Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-122

Refusal of secretary of state to file petition or transmit facsimiles of signature sheets or affidavits of circulators; writ of mandamus; venue

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If the secretary of state refuses to accept and file a petition for the initiative or referendum, or proposal for a constitutional amendment that has been presented within the time prescribed, or if the secretary of state refuses to transmit the facsimiles of a signature sheet or sheets or affidavits of circulators to the county recorders for certification under section 19-121.01, the secretary of state shall provide the person who submitted the petition, proposal, signature sheet or affidavit with a written statement of the reason for the refusal. Within five calendar days after the refusal any citizen may apply to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition or proposal or transmit the facsimiles, or for matters involving statewide initiatives or referenda or proposed constitutional amendments, the citizen may file a complaint with the county attorney or attorney general. The county attorney or attorney general may apply, within five calendar days after the complaint is made, to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition or proposal or transmit the facsimiles. The action shall be advanced on the calendar and heard and decided by the court as soon as possible. Either party may appeal to the supreme court within five calendar days after entry of judgment by the superior court. The decision of the superior court may be stayed as prescribed by rules adopted by the supreme court. If the court finds that the petition is legally sufficient, the secretary of state shall then file it, with a certified copy of the judgment attached as of the date on which it was originally offered for filing in the secretary of state's office.

B. The most current version of the general county register statewide voter registration database at the time of filing a court action challenging an initiative or referendum petition shall constitute the official record to be used to determine on a prima facie basis by the challenger that the signer of a petition was not registered to vote at the address given on the date of signing the petition. If the address of the signer given on the date of signing the petition is different from that on the most current version of the general county register, the county recorder shall examine the version of the general county register that was current on the date the signer signed the petition to determine the validity of the signature and to determine whether the person was eligible to sign the petition at the time of signing. This subsection does not preclude introducing into evidence a certified copy of the affidavit of registration of any signer dated before the signing of the petition if the affidavit is in the possession of the county recorder but has not yet been filed in the general county register.

C. An action that contests the validity of an initiative or referendum measure based on the actions of the secretary of state or compliance with this chapter by any person may not be maintained in any court in this state except as prescribed by this section. Any person may contest the validity of an initiative or referendum. If multiple actions are filed that contest the validity of an initiative or referendum, including actions filed pursuant to subsection A of this section, the separate actions shall be consolidated before the appropriate venue pursuant to subsection D of this section. In addition to contesting the validity of an initiative or referendum, any person may seek to enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from certifying or printing the official ballot for the election that will include the proposed initiative or referendum measure and to enjoin the certification or printing of the ballot.

D. The superior court in Maricopa county shall have jurisdiction of actions relating to measures and amendments to be submitted to the electors of the state at large. With respect to actions relating to local and special measures for a county, special district or school district, the superior court in the county in which the district is located shall have jurisdiction. With respect to actions relating to local or special measures for a city or town, the superior court in the county in which the majority of the population of that city or town resides shall have jurisdiction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 63 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Kromko v. Superior Court

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kromko v. Superior Court (1991) ariz · cites it 39× “See Historical and Statutory Notes to A.R.S. § 19-122. 4 . The 1928 version of the present statute read, If the court find [sic] that such petition is legally sufficient, the secretary shall then file it, with a certified copy of the judgment attached thereto, as of the date on…”

Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative (2013) arizctapp · cites it 23× “the restoration of civil rights and the restoration of voting rights,” the court erred by (1) “failing] to shift the burden of production to [the Committee] to prove restoration of civil rights once [the Employees] demonstrated that Coombes, Oberg, and Leonardi were convicted…”

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer (2008) ariz · cites it 34× “The references in § 19-122 (A) to affidavits of circulators are apparently a historical anomaly, as the Secretary now has no duty under §19-121.”

Barry v. Alberty (1992) arizctapp · cites it 19× “with a written statement of the reason for refusal. Within ten days after the refusal any citizen may apply to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition.”

Harris v. City of Bisbee (2008) arizctapp · cites it 16× “” Nonetheless, Harris insists that § 19-122 does not apply and his action is a special action under Rule 1(a), Ariz.”

Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023) ariz · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs also claimed that nearly 80% of the signatures submitted by the Committee were invalid due to non- compliance with chapter 1, title 19, pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C). ¶4 The Secretary notified the Committee by letter dated July 31, 2022, that 399,838 signatures were…”

League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer (2006) ariz · cites it 9× “¶ 3 On July 31, 2006, the League challenged Proposition 207 in the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C) and (D). The League asserted that Proposition 207 violates the Arizona Constitution’s “Revenue Source Rule” by failing to state the source of revenue to pay the…”

Mathieu v. Mahoney (1993) ariz · cites it 8× “6, § 5(3), and A.R.S. § 19-122(C). Because we conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by the doctrine of laches, we do not reach the merits of the controversy, nor do we reach the defendant's due process objections.”

Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa (1991) ariz · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 19-122(A). A few weeks later, on November 5, 1990, the Council passed two additional resolutions concerning Country Club Drive.”

Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall (2023) ariz · cites it 6× “Opinion of the Court to A.R.S. § 19-122(A). VOS asked the superior court to compel the City Clerk to accept the petition sheets and signatures and process them in accordance with A.”

Tilson v. Mofford (1987) ariz · cites it 4× “Therefore, we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C) to hear the limited issues raised by Tilson as to the form of the proposed initiative, but we express no opinion on the legality of the substance of the amendment.”

Vince Leach v. Katie Hobbs (2021) ariz · cites it 4× “¶13 The Committee and Challengers filed expedited appeals in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(A). We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.”

Show all 63 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-122(A) — 25 cases

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer (2008) ariz “The references in § 19-122 (A) to affidavits of circulators are apparently a historical anomaly, as the Secretary now has no duty under §19-121.”

Barry v. Alberty (1992) arizctapp “with a written statement of the reason for refusal. Within ten days after the refusal any citizen may apply to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition.”

Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative (2013) arizctapp “the restoration of civil rights and the restoration of voting rights,” the court erred by (1) “failing] to shift the burden of production to [the Committee] to prove restoration of civil rights once [the Employees] demonstrated that Coombes, Oberg, and Leonardi were convicted…”

Harris v. City of Bisbee (2008) arizctapp “” Nonetheless, Harris insists that § 19-122 does not apply and his action is a special action under Rule 1(a), Ariz.”

Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett (2012) ariz

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-122(B) — 1 case

SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (2022) arizctapp

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-122(C) — 46 cases

Kromko v. Superior Court (1991) ariz “See Historical and Statutory Notes to A.R.S. § 19-122. 4 . The 1928 version of the present statute read, If the court find [sic] that such petition is legally sufficient, the secretary shall then file it, with a certified copy of the judgment attached thereto, as of the date on…”

Mussi v. Katie hobbs/adrc Action (2023) ariz “Plaintiffs also claimed that nearly 80% of the signatures submitted by the Committee were invalid due to non- compliance with chapter 1, title 19, pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C). ¶4 The Secretary notified the Committee by letter dated July 31, 2022, that 399,838 signatures were…”

League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer (2006) ariz “¶ 3 On July 31, 2006, the League challenged Proposition 207 in the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C) and (D). The League asserted that Proposition 207 violates the Arizona Constitution’s “Revenue Source Rule” by failing to state the source of revenue to pay the…”

Mathieu v. Mahoney (1993) ariz “6, § 5(3), and A.R.S. § 19-122(C). Because we conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by the doctrine of laches, we do not reach the merits of the controversy, nor do we reach the defendant's due process objections.”

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.