A. Within fifteen days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays, after receiving the facsimile signature sheets from the secretary of state pursuant to section 19-121.01, the county recorder shall determine which signatures of individuals whose names were transmitted shall be disqualified for any of the following reasons:
1. No residence address or description of residence location is provided.
2. No date of signing is provided.
3. The signature is illegible and the signer is otherwise unidentifiable.
4. The address provided is illegible or nonexistent.
5. The individual was not a qualified elector on the date of signing the petition.
6. The individual was a registered voter but was not at least eighteen years of age on the date of signing the petition or affidavit.
7. The signature was disqualified after comparison with the signature on the affidavit of registration.
8. If a petitioner signed more than once, all but one otherwise valid signature shall be disqualified.
9. If a petition signer's signature is determined to be invalid after a comparison is made between the signature and handwriting on the petition and the petition signer's voter registration file.
10. If the person circulating the petition was a justice of the peace or a county recorder at the time the person circulated the petition.
11. For the same reasons any signatures or entire petition sheets could have been removed by the secretary of state pursuant to section 19-121.01, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3.
B. Within the same time period provided in subsection A of this section, the county recorder shall certify to the secretary of state the following:
1. The name of any individual whose signature was included in the random sample and disqualified by the county recorder together with the petition page and line number of the disqualified signature.
2. The total number of signatures selected for the random sample and transmitted to the county recorder for verification and the total number of random sample signatures disqualified.
C. The secretary of state shall prescribe the form of the county recorder's certification.
D. At the time of the certification, the county recorder shall:
1. Return the facsimile signature sheets to the secretary of state.
2. Send notice of the results of the certification by mail to the person or organization that submitted the initiative or referendum petitions and to the secretary of state.
Notes of Decisions
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz · cites it 11×
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
Western Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale (1991)
ariz · cites it 8×
“Owner’s complaint presented several allegations: (1) the referendum was premature, (2) the referendum petitions were invalid on two separate grounds, (3) the random sampling method of A.R.S. § 19-121.02(A) is unconstitutional, and (4) the signatures on the petitions were invalid.”
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum (1990)
ariz · cites it 7×
“The method by which ineligible signers and ineligible circulators are to be determined is specified in A.R.S. § 19-121.02: A. [T]he secretary of state shall, at random, select five per cent of the signatures filed with each petition for verification of eligibility by the county…”
Kromko v. Superior Court (1991)
ariz · cites it 6×
“03(B), which requires any challenge to “the certification made by a county recorder pursuant to § 19-121.02 [to be filed] within ten days of the receipt thereof by the secretary of state.”
Harris v. Purcell (1998)
ariz · cites it 6×
“In compliance with A.R.S. § 19-121.02, the Secretary of State selected, at random, five percent of the signatures filed with each petition and submitted same to the county recorders for verification of eligibility.”
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless (1998)
ariz · cites it 6×
“1 See A.R.S. § 19-121.02. ¶ 3 As part of the statutorily-mandated process for projecting the number of valid signatures submitted in support of initiative petitions, the Secretary of State sends to each county recorder a random sample of *45 signature sheets verified by…”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson (1988)
ariz · cites it 5×
“Next, Hamilton contends the ten-day period could not begin running until the city clerk had supplied her with a certificate exactly conforming with the form set forth in A.R.S. § 19-121.02. It is clear, however, that certain aspects of § 19-121.”
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa (1991)
ariz · cites it 4×
“A.R.S. §§ 19-121.02(A) and -141(A) direct the Clerk, after issuing a temporary receipt, to select and forward a random sample of 5% of the signatures to the county recorder for verification.”
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County (1992)
ariz · cites it 2×
“The County then randomly sampled the validity of the signatures, pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-121.02. Because the number of valid signatures projected from the random sample did not equal or exceed one hundred five percent of the minimum number of signatures required, the County…”
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens (2000)
arizctapp · cites it 5×
“See A.R.S. § 19-121.02. ¶ 19 KZKP, on the other hand, makes a convincing argument that the literal wording of the 1999 statutes, read in para materia, supports the trial court’s conclusion that, in order to qualify to circulate petitions for a local referendum, the circulator…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(0) — 1 case
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum (1990)
ariz
“The method by which ineligible signers and ineligible circulators are to be determined is specified in A.R.S. § 19-121.02: A. [T]he secretary of state shall, at random, select five per cent of the signatures filed with each petition for verification of eligibility by the county…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A) — 15 cases
Western Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale (1991)
ariz
“Owner’s complaint presented several allegations: (1) the referendum was premature, (2) the referendum petitions were invalid on two separate grounds, (3) the random sampling method of A.R.S. § 19-121.02(A) is unconstitutional, and (4) the signatures on the petitions were invalid.”
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa (1991)
ariz
“A.R.S. §§ 19-121.02(A) and -141(A) direct the Clerk, after issuing a temporary receipt, to select and forward a random sample of 5% of the signatures to the county recorder for verification.”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
Kromko v. Superior Court (1991)
ariz
“03(B), which requires any challenge to “the certification made by a county recorder pursuant to § 19-121.02 [to be filed] within ten days of the receipt thereof by the secretary of state.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A)(1) — 3 cases
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A)(10) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A)(11) — 2 cases
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A)(5) — 1 case
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(A)(8) — 2 cases
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023)
ariz
“But, as the Committee acknowledged in its briefing, “[n]o party requested and the courts did not apply any invalidity rate to the petition signatures under A.R.S. § 19-121.02 or § 19-121.04.” Thus, the Court focused on the total number of signatures challenged and had no cause…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(B) — 4 cases
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens (2000)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 19-121.02. ¶ 19 KZKP, on the other hand, makes a convincing argument that the literal wording of the 1999 statutes, read in para materia, supports the trial court’s conclusion that, in order to qualify to circulate petitions for a local referendum, the circulator…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.02(D)(2) — 1 case
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.