A. This chapter applies to the legislation of cities, towns and counties, except as specifically provided to the contrary in this article. The duties required of the secretary of state as to state legislation shall be performed in connection with such legislation by the city or town clerk, county officer in charge of elections or person performing the duties as such. The duties required of the governor shall be performed by the mayor or the chairman of the board of supervisors, the duties required of the attorney general shall be performed by the city, town or county attorney, and the printing and binding of measures and arguments shall be paid for by the city, town or county in like manner as payment is provided for by the state with respect to state legislation. The provisions of section 19-124 with respect to the legislative council analysis do not apply in connection with initiatives and referenda in cities, towns and counties. The printing shall be done in the same manner as other municipal or county printing is done.
B. Distribution of pamphlets shall be made to every household containing a registered voter in the city, town or county by the city or town clerk or by the county officer in charge of elections by mail before the earliest date for receipt by registered voters of any requested early ballot for the election at which the measures are to be voted on. If the pamphlet is not mailed before the earliest date for receipt of a requested early ballot, the officer in charge of elections shall provide a notice with the early ballots stating when the pamphlets will be mailed and where and when the pamphlets may be accessed or viewed. Any contract for pamphlet publication or mailing, or both, shall provide for the contractor to pay a penalty for each day of mailing that occurs on or after the earliest date for receipt of requested early ballots. The penalty shall be one cent for each household with a registered voter for each day of late mailing, and the monies shall be paid to the office of the officer in charge of elections. Pamphlets shall not be mailed or carried less than ten days before the election at which the measures are to be voted upon.
C. Arguments supporting or opposing municipal or county initiative and referendum measures shall be filed with the city or town clerk or the county officer in charge of elections not less than ninety days before the election at which they are to be voted upon.
D. The procedure with respect to municipal and county legislation shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to initiative and referendum provided for the state at large, except the procedure for verifying signatures on initiative or referendum petitions may be established by a city or town by charter or ordinance.
E. References in this section to duties to be performed by city or town officers apply only with respect to municipal legislation, and references to duties to be performed by county officers apply only with respect to county legislation.
F. The duties required of the county recorder with respect to state legislation shall also be performed by the county recorder with respect to municipal or county legislation.
Notes of Decisions
Robson Ranch Mountains, L.L. C. v. Pinal Cnty., 51 P.3d 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 10× “¶ 19 In contrast, relying primarily on A.R.S. § 19-141(A), PCSC contends, and the trial court ruled, that the thirty-day period for filing referendum petitions against a county ordinance does not commence unless and until the ordinance to be referred is available from the…”
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 11× “¶ 17 Before 1991, § 19-141(A) authorized cities and towns to establish their own ballot measure procedures, provided they were “less restrictive on the right to initiative or referendum” than state laws.”
Sherman v. City of Tempe, 45 P.3d 336 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 10× “) § 19-141, see 2001 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 193 § 1, changed the date for pamphlet distribution.”
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum, 793 P.2d 548 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Because the City Charter refers to state law, we are led to A.R.S. § 19-141(C) which provides a “gap-filler” regarding the local initiative process: The procedure with respect to municipal legislation shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to…”
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice, 5 P.2d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “Before the 1991 amendments, § 19-141(A) provided that “[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply to the legislation of cities and towns, except that cities and towns may provide for requirements in lieu of the requirements of this article which are less restrictive on the…”
Forszt v. Rodriguez, 130 P.3d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “The cross-appeal is therefore moot. 2 . The statutory requirements for statewide referenda are imposed on the town by article IV, pt.”
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, 439 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1968).
· cites it 5× “” The general laws of the state dealing with the subject of initiative and referendum are found in A.R.S. § 19-141 et seq. Nowhere in this chapter do we find that the legislative body of the city is authorized to voluntarily refer matters before it to the electors.”
Homebuilders Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 925 P.2d 1359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “” A.R.S. § 19-141(A). However, the legislature directed that the procedure followed by the cities “shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to initiative and referendum provided for the state at large.”
Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 961 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “It provides: The Sustainable Growth Ordinance and its procedures shall be altered or repealed ONLY BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT A REGULAR CITY OF SEDONA ELECTION.”
Fid. Nat'l Title Co. v. Town of Marana, 204 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 19-141(A) (“The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the legislation of cities, towns and counties, except as specifically provided to the contrary in this article.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-141(0) — 1 case
Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 961 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“It provides: The Sustainable Growth Ordinance and its procedures shall be altered or repealed ONLY BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT A REGULAR CITY OF SEDONA ELECTION.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-141(A) — 25 cases
Robson Ranch Mountains, L.L. C. v. Pinal Cnty., 51 P.3d 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“¶ 19 In contrast, relying primarily on A.R.S. § 19-141(A), PCSC contends, and the trial court ruled, that the thirty-day period for filing referendum petitions against a county ordinance does not commence unless and until the ordinance to be referred is available from the…”
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007).
“¶ 17 Before 1991, § 19-141(A) authorized cities and towns to establish their own ballot measure procedures, provided they were “less restrictive on the right to initiative or referendum” than state laws.”
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice, 5 P.2d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“Before the 1991 amendments, § 19-141(A) provided that “[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply to the legislation of cities and towns, except that cities and towns may provide for requirements in lieu of the requirements of this article which are less restrictive on the…”
Fid. Nat'l Title Co. v. Town of Marana, 204 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“See A.R.S. § 19-141(A) (“The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the legislation of cities, towns and counties, except as specifically provided to the contrary in this article.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-141(C) — 8 cases
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum, 793 P.2d 548 (Ariz. 1990).
“Because the City Charter refers to state law, we are led to A.R.S. § 19-141(C) which provides a “gap-filler” regarding the local initiative process: The procedure with respect to municipal legislation shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to…”
Forszt v. Rodriguez, 130 P.3d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“The cross-appeal is therefore moot. 2 . The statutory requirements for statewide referenda are imposed on the town by article IV, pt.”
Homebuilders Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 925 P.2d 1359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“” A.R.S. § 19-141(A). However, the legislature directed that the procedure followed by the cities “shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to initiative and referendum provided for the state at large.”
Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 961 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“It provides: The Sustainable Growth Ordinance and its procedures shall be altered or repealed ONLY BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT A REGULAR CITY OF SEDONA ELECTION.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-141(D) — 2 cases
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007).
“¶ 17 Before 1991, § 19-141(A) authorized cities and towns to establish their own ballot measure procedures, provided they were “less restrictive on the right to initiative or referendum” than state laws.”
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.