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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-202 (2026)

Recall petition; limitations; subsequent petition

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

A. A recall petition shall not be circulated against any officer until the officer has held office for six months, except that a petition may be filed against a member of the legislature at any time after five days from the beginning of the first session after the member's election. The commencement of a subsequent term in the same office does not renew the six month period delaying the circulation of a recall petition.

B. After one recall petition and election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which the officer was elected unless the petitioners signing the petition first, at the time of application for the subsequent recall petition, pay into the public treasury from which such election expenses were paid all expenses of the preceding election.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1941–2010 · leading case: Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Olson, 230 P.3d 713 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Olson, 230 P.3d 713 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “¶ 7 To decide the remaining issues before us, we must determine the meaning of essentially identical provisions of the Aizona Constitution and § 19-202. The interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions raises questions of law, which we review de novo.”
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). “…pay into the public treasury from which such election expenses were paid all expenses of the preceding election.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-202 (B).”
Hinton v. Hotchkiss, 174 P.2d 749 (Ariz. 1946). · cites it 2× “* * Section 19-202, A.C.A.1939. If appellants’ construction is tenable, then the forcible detainer statute must itself be regarded as having been amended, since the interposition of a counter-claim or cross-complaint in a forcible detainer action and a trial of such a…”
State v. Lane, 211 P.2d 821 (Ariz. 1949). “Section 44-705, supra, in no way invades the field of substantive law but is purely a rule of procedure promulgated by the supreme court pursuant to the provisions of chapter 8, section 1, Session Laws of 1939, section 19-202, A.C.A. 1939. The constitution, while it says that no…”
State v. Superior Court of Cochise Cnty., 367 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1961). “In refusing to grant a writ of prohibition to the county attorney this court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to compel production “if the order in question were found to be essential to the due administration of justice * * 7 In the interim between Mahoney and Polley…”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State, 177 P.2d 823 (Ariz. 1947). “1939 as section 19-202). This section reads as follows: “Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure.”
Byrd v. Peterson, 186 P.2d 955 (Ariz. 1947). “’ Section 19-202, A.C.A.1939. If appellants’ construction is tenable, then the forcible detainer statute must itself be regarded as having been amended, since the interposition of a counter-claim or cross complaint in a forcible detainer action and a trial of such a cross…”
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “¶7 To decide the remaining issues before us, we must determine the meaning of essentially identical provisions of the Arizona Constitution and § 19-202. The interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions raises questions of law, which we review de novo.”
Sw. Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Shafer, 111 P.2d 625 (Ariz. 1941). “The present rules of civil procedure were adopted by this court under the authority of section 19-202, Arizona Code, 1939. The purpose of granting this power to the court was stated by the legislature to be, among other things, “promoting the speedy determination of litigation…”
State v. Fling, 210 P.2d 221 (Ariz. 1949). “Section 1, chapter 8, Session Laws 1939; section 19-202 A.C.A. 1939; Burney v. Lee, 59 Ariz.”
Chitwood v. Eyman, 248 P.2d 884 (Ariz. 1952). “It must be remembered that by the provisions of Chapter 8, Laws of 1939, now appearing in Section 19-202 to 19-204, the legislature conferred upon the Supreme Court the right to promulgate rules regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-202(B) — 2 cases
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Olson, 230 P.3d 713 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 7 To decide the remaining issues before us, we must determine the meaning of essentially identical provisions of the Aizona Constitution and § 19-202. The interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions raises questions of law, which we review de novo.”
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶7 To decide the remaining issues before us, we must determine the meaning of essentially identical provisions of the Arizona Constitution and § 19-202. The interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions raises questions of law, which we review de novo.”
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.