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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.03 (2026)

Judicial review of actions by county recorder; venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If the county recorder fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of section 19-121.02, any citizen may apply, within five calendar days after such failure or refusal, to the superior court for a writ of mandamus. If the court finds that the county recorder has not complied with the provisions of section 19-121.02, the court shall issue an order for the county recorder to comply.

B. Any citizen may challenge in the superior court the certification made by a county recorder pursuant to section 19-121.02 within five calendar days of the receipt thereof by the secretary of state. The action shall be advanced on the calendar and heard as a trial de novo and decided by the court as soon as possible. Either party may appeal to the supreme court within five calendar days after judgment.

C. An action commenced under this section shall be brought in the county of such recorder, except that any such action involving more than one recorder shall be brought in Maricopa county.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Kromko v. Superior Court, 811 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kromko v. Superior Court, 811 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 12× “1, § 3, and we refer to the right to propose new legislation and to enact or reject it at general elections as the initiative power.”
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 17× “03(B) to the City Clerk’s completed certification rather than a mandamus action under A.R.S. § 19-121.03(A) to compel the Clerk to perform a certification.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 14× “The only existing jurisdictional statute in Arizona on signature challenges is A.R.S. § 19-121.03. That statute and its provisions must of necessity apply here or there *144 is no machinery by which the courts could review the clerk’s actions at all.”
Harris v. Purcell, 973 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 7× “The complaint sought: (1) to enjoin the Arizona Secretary of State from certifying or printing Proposition 201 on the official November 3, 1998 1 general election ballot; (2) to enjoin the Secretary from printing and distributing the publicity pamphlet “1998 Ballot…”
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless, 969 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 7× “See A.R.S. § 19-121.03. Appellants, conceding they did not file this action within ten days after the Secretary of State received the certification that disqualified Ms.”
Transp. Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Econ. v. Brewer, 196 P.3d 229 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 9× “County recorders’ actions are reviewed under A.R.S. § 19-121.03. Subsection (A) governs claims that a recorder has failed or refused to comply with § 19-121.”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action, 532 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2023). · cites it 5× “The only way to alter the calculation of the validity rate from the random sample is to successfully challenge the county recorders’ determination of valid and or invalid signatures under § 19-121.03. See Leach v. Reagan, 245 Ariz.”
Barry v. Alberty, 843 P.2d 1279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “02(B) (county recorder must return facsimile signature sheets within ten days after “receiving” them from the clerk); A.R.S. § 19-121.03(B) (any citizen may challenge county recorder’s certification within ten days of clerk’s “receipt” of it).”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 3× “to compel a state officer or any officer of any political subdivision of this state to perform an act imposed by law as a duty on the officer.”
Fid. Nat'l Title Co. v. Town of Marana, 204 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” In Fleischman , a referendum case, the supreme court held that the challengers were not entitled to their attorney fees on appeal because they contested the clerk's certification under A.R.S. § 19-121.03(B), rather than bringing a mandamus action to compel the clerk to perform…”
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum, 793 P.2d 548 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 19-121.03 (any citizen may challenge certification made by county recorder pursuant to § 19-121.”
KZPZ Broad., Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens, 13 P.3d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “However, in A.R.S. § 19-121.03, which provides for judicial review of actions by the County Recorder, paragraph B, provides that any citizen may challenge in the Superior Court the certification made by a County Recorder and does not require the citizen to also be [a] qualified…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.03(13) — 1 case
Jones v. Paniagua, 212 P.3d 133 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.03(A) — 6 cases
Kromko v. Superior Court, 811 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1991). “1, § 3, and we refer to the right to propose new legislation and to enact or reject it at general elections as the initiative power.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013). “to compel a state officer or any officer of any political subdivision of this state to perform an act imposed by law as a duty on the officer.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988). “The only existing jurisdictional statute in Arizona on signature challenges is A.R.S. § 19-121.03. That statute and its provisions must of necessity apply here or there *144 is no machinery by which the courts could review the clerk’s actions at all.”
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007). “03(B) to the City Clerk’s completed certification rather than a mandamus action under A.R.S. § 19-121.03(A) to compel the Clerk to perform a certification.”
Transp. Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Econ. v. Brewer, 196 P.3d 229 (Ariz. 2008). “County recorders’ actions are reviewed under A.R.S. § 19-121.03. Subsection (A) governs claims that a recorder has failed or refused to comply with § 19-121.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121.03(B) — 16 cases
Kromko v. Superior Court, 811 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1991). “1, § 3, and we refer to the right to propose new legislation and to enact or reject it at general elections as the initiative power.”
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007). “03(B) to the City Clerk’s completed certification rather than a mandamus action under A.R.S. § 19-121.03(A) to compel the Clerk to perform a certification.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988). “The only existing jurisdictional statute in Arizona on signature challenges is A.R.S. § 19-121.03. That statute and its provisions must of necessity apply here or there *144 is no machinery by which the courts could review the clerk’s actions at all.”
Barry v. Alberty, 843 P.2d 1279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “02(B) (county recorder must return facsimile signature sheets within ten days after “receiving” them from the clerk); A.R.S. § 19-121.03(B) (any citizen may challenge county recorder’s certification within ten days of clerk’s “receipt” of it).”
Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action, 532 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2023). “The only way to alter the calculation of the validity rate from the random sample is to successfully challenge the county recorders’ determination of valid and or invalid signatures under § 19-121.03. See Leach v. Reagan, 245 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.