SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA 

In Division

GARY GRIFFITH, ) Arizona Supreme Court 

 ) No. CV-10-0197-AP/EL 

 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 

 ) Graham County 

 v. ) Superior Court 

 ) No. CV2010-00136 

R. RENE BACA, an individual, ) 

Real Party in Interest; JUDY ) 

DICKERSON, in her official ) 

capacity as Graham County ) O P I N I O N

Elections Officer; GRAHAM COUNTY ) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WENDY JOHN, ) 

in her official capacity as ) 

Graham County Recorder, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants/Appellees. ) 

 ) 

__________________________________) 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Graham County 

The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge

AFFIRMED

________________________________________________________________

Gary Griffith Safford

In Propria Persona

GAMMAGE & BURNHAM PLC Phoenix

 By Lisa T. Hauser 

 Carolyn V. Williams

Attorneys for R. Rene Baca

________________________________________________________________

B A L E S, Justice 

¶1 Gary Griffith challenged the qualifications of R. Rene 

Baca as a candidate for justice of the peace, the superior court 

rejected the challenge, and Griffith appealed. We issued an 

order affirming the judgment of the superior court; this opinion 
2 

explains our reasoning. 

I. 

¶2 Griffith is justice of the peace in Graham County 

Justice Precinct No. 1 (JP1). He challenged Baca’s nominating 

petitions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

section 16-351 (2006) arguing that Baca was not a qualified 

elector or resident in JP1 when he filed his nomination papers. 

¶3 After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court made 

the following factual findings, which are not disputed here. 

Before May 4, 2010, Baca lived with his wife and two children in 

a house (the “Pheasant Lane house”) in Thatcher. This house is 

in Graham County Justice Precinct No. 2 (JP2). On April 28, 

2010, Baca was registered to vote at the Pheasant Lane house in 

Graham County election precinct 18. That day he submitted an 

early ballot for the May 18, 2010 statewide special election 

regarding Arizona’s sales tax. (Baca’s early ballot was later 

processed and counted in precinct 18.) On April 28, 2010, Baca 

also decided to run for justice of the peace in JP1. 

¶4 On May 3, 2010, Baca went to the Graham County 

Recorder’s Office and submitted a new voter registration form to 

change his party affiliation to “independent.” Baca listed his 

address as the Pheasant Lane house. The next day, when someone 

told him that he lived in JP2, Baca said he would “just move, 

then.” Baca had decided months earlier to move closer to 
3 

Safford and had been trying to sell the Pheasant Lane house. On 

May 4 or 5, Baca returned to the Graham County Recorder’s 

Office. Baca told the Recorder that he listed the “wrong 

address” on the form he filled out on May 3. The Recorder 

retrieved the form and instructed Baca to cross out the Pheasant 

Lane address and insert his new address. Baca listed as his new 

address the home of his mother and stepfather in Safford (the 

“Relation Street house”). The Relation Street house is in JP1. 

Baca did not re-sign the voter form. 

¶5 In early May 2010, Baca notified the U.S. Postal 

Service, his bank and credit card companies, Graham County, and 

others that his address had changed to the Relation Street 

house. The superior court found that Baca and his family left 

the Pheasant Street house on May 4 and lived at the Relation 

Street house until May 15, when they moved to another house, 

also in JP1, occupied by the parents of Baca’s wife. At the 

time of the trial, Baca and his family were still living with 

his in-laws. 

¶6 On May 5, Baca filed a political committee statement 

of organization identifying the Relation Street house as his 

residence. On May 14, he filed his nomination papers and an 

initial set of nominating petitions. Ultimately, Baca submitted 

petitions with 145 valid signatures, significantly more than the 

53 signatures required to qualify as a candidate. The petitions 
4 

identified the Relation Street house as his residence. 

¶7 The superior court found that Baca resided at the 

Relation Street house from May 4 to May 15, and thereafter 

resided with his in-laws at another house within JP1. The trial 

judge also rejected Griffith’s arguments that Baca was not an 

elector in JP1 because (1) he had not validly changed his 

address on the voter registration form to reregister in JP1, or 

(2) after Baca submitted his early ballot in JP2 on April 28, he 

could not reregister in JP1 until after May 18, 2010 – the date 

of the special election. 

II. 

¶8 Griffith makes two legal arguments before this Court. 

He argues that Baca could not change his voter registration to a 

different precinct merely by striking out the former address and 

interlining a new one without re-signing the form under oath. 

Alternatively, he argues that Baca could not be registered 

simultaneously in JP2 for purposes of casting his early ballot 

for the May 18 special election and in JP1 for purposes of 

submitting his nomination papers on May 14. Griffith does not 

challenge the superior court’s conclusion that Baca was a 

resident of JP1 as of May 4. 

¶9 The key statute is A.R.S. § 16-311(A) (2006), which 

provides that “[a] candidate for public office shall be a 

qualified elector at the time of filing and shall reside in the 
5 

county, district or precinct which the person proposes to 

represent.” Cf. Ariz. Const. art. 7, § 15 (providing that a 

candidate “shall be a qualified elector of the political 

division or municipality in which such person shall be 

elected”). A “qualified elector” is a person “qualified to 

register to vote pursuant to § 16-101 and . . . properly 

registered to vote.” A.R.S. § 16-121(A) (2006). 

¶10 In their briefing before this Court, Griffith and Baca 

interpret § 16-311(A) to require candidates like Baca to be 

registered to vote in the relevant precinct (and therefore a 

resident of that precinct) when they file nomination papers. We 

will assume for purposes of this case that this interpretation 

is correct, although the language of § 16-311(A) arguably could 

support a different reading. Cf. A.R.S. § 11-402 (2001) 

(providing that “[a] person shall not be eligible for a county 

office . . . unless he is, at the time of his election or 

appointment . . . an elector of the county or precinct in which 

the duties of the office are to be exercised”); Nicol v. 

Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 208, 473 P.2d 455 (1970) (construing § 

11-402 to require residency within precinct at time of election 

for justice of the peace candidates). 

¶11 We are not persuaded by Griffith’s argument that Baca 

did not validly change his registration because he did not 

submit a new voter registration form with the Relation Street 
6 

address or re-sign the previous form. Under A.R.S. § 16-135 

(2006), an elector who moves within the same county may change 

his registration address by: (1) reregistering at the new 

address; (2) voting a provisional ballot on election day at the 

appropriate polling place by presenting identification showing 

the new address and affirming the new address in writing; or (3) 

correcting the address on a written request for an early ballot 

that includes the elector’s new address, affirmation, and 

signature. 

¶12 Baca reregistered at the Relation Street address when, 

consistent with the instructions of the Recorder, he corrected 

his address on the previous form and resubmitted it to her, 

still bearing his signature and acknowledgement that false 

registration is a class 6 felony. Because Baca corrected his 

signed form in the Recorder’s presence and returned it directly 

to her, we agree with the superior court that he reaffirmed his 

signature on the form with the new address. Although it might 

have been preferable for Baca to have completed a new 

registration form, the signature requirements of A.R.S. §§ 16-

121.01 (2006) and 16-152 (2006) ensure that the registrant is 

correctly identified and recognizes the consequences of 

submitting false information. Those purposes were met here. 

¶13 We also are not persuaded by Griffith’s argument that 

Baca could not reregister in JP1 before the May 18 special 
7 

election once he submitted an early ballot in JP2. Arizona 

statutes do not preclude voters from changing their registration 

pending an election in which they submit an early ballot. 

Instead, if an elector requests an early ballot and moves to a 

different precinct before election day, the elector may still 

reregister to reflect the change of address. In that event, the 

statutes preclude the elector from casting two votes in the same 

election by providing that any provisional ballot in the new 

precinct will not be counted if the elector has already voted. 

See A.R.S. § 16-135(D). An elector can be registered to vote in 

a precinct without necessarily being eligible to cast a vote 

there in a particular election. See A.R.S. § 16-120 (2006) 

(generally requiring elector to be registered within a voting 

district twenty-nine days preceding an election in order to be 

eligible to vote). Thus, Baca’s early vote in JP2 for the May 

18 statewide election did not prevent him from reregistering on 

May 4 or 5 in JP1; it merely prevented him from voting again in 

the same election. 

III. 

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the superior court. 

 _____________________________________

 W. Scott Bales, Justice
8 

CONCURRING: 

_____________________________________ 

Andrew D. Hurwitz, Vice Chief Justice 

_____________________________________

A. John Pelander, Justice