particularity the nature of the violation and requiring compliance within fourteen days. During that period, the alleged violator may provide any explanation to the commission, comply with the order, or enter into a public administrative settlement with the commission.
B. Upon expiration of the fourteen days, if the commission finds that the alleged violator remains out of compliance, the commission shall make a public finding to that effect and issue an order assessing a civil penalty in accordance with section 16-942, unless the commission publishes findings of fact and conclusions of law expressing good cause for reducing or excusing the penalty. The violator has fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order assessing the penalty to appeal to the superior court as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6.
C. Any candidate in a particular election contest who believes that any opposing candidate has violated this article for that election may file a complaint with the commission requesting that action be taken pursuant to this section. If the commission fails to make a finding under subsection A of this section within thirty days after the filing of such a complaint, the candidate may bring a civil action in the superior court to impose the civil penalties prescribed in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 23× “Waiver of fourteen-day rule ¶ 22 The statute providing for judicial review of Citizens Clean Election Commission rulings, A.R.S. § 16-957(B), provides that “[t]he violator has fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order assessing the penalty to appeal to the superior…”
Legacy v. Citizens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “¶14 Finally, Legacy argues that its time to comply with § 16-957 should have been extended by five days under the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (“ARPJRAD”).”
Legacy Found. Action v. Citizens Clean Election (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 11× “* JUSTICE BOLICK, opinion of the Court: ¶1 This case presents the question whether the fourteen-day time limit for an appeal of a Citizens Clean Elections Commission (the “Commission”) decision under A.R.S. § 16-957(B) applies when the party challenges the Commission’s personal…”
David B Smith v. Clean elections/hon Terry Goddard (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 12× “Waiver of fourteen-day rule ¶22 The statute providing for judicial review of Citizens Clean Election Commission rulings, A.R.S. § 16-957(B), provides that “[t]he violator has fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order assessing the penalty to appeal to the superior…”
Houser v. Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Eighteen days later, the policy organization appealed to the superior court under A.R.S. § 16-957(B), arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction.”
Legacy Found. Action v. Citizens Clean Election (Ariz. 2023).
“See § 16-957(B) (authorizing the Commission to assess a penalty if it “finds that the alleged violator remains out of compliance” with the Act after the fourteen-day period).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-957(B) — 6 cases
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 132 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. 2006).
“Waiver of fourteen-day rule ¶ 22 The statute providing for judicial review of Citizens Clean Election Commission rulings, A.R.S. § 16-957(B), provides that “[t]he violator has fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order assessing the penalty to appeal to the superior…”
Legacy v. Citizens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶14 Finally, Legacy argues that its time to comply with § 16-957 should have been extended by five days under the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (“ARPJRAD”).”
Legacy Found. Action v. Citizens Clean Election (Ariz. 2018).
“* JUSTICE BOLICK, opinion of the Court: ¶1 This case presents the question whether the fourteen-day time limit for an appeal of a Citizens Clean Elections Commission (the “Commission”) decision under A.R.S. § 16-957(B) applies when the party challenges the Commission’s personal…”
David B Smith v. Clean elections/hon Terry Goddard (Ariz. 2006).
“Waiver of fourteen-day rule ¶22 The statute providing for judicial review of Citizens Clean Election Commission rulings, A.R.S. § 16-957(B), provides that “[t]he violator has fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order assessing the penalty to appeal to the superior…”
Houser v. Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“Eighteen days later, the policy organization appealed to the superior court under A.R.S. § 16-957(B), arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction.”
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.