A. Every qualified elector signing a petition shall do so in the presence of the person who is circulating the petition and who is to execute the affidavit of verification. At the time of signing, the qualified elector shall sign his first and last names in the spaces provided and the elector so signing shall print his first and last names and write, in the appropriate spaces following the signature, the signer's residence address, giving street name and number, and if he has no street address, a description of his residence location. The elector so signing shall write, in the appropriate spaces following the elector's address, the date on which the elector signed the petition.
B. The signature sheets shall be attached at all times during circulation to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure or constitutional amendment proposed or referred by the petition. The title and text shall be in at least eight-point type and shall include both the original and the amended text. The text shall indicate material deleted, if any, by printing the material with a line drawn through the center of the letters of the material and shall indicate material added or new material by printing the letters of the material in capital letters. For the purposes of a referendum, the secretary of state's time–and-date-marked copy of the measure with its proposed text set out in full or for any local matter, the copy of the measure signed or enacted into law by the mayor, or chairman of the board of supervisors, as appropriate, with its proposed text set out in full and including the original and any amended text constitutes the full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure for circulation for signatures. For any local matter enacted without an ordinance or resolution, the official minutes approved by the governing body and signed by the clerk of the governing body constitute the full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure. Referendum signatures that are collected with any copy of the measure that is not a facsimile of the time-and-date-marked copy for statewide measures or the full and correct copy of a local measure as prescribed by this subsection are invalid.
C. The person before whom the signatures, names and addresses were written on the signature sheet, on the affidavit form pursuant to this section, shall subscribe and swear before a notary public that each of the names on the sheet was signed and the name and address were printed by the elector and the circulator on the date indicated, that in his belief each signer was a qualified elector of a certain county of the state, or, in the case of a city, town or county measure, of the city, town or county affected by the measure on the date indicated, and that at all times during circulation of the signature sheet a copy of the title and text was attached to the signature sheet. All signatures of petitioners on a signature sheet shall be those of qualified electors who are registered to vote in the same county. However, if signatures from more than one county appear on the same signature sheet, only the valid signatures from the same county that are most numerous on the signature sheet shall be counted.
D. The affidavit shall be in the following form printed on the reverse side of each signature sheet:
Affidavit of Circulator
State of Arizona )
) ss.:
County of ___________)
(Where notarized)
I, ____(print name)____, a person who is not required to be a resident of this state but who is otherwise qualified to register to vote in the county of _______, in the state of Arizona at all times during my circulation of this petition sheet, and under the penalty of a class 1 misdemeanor, depose and say that subject to section 19-115, Arizona Revised Statutes, each individual printed the individual's own name and address and signed this sheet of the foregoing petition in my presence on the date indicated and I believe that each signer's name and residence address or post office address are correctly stated and that each signer is a qualified elector of the state of Arizona (or in the case of a city, town or county measure, of the city, town or county affected by the measure proposed to be initiated or referred to the people) and that at all times during circulation of this signature sheet a copy of the title and text was attached to the signature sheet.
(Signature of affiant) ____________________
(Residence address, street
and number of affiant, or
if no street address, a
description of residence
location)
_________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on ____________________.
(date)
__________________________________
Notary Public
(Form shall include a designated location for notary stamp)
E. The eight-point type required by subsection B of this section does not apply to maps, charts or other graphics.
F. The form of the affidavit shall not be modified. Any petition that contains a partially completed affidavit or an affidavit that has been modified is invalid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case:
Feldmeier v. Watson, 123 P.3d 180 (Ariz. 2005).
Feldmeier v. Watson, 123 P.3d 180 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 29× “The language of A.R.S. § 19-112(0 tracks the constitutional verification requirements: The [circulator] .”
W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 814 P.2d 767 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 26× “§ 19-112(B), adequate independent proof exists to restore the presumption of validity that would apply if the petitions were not defective.”
Harris v. City of Bisbee, 192 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 26× “3 ¶ 16 Harris nonetheless asserts his petitions “were in perfect technical compliance with the law” because they used the text of the sample affidavit provided in subsection (D) of § 19-112. Subsection (D) states that “the affidavit [required under § 19 — 112(C) ] shall be in…”
Forszt v. Rodriguez, 130 P.3d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “And the court noted that the legislature had specifically passed the affidavit requirement of § 19-112 in response to such “ ‘fraudulent and corrupt practices in connection with the circulation of petitions.”
Wilhelm v. Brewer, 192 P.3d 404 (Ariz. 2008).
· cites it 6× “¶ 5 The Arizona Constitution and a statute require that when an initiative petition is circulated for signatures, a copy of the measure including its “title and text” must be included. Ariz. Const, art.”
Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 503 P.2d 951 (Ariz. 1972).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 44-5001 et seq. This legislation regulated the direct selling of merchandise to the public in their homes and would have become effective ninety days following the adjournment of the legislative’ session in which it was passed — i.”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action, 532 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 19-118(C), or who “violated statutory requirements when [collecting] signatures,” see A.R.S. §§ 19-112(A), -114(A)); id. at 440 ¶ 49 (“[I]n a Herculean effort, Plaintiffs reviewed all petition signatures, challenged 384,459 signatures based on twenty-seven categories of…”
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett, 265 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 3× “§ 19-112(C) (Supp.2011) (requiring substantially similar statements for initiatives and referen-da).”
State v. Roscoe, 912 P.2d 1297 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 2× “2d at 954 ; A.R.S. § 19-112(C). In Direct Sellers, the appellants contended that the legislature could not supplement self-executing provisions of the constitution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112(A) — 9 cases
Harris v. City of Bisbee, 192 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“3 ¶ 16 Harris nonetheless asserts his petitions “were in perfect technical compliance with the law” because they used the text of the sample affidavit provided in subsection (D) of § 19-112. Subsection (D) states that “the affidavit [required under § 19 — 112(C) ] shall be in…”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action, 532 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2023).
“§ 19-118(C), or who “violated statutory requirements when [collecting] signatures,” see A.R.S. §§ 19-112(A), -114(A)); id. at 440 ¶ 49 (“[I]n a Herculean effort, Plaintiffs reviewed all petition signatures, challenged 384,459 signatures based on twenty-seven categories of…”
Feldmeier v. Watson, 123 P.3d 180 (Ariz. 2005).
“The language of A.R.S. § 19-112(0 tracks the constitutional verification requirements: The [circulator] .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112(B) — 15 cases
W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 814 P.2d 767 (Ariz. 1991).
“§ 19-112(B), adequate independent proof exists to restore the presumption of validity that would apply if the petitions were not defective.”
Wilhelm v. Brewer, 192 P.3d 404 (Ariz. 2008).
“¶ 5 The Arizona Constitution and a statute require that when an initiative petition is circulated for signatures, a copy of the measure including its “title and text” must be included. Ariz. Const, art.”
Forszt v. Rodriguez, 130 P.3d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“And the court noted that the legislature had specifically passed the affidavit requirement of § 19-112 in response to such “ ‘fraudulent and corrupt practices in connection with the circulation of petitions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112(C) — 13 cases
W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 814 P.2d 767 (Ariz. 1991).
“§ 19-112(B), adequate independent proof exists to restore the presumption of validity that would apply if the petitions were not defective.”
Feldmeier v. Watson, 123 P.3d 180 (Ariz. 2005).
“The language of A.R.S. § 19-112(0 tracks the constitutional verification requirements: The [circulator] .”
Harris v. City of Bisbee, 192 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“3 ¶ 16 Harris nonetheless asserts his petitions “were in perfect technical compliance with the law” because they used the text of the sample affidavit provided in subsection (D) of § 19-112. Subsection (D) states that “the affidavit [required under § 19 — 112(C) ] shall be in…”
Forszt v. Rodriguez, 130 P.3d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“And the court noted that the legislature had specifically passed the affidavit requirement of § 19-112 in response to such “ ‘fraudulent and corrupt practices in connection with the circulation of petitions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112(D) — 6 cases
Feldmeier v. Watson, 123 P.3d 180 (Ariz. 2005).
“The language of A.R.S. § 19-112(0 tracks the constitutional verification requirements: The [circulator] .”
Harris v. City of Bisbee, 192 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“3 ¶ 16 Harris nonetheless asserts his petitions “were in perfect technical compliance with the law” because they used the text of the sample affidavit provided in subsection (D) of § 19-112. Subsection (D) states that “the affidavit [required under § 19 — 112(C) ] shall be in…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112(F) — 2 cases
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.