Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 19
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-102.01 (2026)

Initiative petitions; standard of review

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

19-102.01. Initiative petitions; standard of review

A. Constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures must be strictly construed and persons using the initiative process must strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements.

B. The secretary of state shall make available a sample initiative petition that strictly complies with the requirements of section 19-121.  Any committee that uses the sample initiative petition provided by the secretary of state shall be presumed to have strictly complied with the requirements of section 19-121.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2018–2023 · leading case: Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs, 483 P.3d 194 (Ariz. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs, 483 P.3d 194 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 4× “” Section 19-118(B)(3), in turn, requires that circulators submit “[a] statement that the circulator consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in resolving any disputes concerning the circulation of petitions by that circulator.”
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Educ., 428 P.3d 490 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 6× “¶6 The superior court ruled that § 19-102.01 is unconstitutional, that both the 100-word description and the pre-checked circulator boxes satisfied statutory requirements, and that the Secretary of State erroneously excluded some petition sheets.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money, 429 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 5× “In response, the Committee challenged the constitutionality of three statutes: A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), which requires strict construction of, and compliance with, constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures; § 19-122(A), which governs the…”
Leibsohn v. hobbs/voters Right to Know, 517 P.3d 45 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “01(A), which requires proponents of statewide initiative measures 2 to “strictly comply” with petition requirements and requires courts to “strictly construe[]” those requirements.”
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs, 249 Ariz. 396 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “23, 31 (1968) (same). However, the right to place an initiative measure on the ballot is not absolute, see Burdick v.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money, 245 Ariz. 344 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 5× “In response, the Committee challenged the constitutionality of three statutes: A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), which requires strict construction of, and compliance with, constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures; § 19-122(A), which governs the…”
Leibsohn v. hobbs/voters Right to Know, 254 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “Exercising this authority and motivated by the impact of the Voter Protection Act, the legislature in 2017 enacted A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), which requires proponents of statewide initiative measures to “strictly comply” with petition requirements and requires courts to “strictly…”
Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs, No. 2:20-cv-00658, 2020 WL 1905747 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 2020). · cites it 4× “Thus, whether substantial compliance 16 survives as the applicable standard may be called into question by the Arizona Legislature’s 17 enactment in 2017 of A.R.S. § 19-102.01, which requires strict compliance with statutory 18 and constitutional requirements.”
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Educ., 245 Ariz. 291 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 3× “¶6 The superior court ruled that § 19-102.01 is unconstitutional, that both the 100-word description and the pre-checked circulator boxes satisfied statutory requirements, and that the Secretary of State erroneously excluded some petition sheets.”
Workers v. Tempe, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0395 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2023). · cites it 2× “428, 433-34 (1992) (weighing the burden imposed on the party seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights against the state's interest that justifies the burden).”
Workers v. Tempe, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0395 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023). · cites it 2× “428, 433-34 (1992) (weighing the burden imposed on the party seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights against the state's interest that justifies the burden).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-102.01(A): 8 cases
Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs, 483 P.3d 194 (Ariz. 2021). “” Section 19-118(B)(3), in turn, requires that circulators submit “[a] statement that the circulator consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in resolving any disputes concerning the circulation of petitions by that circulator.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money, 429 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. 2018). “In response, the Committee challenged the constitutionality of three statutes: A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), which requires strict construction of, and compliance with, constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures; § 19-122(A), which governs the…”
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Educ., 428 P.3d 490 (Ariz. 2018). “¶6 The superior court ruled that § 19-102.01 is unconstitutional, that both the 100-word description and the pre-checked circulator boxes satisfied statutory requirements, and that the Secretary of State erroneously excluded some petition sheets.”
Leibsohn v. hobbs/voters Right to Know, 517 P.3d 45 (Ariz. 2022). “01(A), which requires proponents of statewide initiative measures 2 to “strictly comply” with petition requirements and requires courts to “strictly construe[]” those requirements.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money, 245 Ariz. 344 (Ariz. 2018). “In response, the Committee challenged the constitutionality of three statutes: A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A), which requires strict construction of, and compliance with, constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures; § 19-122(A), which governs the…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-102.01(B): 2 cases
Workers v. Tempe, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0395 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2023). “428, 433-34 (1992) (weighing the burden imposed on the party seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights against the state's interest that justifies the burden).”
Workers v. Tempe, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0395 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023). “428, 433-34 (1992) (weighing the burden imposed on the party seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights against the state's interest that justifies the burden).”
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.