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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-201 (2026)

Officers subject to recall; number of petitioners

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

A. Every public officer holding an elective office, either by election, appointment or retention, is subject to recall from such office by the qualified electors of the electoral district from which candidates are elected to that office. Such electoral district may include the whole state. A number of qualified electors equaling twenty-five percent of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all the candidates for the office held by the officer, even if the officer was not elected at that election, divided by the number of offices that were being filled at that election, by recall petition, may demand the officer's recall. For a public officer elected at a nonpartisan election, the last preceding general election is the last preceding election at which the public officer who is the subject of the recall was declared elected.

B. In the case of a public officer holding office in a newly created division or district of an elective office, either by election or appointment, a number of qualified electors equaling twenty-five percent of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all those who were candidates for other divisions or districts of the same office held by the officer in that county or city divided by the number of offices that were being filled at that election, by recall petition, may demand the officer's recall.

C. If the elective officer to be recalled was appointed to the office or was deemed elected after an election was canceled due to the absence of opposing candidates as provided in section 15-424, 15-1442, 16-822, 48-802, 48-1012, 48-1208, 48-1404, 48-1908, 48-2010, 48-2107 or 48-2208, the recall petition must be signed by the number of qualified electors that is equal to at least ten percent of the number of active registered voters in the jurisdiction or district represented by that elective officer as determined on the date of the last general election.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1973–2012 · leading case: Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett, 265 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett, 265 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2011). “Arizonans acquiesced to the President’s request, but less than one year later, they overwhelmingly voted to amend the constitution to once again subject all public officers to recall.”
Johnson v. Maehling, 597 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 19-201 contains essentially the same provision.”
Citizens' Comm. for the Recall of Williams v. Marston, 507 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1973). · cites it 2× “, and § 19-201 A.R.S. The complaint also alleged that the committee intended to file these petitions on or about 2 January 1973, though at the writing of this opinion this has not been done.”
Clarke v. Ross, 57 V.I. 737 (D.V.I. 2012). “610 (2012) (25%); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-201 (A) (2012) (25%); Cal.”
Mecham Recall Comm., Inc. v. Corbin, 745 P.2d 950 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “In July of 1987 when the Committee applied for recall petitions pursuant to the procedures set forth in A.R.S. §§ 19-201 to -216, Rose Mofford, the Secretary of State, requested an opinion from the Attorney General as to the application of the campaign contribution and…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-201(A): 1 case
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett, 265 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2011). “Arizonans acquiesced to the President’s request, but less than one year later, they overwhelmingly voted to amend the constitution to once again subject all public officers to recall.”
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.