A. Except during the final year of the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office, whether holding by election or appointment, may offer himself for nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office.
B. An incumbent of a salaried elected office shall be deemed to have offered himself for nomination or election to a salaried local, state or federal office on the filing of a nomination paper pursuant to section 16-311, subsection A. An incumbent of a salaried elected office is not deemed to have offered himself for nomination or election to an office by making a formal declaration of candidacy for the office.
C. The resignation of the incumbent elective officer duly filed in writing with the officer, board or commission having jurisdiction of the office, if not accepted within ten days, shall be deemed to have become effective as of the date of filing.
D. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a person whose resignation from office has become effective from qualifying as a candidate for another office during the unexpired portion of the term affected by the resignation, nor shall it apply to any incumbent elective officer who seeks reelection to the same office or to any other public office during the final year of the term to which the person has been so elected.
E. A person violating any provision of this section is guilty of misfeasance in office, and the office held by such person shall be declared vacant.
Notes of Decisions
Shirley v. Superior Court in & for Cnty. of Apache, 513 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 12× “he motion for preliminary injunction by Minyard was granted by the Superior Court on the grounds that (1) Minyard did not have any other adequate remedy at law; (2) Minyard had established a prima facie case that he would prevail on the merits of the matter since: (a) petitioner…”
State Ex Rel. Pickrell v. Senner, 375 P.2d 728 (Ariz. 1962).
· cites it 11× “Senner, as Arizona Corporation Commissioner, be declared vacant for violation of A.R.S. § 38-296. This statute reads : “A.”
Pacion v. Thomas, 236 P.3d 395 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 7× “Pima County Att’y 09-02 (declining, after attorney general recused himself and assigned matter to Pima County Attorney, to institute action against Huppenthal for a violation of § 38-296). ¶ 18 In any event, nothing in our opinion today conflicts with § 38-296 or prevents its…”
Whitney v. Bolin, 330 P.2d 1003 (Ariz. 1958).
· cites it 5× “However, respondent while admitting that he had refused to designate the office of Judge of Division 2 of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, as an office for which candidates were to be nominated at the primary election on September 9, 1958, urged that § 38-296…”
Laos v. Arnold, 685 P.2d 111 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Prior to its amendment A.R.S. § 38-296 provided that no incumbent was eligible for nomination or election to another office and that nomination papers from an incumbent for another office could not be accepted.”
Holley v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1970).
“2d 1003 ], supra, that A.R.S. § 38-296 as applied to a Superior Court Judge seeking the office of Supreme Court Justice, which is a state constitutionally created office, amounted to an additional qualification to those established by the state constitution.”
Laos v. Arnold, 685 P.2d 115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “” In the exercise of its duty under Article 22, § 21 to “enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution,” the legislature has adopted, among other statutes, A.R.S. § 38-296, which provides: “A. No incumbent of an elective office, whether…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-296(A) — 2 cases
Pacion v. Thomas, 236 P.3d 395 (Ariz. 2010).
“Pima County Att’y 09-02 (declining, after attorney general recused himself and assigned matter to Pima County Attorney, to institute action against Huppenthal for a violation of § 38-296). ¶ 18 In any event, nothing in our opinion today conflicts with § 38-296 or prevents its…”
Laos v. Arnold, 685 P.2d 111 (Ariz. 1984).
“Prior to its amendment A.R.S. § 38-296 provided that no incumbent was eligible for nomination or election to another office and that nomination papers from an incumbent for another office could not be accepted.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-296(B) — 1 case
Pacion v. Thomas, 236 P.3d 395 (Ariz. 2010).
“Pima County Att’y 09-02 (declining, after attorney general recused himself and assigned matter to Pima County Attorney, to institute action against Huppenthal for a violation of § 38-296). ¶ 18 In any event, nothing in our opinion today conflicts with § 38-296 or prevents its…”
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.