Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 19

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-101.01

Legislative findings and intent; strict compliance

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

19-101.01. Legislative findings and intent; strict compliance

The legislature recognizes that a referendum may overrule the results of determinations made by representatives of the people and therefore finds and determines that strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the referendum process and in the application and enforcement of those requirements provides the surest method for safeguarding the integrity and accuracy of the referendum process. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares its intent that the constitutional and statutory requirements for the referendum be strictly construed and that persons using the referendum process strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall (2023) ariz · cites it 13× “The court reasoned that because VOS was required to strictly comply with the statutory requirements directing the referendum process, see A.R.S. § 19-101.01, its failure to file an application that strictly complied with § 19-111(A) was fatal to the referendum effort.”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023) ariz · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 19-101.01 (requiring strict compliance); § 19-122(C) (authorizing action to challenge strict compliance).”
Voice v. Hall (2023) arizctapp · cites it 14× “See A.R.S. § 19-101.01 (requiring “persons using the referendum process strictly comply with .”
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (2022) arizctapp · cites it 10× “Jones contends the trial court’s conclusion that “the manner of compliance is not subject to the strict construction rule” is a “patently incorrect statement of [the] law.” He argues the court erroneously relied on “Sklar’s discussion of the need to ‘broadly construe’ the terms…”
Voice v. Hall (2023) arizctapp · cites it 10× “See also A.R.S. § 19-101.01 (requiring “persons using the referendum process strictly comply with .”
Workers v. Tempe (2023) arizctapp · cites it 4× “The statute provides that the "statutory requirements for the referendum be strictly construed and that persons using the referendum process strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements.”
Workers v. Tempe (2023) arizctapp · cites it 4× “The statute provides that the "statutory requirements for the referendum be strictly construed and that persons using the referendum process strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements.”
Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall (2023) ariz · cites it 4× “It reasoned that because Appellants were required to strictly comply with the statutory requirements directing the referendum process, see A.R.S. § 19-101.01, Appellants’ failure to file an application that strictly complied with § 19-111(A) was fatal to the referendum effort.”
Taxpayers v. Price (2017) arizctapp · cites it 2× “2d 767 , 770 (1991) (enacted legislation may reflect view of majority); A.R.S. § 19-101.01 (requiring "strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the referendum process").”
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs (2022) ariz · cites it 2× “¶8 Section 1(3), which establishes the referendum power, is a dense provision that has befuddled our courts since its inception.”
Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs (2020) azd · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 19-101.01 (emphasis added). It has made 4 the same finding with respect to the initiative process.”
EVANS v. FERNANDEZ (2026) arizctapp · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 19-101.01. Thus, “[w]e cannot excuse [the Committee’s] omission as a harmless error on the ground that neither the [Town] Clerk nor individual petition signers were confused about which ordinance was the subject of the proposed referendum.”
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.