Title: ANTHONY GARDONIO, an in v GERALD GLENN FULLER, an

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA In Division ANTHONY GARDONIO, an individual ) Arizona Supreme Court person and registered voter in ) No. CV-06-0245-AP/EL Congressional District 6, ) ) Maricopa County Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Superior Court ) No. CV2006-009744 v. ) ) GERALD GLENN FULLER, an ) individual person and a ) MEMORANDUM DECISION candidate whose petition is the ) (Not for publication- subject of challenge; JAN BREWER, ) Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111) in her official capacity as the ) Arizona Secretary of State; ) HELEN PURCELL, in her official ) capacity as the Maricopa County ) Recorder; MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD ) OF SUPERVISORS, in its official ) capacity as the governing body ) for Maricopa County and its ) agencies; LAURA DEAN-LYTLE, in ) her official capacity as the ) Pinal County Recorder; and PINAL ) COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in ) its official capacity as the ) governing body for Pinal ) County and its agencies, ) ) Defendants/Appellants. ) ) __________________________________) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County The Honorable Anna M. Baca, Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P. Phoenix By Timothy J. Casey Attorneys for Anthony Gardonio Gerald Glenn Fuller, Pro Se Mesa 2 TERRI SKLADANY, ACTING ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL By Emma Lehner Mamaluy, Phoenix Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Jan Brewer ANDREW P. THOMAS, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY By Bruce P. White Phoenix Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Helen Purcell and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ________________________________________________________________ M c G r e g o r, Chief Justice ¶1 Anthony Gardonio sued Gerald Glenn Fuller, the Secretary of State, and government officials in Maricopa and Pinal County to keep Fuller’s name off the ballot for the 2006 Democratic primary election for Congressional District 6. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 16-351 (Supp. 2005). Gardonio prevailed before the superior court. Fuller appealed. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351.A. ¶2 Fuller appears to question Gardonio’s standing to challenge Fuller’s nomination. He notes that Gardonio is a Republican and that Fuller is seeking the Democratic nomination. Section 16-351.B permits “any elector” to file an action challenging the nomination of a candidate. And, in Archer v. Board of Supervisors, this Court wrote: “[A]ny elector or voter, regardless of his political party registration, has the responsibility to uphold the integrity of the nomination process, and therefore, may challenge the nomination or the 3 election of any person.” 166 Ariz. 106, 107, 800 P.2d 972, 973 (1990). Thus, Gardonio has standing to challenge Fuller’s nomination. ¶3 Fuller also argues that he was not properly served as required by A.R.S. § 16-351.D. That statute requires that “[i]mmediately upon receipt of process served upon the officer as agent for a person filing a nomination petition, the officer shall mail the process to the person and shall notify him by telephone of the filing of the action.” A.R.S. § 16-351.D. Fuller complains that he did not receive an “immediate notice” and that he was not notified by telephone. The superior court found that the State met the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 16- 351.D. Uncontradicted testimony established that the Secretary of State accepted service of Gardonio’s complaint at 4:46 p.m. on June 28, 2006. At 7:01 p.m., the State Election Director attempted to contact Fuller via telephone at the number Fuller had provided and, when he received no answer, left a voice-mail message notifying Fuller that a challenge had been filed. On the morning of June 29, 2006, the Director sent a copy of the complaint to Fuller via first-class mail. Fuller does not deny that he received the complaint from the Secretary of State in an envelope that was post marked June 29, 2006. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Fuller received proper service under A.R.S. § 16-351.D. 4 ¶4 Fuller also argues that the trial court improperly determined that Fuller submitted only 421 valid signatures, 41 fewer than the number required to place a candidate on the primary ballot. The trial court made its findings about the number of valid signatures after holding a lengthy evidentiary hearing. The testimony of the Manager of the Voter Registration Division of the Maricopa County Recorder and Elections Office and a certified copy of the Secretary of State’s findings provided substantial evidence that Fuller failed to submit 462 valid signatures, and Fuller presented no evidence to the contrary. This Court will affirm the trial court’s factual findings if the findings are “supported by reasonable evidence.” Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 251, 254 ¶ 10, 63 P.3d 282, 285 (2003). The trial court did not err in concluding that Fuller submitted only 421 valid signatures. ¶5 Finally, Fuller asserts that the trial court wrongfully denied his request for a continuance of the hearing held on July 6, 2006. The decision whether to grant a continuance falls within the discretion of the trial court. Burns v. Wheeler, 103 Ariz. 525, 529, 446 P.2d 925, 929 (1968). We have held in the past that “[i]n election matters, time is of the essence because disputes concerning election and petition issues must be initiated and resolved, allowing time for the preparation and printing of absentee voting ballots.” Harris v. 5 Purcell, 193 Ariz. 409, 412 ¶ 15, 973 P.2d 1166, 1169 (1998). Specifically, A.R.S. § 16-351.A requires the trial court to “hear and render a decision on the matter” within ten days of the day a challenge is filed. In light of these time constraints, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fuller’s motion for a continuance. ¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the superior court. _______________________________________ Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice CONCURRING: _______________________________________ Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice _______________________________________ Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice