Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 19

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-102.01

Initiative petitions; standard of review

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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs (2021) ariz · cites it 4× “¶18 The Committee argues that signatures gathered by “de- registered” circulators may not be disqualified pursuant to § 19-118(E) because “strict compliance” under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A) limits application of § 19-118(E) to circulators registered at the time of a challenge.”
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education (2018) ariz · 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 (2018) ariz · 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 (2022) ariz · 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 2 LEIBSOHN, ET AL.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money (2018) ariz · 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 (2022) ariz · 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 (2020) azd · 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 Education (2018) ariz · 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.”
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs (2020) ariz · cites it 2× “4 Because E-Qual does not substantially comply with Section 1(9), we need not address the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 19-102.01, which requires that initiatives strictly comply with statutory and constitutional requirements.”
Workers v. Tempe (2023) arizctapp · cites it 2× “§ 19-101(A), we need not address whether Workers were entitled to rely on the City-provided form under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(B). Cf. Leibsohn, 254 Ariz.”
Workers v. Tempe (2023) arizctapp · cites it 2× “§ 19-101(A), we need not address whether Workers were entitled to rely on the City-provided form under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(B). Cf. Leibsohn, 254 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-102.01(A) — 8 cases
Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs (2021) ariz “¶18 The Committee argues that signatures gathered by “de- registered” circulators may not be disqualified pursuant to § 19-118(E) because “strict compliance” under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(A) limits application of § 19-118(E) to circulators registered at the time of a challenge.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money (2018) ariz “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 Education (2018) ariz “¶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 (2022) ariz “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 2 LEIBSOHN, ET AL.”
Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money (2018) ariz “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 (2023) arizctapp “§ 19-101(A), we need not address whether Workers were entitled to rely on the City-provided form under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(B). Cf. Leibsohn, 254 Ariz.”
Workers v. Tempe (2023) arizctapp “§ 19-101(A), we need not address whether Workers were entitled to rely on the City-provided form under A.R.S. § 19-102.01(B). Cf. Leibsohn, 254 Ariz.”
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.