Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-118.01 (2026)
Signature collection; prohibited payments; violation; classification
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19-118.01. Signature collection; prohibited payments; violation; classification
A. A person shall not pay or receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures collected on a statewide initiative or referendum petition. Signatures that are obtained by a paid circulator who violates this section are void and shall not be counted in determining the legal sufficiency of the petition.
B. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2018–2023 · leading case: Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs, 474 P.3d 667 (Ariz. 2020).
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs, 474 P.3d 667 (Ariz. 2020). “We also address whether petition circulators were paid in accordance with A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A), which prohibits payments “based on the number of signatures collected.”
Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Phx., 445 P.3d 2 (Ariz. 2019). “They allege that petition circulators were paid by the signature in violation of § 19-118.01 and that the 100-word summary circulated with the petition created a significant danger of confusion or unfairness in violation of § 19-102(A).”
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona, 493 P.3d 246 (Ariz. 2021). “The challengers also claimed that the initiative lacked sufficient valid signatures, alleging that many of the signatures should be disqualified because they were gathered by petition circulators who were paid in violation of § 19-118.01(A). Id. After a trial, the superior court…”
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “CONCLUSION ¶50 Section B of A.R.S. § 19-118.01 is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.”
Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, 430 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2018). “¶ 37 Plaintiffs assert that interpreting § 19-118(F)(1) as setting forth the single definition for "paid circulator" and viewing (F)(2) as an exception is absurd and contrary to the legislative intent, as evidenced by A.”
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state, 530 P.3d 1144 (Ariz. 2023). “* _______________ JUSTICE BOLICK, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 We hold that A.R.S. § 19-118.01 does not facially violate the First Amendment because it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-118.01(A) — 5 cases
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs, 474 P.3d 667 (Ariz. 2020). “We also address whether petition circulators were paid in accordance with A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A), which prohibits payments “based on the number of signatures collected.”
Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Phx., 445 P.3d 2 (Ariz. 2019). “They allege that petition circulators were paid by the signature in violation of § 19-118.01 and that the 100-word summary circulated with the petition created a significant danger of confusion or unfairness in violation of § 19-102(A).”
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona, 493 P.3d 246 (Ariz. 2021). “The challengers also claimed that the initiative lacked sufficient valid signatures, alleging that many of the signatures should be disqualified because they were gathered by petition circulators who were paid in violation of § 19-118.01(A). Id. After a trial, the superior court…”
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “CONCLUSION ¶50 Section B of A.R.S. § 19-118.01 is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.”
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state, 530 P.3d 1144 (Ariz. 2023). “* _______________ JUSTICE BOLICK, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 We hold that A.R.S. § 19-118.01 does not facially violate the First Amendment because it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-118.01(B) — 3 cases
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs, 474 P.3d 667 (Ariz. 2020). “We also address whether petition circulators were paid in accordance with A.R.S. § 19-118.01(A), which prohibits payments “based on the number of signatures collected.”
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “CONCLUSION ¶50 Section B of A.R.S. § 19-118.01 is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.”
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state, 530 P.3d 1144 (Ariz. 2023). “* _______________ JUSTICE BOLICK, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 We hold that A.R.S. § 19-118.01 does not facially violate the First Amendment because it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.”
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.