SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA 

In Division 

ROYCE JENKINS, ) Arizona Supreme Court 

 ) No. CV-08-0208-AP/EL 

 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 

 ) Maricopa County 

 v. ) Superior Court 

 ) No. CV2008-013774 

ALBERT HALE; JAN BREWER, in her ) 

official capacity as Arizona ) 

Secretary of State; COCONINO ) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; NAVAJO ) O P I N I O N 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; ) 

APACHE COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

SUPERVISORS; MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD ) 

OF SUPERVISORS; YAVAPAI COUNTY ) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; CANDACE D. ) 

OWENS, in her official capacity ) 

as Coconino County Recorder; ) 

LAURETTE JUSTMAN, in her ) 

official capacity as Navajo ) 

County Recorder; LENORA Y. ) 

JOHNSON, in her official ) 

capacity as Apache County ) 

Recorder; JOAN McCALL, in her ) 

official capacity as Mohave ) 

County Recorder; and ANA ) 

WAYMAN-TRUJILLO, in her official ) 

capacity as Yavapai County ) 

Recorder, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants/Appellees. ) 

_________________________________ ) 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

Hon. Joseph B. Heilman, Judge 

AFFIRMED

________________________________________________________________ 

CANTELME & BROWN, P.L.C. Phoenix 

 By David J. Cantelme 

 D. Aaron Brown 

 Paul R. Neil 

Attorneys for Royce Jenkins 
- 2 - 

PERKINS, COIE, BROWN, & BAIN, P.A. Phoenix 

 By Paul F. Eckstein 

 Daniel C. Barr 

 Rhonda L. Barnes 

 Craig A. Morgan 

 James E. Barton, II 

Attorneys for Albert Hale 

TERRY GODDARD, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix 

 By Mary R. O’Grady, Solicitor General 

 Tanja K. Shipman, Assistant Attorney General 

Attorneys for Janice K. Brewer 

________________________________________________________________ 

B E R C H, Vice Chief Justice 

¶1 We have been asked to decide whether an elector’s 

signature on a nominating petition is invalid as a matter of law 

if the elector provides a post office box address in the address 

portion of the signature line. We hold that it is not. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Albert Hale seeks his party’s nomination for state 

senator from Legislative District Two. To qualify for the 

primary ballot, Hale needs 522 valid signatures on his 

nominating petitions. Hale submitted eighty petition sheets 

that contained more than 800 signatures from electors in Apache, 

Coconino, and Navajo Counties. 

¶3 Royce Jenkins, a qualified elector, challenged 513 

signatures: 321 from Apache County, 159 from Navajo County, and 

33 from Coconino County. Of the challenged signatures, the 

Apache County Recorder validated 227 signatures and the Navajo 

County Recorder validated two signatures. The Coconino County 
- 3 - 

Recorder found every challenged signature to be invalid. In 

total, the county recorders rejected 284 signatures. But the 

recorders differed in their validating methodologies: The 

Navajo and Coconino County Recorders invalidated signatures that 

contained only a post office box address; the Apache County 

Recorder, on the other hand, did not. If the Apache County 

Recorder could verify that the signer was a registered voter, 

the signature was approved. 

¶4 On June 27, 2008, the superior court conducted a 

hearing. The trial judge found that Hale’s petitions contained 

523 valid signatures1

 and granted Hale’s motion for judgment as a 

matter of law. Jenkins appealed to this Court, and by an order 

dated July 7, 2008, we affirmed. This opinion explains our 

reasoning. 

¶5 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the 

Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 16-351(A) (2006). 

II. DISCUSSION 

¶6 In Arizona, candidates seeking placement on primary 

election ballots must gather signatures from qualified electors 

and file them with the appropriate elections official. A.R.S. 

 

1

 There is some discrepancy in the record whether Hale 

submitted 523 or 533 valid signatures. Because it makes no 

difference to the resolution of this case, we treat the trial 

court’s finding as correct. 
- 4 - 

§ 16-322(A). These signatures are meant to ensure that 

candidates have “adequate support from eligible voters to 

warrant being placed on the ballot.” Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 

496, 498, ¶ 15, 144 P.3d 510, 512 (2006). 

¶7 The signatures must be collected on “nomination 

petitions,” A.R.S. § 16-314(B), which must conform to certain 

enumerated statutory requirements, § 16-315(A). At the center 

of this controversy is the requirement that the petitions be 

divided into four columns bearing the following headings: 

signature; printed name; actual residence address or 

description of place of residence, city, town or post 

office; and date of signing. 

§ 16-315(A)(4) (emphasis added). Once signatures have been 

collected, the petition circulator must “verify that . . . in 

his belief each signer was a qualified elector who resides at 

the address given as the signer’s residence on the date 

indicated . . . .” § 16-321(D). 

¶8 Any qualified elector may challenge a candidate’s 

petitions. See § 16-351(A) (regarding nomination challenges). 

The challenger may question the candidate’s qualifications for 

office, § 16-351(B), or may test the validity of the nominating 

petitions or the signatures on the forms themselves, § 16-

351(A)-(B). As a general rule, nominating petitions that are 

“circulated, signed and filed” are presumptively valid, Miller 

v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pinal County, 175 Ariz. 296, 301, 855 
- 5 - 

P.2d 1357, 1362 (1993); Bd. of Supervisors of Maricopa County v. 

Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 502, 504, 446 P.2d 231, 233 (1968), 

and the challenger bears the burden to prove, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that a signer is not a qualified elector, 

see Blaine v. McSpadden, 111 Ariz. 147, 149, 526 P.2d 390, 392 

(1974). 

¶9 Whether petition signatures are invalid if signers 

provide a post office box address implicates two questions. 

First, what address information did the legislature intend 

petition signers to provide on the nominating petition? Second, 

if the legislature intended signers to provide either a 

residence address or a description of the residence location, is 

a signature invalid as a matter of law if the signer provides a 

post office box address? 

¶10 Our primary task in answering these questions is to 

discern the legislature’s intent. Clifton v. Decillis, 187 

Ariz. 112, 114, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996). The statute’s text is 

the best evidence of that intent, but we “will examine the 

policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the 

context, the language, and the historical background” if 

necessary to help us determine a statute’s meaning. Lubin, 213 

Ariz. at 498, ¶ 14, 144 P.3d at 512 (quoting Moreno v. Jones, 

213 Ariz. 94, 98, ¶ 24, 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006)). These 

questions present issues of law, which we review de novo. 
- 6 - 

Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 101-02, ¶ 40, 139 P.3d at 619-20. 

A. What Address Information Must Signers Provide? 

¶11 We must first determine what address information the 

legislature intended signers to provide on nominating petitions. 

Jenkins argues that the text of § 16-315(A)(4) requires either 

an “actual residence address” or a “description of [a] place of 

residence,” and that a post office box is neither. Jenkins also 

argues that other statutory language shows the legislature’s 

intent that signers provide a residence address. Finally, 

Jenkins urges us to construe “post office” to exclude post 

office boxes because the statute seeks to facilitate the 

election official’s determination of whether the signer is a 

qualified elector, and a post office box number does not further 

that purpose. 

¶12 Hale, on the other hand, argues that § 16-315(A)(4) is 

written in the disjunctive and that “post office” is an 

alternative to “actual residence address” or “description of 

place of residence, city, [or] town,” and, therefore, it invites 

signers to provide post office box addresses. 

¶13 Although the parties briefed and argued the case under 

§ 16-315(A)(4), that section does not control the inquiry before 

us. It does, however, provide some guidance. Section 16-

315(A)(4) sets forth the requirements for the form of the 

petition, which the petitions at issue in this case clearly 
- 7 - 

satisfy. But § 16-315(A) does not specify what the signers of 

the petition must put in each column on the form. This lack of 

statutory guidance differs from the procedure for initiative, 

referendum, and recall elections, for which specific statutes 

dictate the information signers must provide on the petition 

forms. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(9) (requiring 

initiative and referendum petitions to “contain” a declaration, 

address, and date of signing). Compare A.R.S. §§ 19-101, -102 

(2002) (describing form of petition), with A.R.S. § 19-112(A) 

(2002) (requiring signers of initiative and referendum petitions 

to write, “in the appropriate spaces” on the initiative or 

referendum petition, a residence address or a description of 

residence location), and A.R.S. § 19-205(A) (2002) (same for 

recall petitions). Section 16-315(A) therefore does not control 

the disposition of this case because the nominating petitions 

were prepared exactly as § 16-315(A) requires. 

¶14 Nonetheless, the format required by § 16-315(A)(4), 

when considered with other provisions of the election statutes, 

provides guidance by suggesting that the legislature intended 

for signers to provide their residence address or a description 

of the residence location. Considered alone, § 16-315(A)(4) 

does not clearly require this information; the column heading 

indicates that a signer may provide either (1) an “actual 

residence address” or (2) a “description of [a] place of 
- 8 - 

residence, city, town or post office.” This language arguably 

invites the signer to provide a “description of [a] . . . post 

office” that is distinct from one’s “place of residence.” 

¶15 Other statutes, such as A.R.S. §§ 16-315(B)(4) and 16-

321(D), however, shed light on the information desired. Section 

16-315(B)(4) specifically requires the petition to include the 

circulator’s “actual residence address or, if no street address, 

a description of residence location.” We see no reason that the 

legislature would desire different address information from 

circulators than from signers since the purpose of the address 

requirement is to determine whether the signer is a qualified 

elector and whether the circulator is qualified to register to 

vote. 

¶16 Section 16-321(D) similarly suggests that an actual 

residence location was desired. That section requires the 

circulator to verify that the signer “resides at the address 

given as the signer’s residence.” The “address given” evidently 

refers to the information beside the signer’s name on the 

petition form. A circulator could not believe that a person 

resides at a post office box. 

¶17 Instead, we believe that the legislature intended the 

signer to identify, on the nominating petition form, the 

signer’s actual residence address or some description of its 

location, whether by reference to “[a] place,” or to the 
- 9 - 

relevant “city, town or post office.”2

B. Are Signatures That Provide a Post Office Box Instead of a 

Residence Address Automatically Invalid? 

¶18 Having determined that the legislature intended signers 

to provide their residence address or a description of the 

residence location, we must nevertheless determine whether 

signatures must be invalidated if signers provide a post office 

box address. We conclude that they need not be. 

¶19 Unlike statutes governing initiative, referendum, and 

recall petitions, no statute directs election officials to 

invalidate nominating petition signatures that contain a post 

office box address.3

 See A.R.S. § 19-121.01(A)(1), (A)(3)(b). 

 

2

 Legislative clarification of the statutory requirements for 

signatures on candidate nominating petitions would be helpful to 

both candidates and election officials. In other contexts, the 

legislature has clearly indicated that a post office box is 

distinct from a signer’s residence address or a description of 

the location of residence. See A.R.S. §§ 19-101(A), -102(A) 

(describing form of petition in referendum and initiative 

petitions to include separate columns for “[a]ctual address” 

(or, if no street address, a description of residence location) 

and for “Arizona post office address”); § 16-152(A)(4) 

(describing voter registration form to permit “post office 

address” for a mailing address as distinct from required address 

of actual place of residence or description of residence 

location). 

3

 Our analysis deals only with nominating petitions. 

Initiative, referendum, or recall petitions are governed by 

different statutes, which require the Secretary of State to 

disqualify signatures “[i]f the residence address or the 

description of residence location is missing.” A.R.S. §§ 19-

121.01(A)(3)(b), -208.01 (2002). They also require the county 

recorder, as part of the random sampling procedure, to 
- 10 - 

We therefore look to the purpose supporting Arizona’s nominating 

petition statutes to determine whether these signatures should 

be disqualified as a matter of law. Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 

316, 320, 271 P.2d 472, 474 (1954) (observing that it is “the 

intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must 

control”). Nominating petitions are designed to “[weed] out the 

cranks, the publicity seekers, [and] the frivolous candidates 

who have no intention of going through with the campaign . . . . 

yet not keep out those who are serious in their efforts and have 

a reasonable number of supporters.” Clifton, 187 Ariz. at 115, 

927 P.2d at 775 (quoting Adams, 77 Ariz. at 320, 271 P.2d at 

475) (first alteration in Clifton). We require signers to 

supply their name, address, and date of signing to “provide a 

means of identifying [the signer] as a person entitled to sign 

such [a] petition and prevent forgeries of names, as well as to 

indicate the precinct in which he lives.” Adams, 77 Ariz. at 

321, 271 P.2d at 475. “[T]he purpose for requiring the address 

of the petitioner is to afford a convenient method of checking 

whether [the person signing a petition] is a qualified elector.” 

Whitman v. Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 224, 125 P.2d 445, 452 (1942), 

overruled in part on other grounds by Renck v. Superior Court, 

66 Ariz. 320, 327, 187 P.2d 656, 660 (1947). Indeed, “[t]he 

 

disqualify signatures if “[n]o residence address or description 

of residence location is provided.” §§ 19-121.02(A)(1), -208.02. 
- 11 - 

ultimate substantive question . . . is whether the signer is in 

all respects a qualified elector, and all the requirements in 

regard to residence, date of signing, verification and the like 

are to assist interested parties to ascertain this fact.” Id.

at 225, 125 P.2d at 453.4

¶20 We have analyzed whether nominating petition signatures 

are invalid as a matter of law if signers’ information varies 

from what the legislature intended the signers to provide. In 

Clark v. Pima County Board of Supervisors, 128 Ariz. 193, 195, 

624 P.2d 871, 873 (1981), for example, we addressed whether 

signatures that varied from the affidavits of registration were 

invalid because, at the time, § 16-315(A) provided that 

nominating petitions contain a column entitled “signature as 

registered.” We found that variances did not render the 

signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor 

variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature: 

 We believe that the Legislature intended to 

require stricter adherence to form by the use of the 

clear language of A.R.S. § 16-315(A), but we do not 

believe that such action means that minor variations 

 

4

 We reject Jenkin’s argument that Whitman applies only to 

cases involving initiatives and referenda, and not to those 

involving nominating petitions. We are mindful of the 

differences between initiatives, referenda, and nominating 

petitions, but we have looked to Whitman on several occasions in 

the context of nominating petitions. See, e.g., Pacuilla v. 

Cochise County Bd. of Supervisors, 186 Ariz. 367, 368, 923 P.2d 

833, 834 (1996) (noting that “the reasoning [of Whitman] extends 

to the power to nominate persons for office”); Clark, 128 Ariz. 

at 195, 624 P.2d at 873 (same). 
- 12 - 

in name signing would disqualify an otherwise valid 

signature from consideration . . . . 

 When the signature appearing on a nominating 

petition is not exactly the same as that on the 

affidavit of registration, a prima facie case is made 

by the contestant that the signer is not a registered 

voter, but the proponent of the petition is free to 

make an affirmative showing that the signature is in 

fact that of a properly registered voter. If the 

trier of fact is satisfied with the showing made by 

the proponent, the signature should be accepted. 

Id.

¶21 We find the reasoning in Clark instructive. As in the 

case before us, Clark dealt not with whether the petition form 

itself complied with § 16-315(A), but with whether the signers 

completed the form in accordance with the legislature’s intent. 

Providing a post office box address, which is not what the 

legislature intended, see supra ¶¶ 11-17, is not unlike signing 

the nominating petition with a signature that differs from the 

name “as registered.” In light of the statutory purpose of 

determining whether signers are qualified electors, we find it 

difficult to see how a post office box address renders a 

signature invalid per se if an elections official can verify 

that the signer is a qualified elector. In some instances, the 

election official may even have the post office box address on 

file. See A.R.S. § 16-152(A)(4) (describing registration form 

to allow registrants to provide a “post office address” as a 

mailing address). Invalidating signatures of duly registered 

electors does not further the purpose, intent, or spirit of 
- 13 - 

Arizona’s nominating petition statutes. See Whitman, 59 Ariz. 

at 225, 125 P.2d at 453. 

¶22 Of course, providing a post office box address is not 

without consequence. If an elector challenges the signatures of 

those petition signers who failed to provide a residence address 

or a description of the residence location, the presumption of 

validity of those signatures disappears and the absence of the 

information provides a prima facie showing that the signers are 

not qualified electors. The proponent, however, may demonstrate 

to the trier of fact that the challenged signatures are those of 

qualified electors. If the trier accepts the proponent’s 

showing, the signatures are deemed valid and should be counted 

unless some other ground requires disqualification. 

¶23 Here, Jenkins challenged the signatures on various 

grounds, but primarily on the ground that signers provided a 

post office box address. As to those signatures, the absence of 

a residence address or a description of the residence location 

displaced the presumption of validity, and the burden shifted to 

Hale to re-establish the validity of the signatures. Hale 

offered evidence from the county recorders’ review of the 

signatures. In Apache County, the recorder verified that many 

of the signers who provided post office box addresses were, in 

fact, registered voters. Jenkins presented no evidence to rebut 

Hale’s evidence that the signers were qualified electors. The 
- 14 - 

superior court therefore appropriately counted those signatures. 

See A.R.S. § 16-121.01. 

III. CONCLUSION 

¶24 Because the number of valid signatures exceeded the 522 

signatures Hale needed to be placed on the primary ballot, we 

affirm the judgment of the superior court. 

 _______________________________________ 

 Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice 

CONCURRING: 

___________________________________ 

W. Scott Bales, Justice 

___________________________________ 

Patrick Irvine, Judge* 

*Pursuant to Article 6, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, 

the Honorable Patrick Irvine, Judge of the Court of Appeals, 

Division One, was designated to sit in this matter.