Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 9
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-523 (2026)

Bond election

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

Questions on bond issues under this article shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the municipality. No bonds shall be issued without the assent of a majority of the qualified electors voting at an election held for that purpose as provided in this article.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1962–2014 · leading case: City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970). · cites it 4× “9, § 8; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9-523 , 35-452 (1956), § 35-455 (Supp.”
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co., 20 P.3d 590 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” The City responded, however, that the “outcome of the 1990 election is inconsequential, because that election involved the issuance of revenue bonds, which clearly requires an election under A.R.S. § 9-523,” and the City did not plan to fund this acquisition of AWC’s property…”
Clay v. Town of Gilbert, 773 P.2d 233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “In Kolodziejski , the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional former A.R.S. § 9-523, which required voters in a city bond election to be real property taxpayers of the city.”
Price v. City of Mesa, 339 P.3d 650 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Under AR.S. § 9-523, “[questions on bond issues under this article shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the municipality.”
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co., 509 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “See, 3 A.R.S. § 9-523, as amended 1970. In addition, the bonds, once issued, will be paid for out of monies received by the City from every Phoenix resident who pays a water bill.”
Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 370 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1962). ““§ 9-523. Bond election “Questions on bond issues under this article shall be submitted to the real property taxpayers who are in all respects qualified electors of the municipality.”
Kollar v. City of Tucson, 319 F. Supp. 482 (D. Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and for a declaratory judgment in their favor is denied.”
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.