SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA 

 

STACI BURK, a single woman, ) Arizona Supreme Court 

 ) No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 

 ) Pinal County 

 v. ) Superior Court 

 ) No. S1100CV202001869 

DOUG DUCEY, in his official ) 

capacity as Governor of the ) 

State of Arizona, et al., ) FILED: 01/06/2021 

 ) 

 Defendants/Appellees. ) 

__________________________________) 

AMENDED DECISION ORDER

A panel consisting of Chief Justice Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice 

Timmer, Justice Gould, and Justice Lopez has considered this election 

appeal. The Court has considered the record, the trial court’s 

December 15, 2020 minute entry, and the briefing of Appellant Staci 

Burk and Appellees Maricopa County and the Secretary of State. 

The Secretary duly certified the statewide canvass and, on 

November 30, 2020, she and the Governor signed the certificate of 

ascertainment for presidential electors, certifying that in Arizona 

the Biden Electors received the highest number of votes cast and were 

duly elected Presidential Electors. 

Under A.R.S. § 16-673, an elector contesting a state election 

“shall, within five days after completion of the canvass of the 

election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of 

state or by the governor, file in the court ... a statement in 
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

Page 2 of 6

writing” that sets forth “[t]he name and residence of the party 

contesting the election, and that he is an elector of the state and 

county in which he resides,” along with “[t]he name of the person 

whose right to the office is contested,” “[t]he office the election 

to which is contested,” and “[t]he particular grounds of the 

contest.” The statute also requires, in subsection B, “The statement 

shall be verified by the affidavit of the contestor that he believes 

the matters and things therein contained are true.” 

The contest here failed, first, because Appellant is not a 

qualified elector under A.R.S. § 16-121(A). Arizona law provides 

that a person who is qualified to register to vote and who has 

registered to vote is “deemed a qualified elector for any purpose for 

which such qualification is required by law,” which would include 

bringing a challenge under A.R.S. §§ 16-672 and -673. (Emphasis 

added). See Kitt v. Holbert, 30 Ariz. 397, 400 (1926) (“It is ... 

obvious that the statement of contest must set forth specifically 

that the contestant is such elector.”). And although Appellant 

argues that the cancellation of her voter registration was 

questionable, she admits that she was well aware before the election 

that she would not be able to vote in the general election. There is 

nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted 

the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter 

registration. An election challenge under A.R.S. § 16-672 is not the 

proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration. We therefore affirm
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

Page 3 of 6

the trial court ruling granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss 

because Appellant was not a qualified elector who was statutorily 

authorized to bring an action under A.R.S. § 16-673. 

Second, Appellant failed to file a timely contest that complied 

with the election challenge statutes. Because the time challenges in 

election statutes are to be strictly construed, courts have 

repeatedly held that the five-day limit for statutory election 

challenges means five calendar days. See Smith v. Bd. of Dirs., Hosp. 

Dist. No. 1, 148 Ariz. 598, 599 (App. 1985) (election contest) and 

Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 20 (1978) (nomination petition 

challenge); accord Bohart v. Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 482 ¶ 6 

(2006)(noting “the requirement that time elements in election 

statutes be strictly construed” in a nomination petition appeal). 

Notwithstanding the fact that the election contest statutes do not 

include intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, “[t]he 

court will continue to adhere to the rule that if the fifth day for 

filing an election appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or state 

holiday, a notice of appeal will be deemed timely if filed on the 

next business day.” Bohart, 213 Ariz. at 482 ¶ 7 n.2. Here, the 

canvass was completed and declared on November 30, 2020; the five-day 

deadline expired on Saturday, December 5, 2020, and a statutorily 

compliant contest therefore needed to be filed no later than Monday, 

December 7, 2020. Although Appellant filed her contest on December 

7, it was not verified by the Appellant’s affidavit.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

Page 4 of 6

Appellant argues that subsequent amendments cured any defect. 

However, almost a century ago this Court held that “we are 

constrained both by reason and authority to hold that a statement of 

contest in an election contest may not be amended, after the time 

prescribed by law for filing such contest has expired, by adding 

thereto averments of a jurisdictional nature.” Kitt, 30 Ariz. at 

406. Appellant asks the Court to excuse the statutory deadlines 

because of personal circumstances, and she claims that enforcing the 

statutory deadlines would “suppress this challenge on technicalities 

and procedure.” However, election contests are “purely statutory and 

dependent upon statutory provisions for their conduct.” Fish v. 

Redeker, 2 Ariz. App. 602, 605 (1966). These technicalities are the 

laws that govern election contests. See Donaghey v. Att’y Gen., 120 

Ariz. 93, 95 (1978)(stating, “The failure of a contestant to an 

election to strictly comply with the statutory requirements is fatal 

to his right to have the election contested,” and observing, “The 

rationale for requiring strict compliance with the time provisions 

for initiating a contest is the strong public policy favoring 

stability and finality of election results”). Likewise, “we are not 

permitted to read into” the election challenge statute “what is not 

there,” which would include the ability to file an untimely amendment 

to meet the statutory verification requirement. Grounds v. Lawe, 67 

Ariz. 176, 187 (1948). See also Kitt, 30 Ariz. at 400 (rejecting the 

contestor’s attempt to amend the statement of contest to include an 
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

Page 5 of 6

allegation that he was an “elector of the particular political 

subdivision from which the officer whose election is contested is 

chosen,” because “the statement of contest must set forth 

specifically that the contestant is such elector,” notwithstanding 

the contestor’s allegation that he was a citizen and resident of the 

political subdivision). 

Appellant correctly notes that the contest was not dismissed on 

substantive grounds. We affirm the dismissal based on the lack of 

standing and the failure to file a timely verified election contest. 

We deny Appellees’ request for attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-349

because the statutes are unclear about who is an “elector” that can 

bring a challenge and the deadline to file the contest. 

DATED this 6th day of January, 2021. 

_____/s/_______________

Robert Brutinel

Chief Justice
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0349-AP/EL 

Page 6 of 6

TO:

Staci Burk

Brett William Johnson

Colin P Ahler

Derek Flint

Ian R Joyce

Roopali H Desai

D Andrew Gaona

Kristen M Yost

Thomas P Liddy

Emily M Craiger

Joseph I Vigil

Joseph Branco

Joseph Eugene La Rue

Kevin D White

Rebecca Padilla

Amanda Stanford

Kristi Youtsey Ruiz