SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

In Division 

BAHNEY DEDOLPH, ) Arizona Supreme Court 

 ) No. CV-12-0226-AP/EL 

 Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 

 ) Maricopa County 

 v. ) Superior Court 

 ) No. CV2012-009302 

LOIS JEAN McDERMOTT, Democratic ) 

Primary Candidate for Arizona ) 

House of Representatives, ) 

Legislative District 24; KEN ) O P I N I O N

BENNETT, Secretary of State; ) 

HELEN PURCELL, Maricopa County ) 

Recorder; KAREN OSBORNE, ) 

Maricopa County Director of ) 

Elections; FULTON BROCK, ) 

Maricopa County Supervisor; ) 

DON STAPLEY, Maricopa County ) 

Supervisor; ANDY KUNASEK, ) 

Maricopa County Supervisor; ) 

MAX WILSON, Maricopa County ) 

Supervisor; MARY ROSE WILCOX, ) 

Maricopa County Supervisor, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants/Appellants. ) 

 ) 

__________________________________) 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART

________________________________________________________________

COPPERSMITH SCHERMER & BROCKELMAN PLC Phoenix 

 By Andrew S. Gordon 

 Roopali H. Desai

Attorneys for Bahney Dedolph

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P. Phoenix

 By Kory A. Langhofer 

 Ian M. Fischer

Attorneys for Lois Jean McDermott 
2 

THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix

 By Michele L. Forney, Assistant Attorney General

Attorney for Ken Bennett

WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY Phoenix

 By M. Colleen Connor

 J. Kenneth Mangum 

Attorneys for Helen Purcell, Karen Osborne, Fulton Brock, 

Donald T. Stapley, Jr., Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson, and 

Mary Rose Wilcox

_______________________________________________________________

B A L E S, Vice Chief Justice 

¶1 This case concerns a challenge to the nomination of 

Lois Jean McDermott, a Democratic candidate for the Arizona 

House of Representatives in Legislative District 24. McDermott 

appealed from a superior court judgment striking her from the 

primary election ballot because she incorrectly identified her 

surname as “Cheuvront-McDermott” in her nomination paper. We 

issued an order affirming in part and reversing in part, 

concluding that McDermott could appear on the ballot as 

“McDermott, Jean Cheuvront.” This opinion explains our 

reasoning. 

I. 

¶2 A person seeking to appear on the ballot for a 

partisan primary election must file a nomination paper that 

identifies, among other things, “the exact manner in which the 

person desires to have the person’s name printed on the official 

ballot pursuant to subsection G.” A.R.S. § 16-311(A). 
3 

Subsection G further provides that the person’s name 

shall be limited to the candidate's surname and given 

name or names, an abbreviated version of such names or 

appropriate initials such as “Bob” for “Robert”, “Jim” 

for “James”, “Wm.” for “William” or “S.” for “Samuel”. 

Nicknames are permissible, but in no event shall 

nicknames, abbreviated versions or initials of given 

names suggest reference to professional, fraternal, 

religious or military titles. No other descriptive 

name or names shall be printed on the official ballot, 

except as provided in this section. Candidates’ 

abbreviated names or nicknames may be printed within 

quotation marks. The candidate's surname shall be 

printed first, followed by the given name or names. 

¶3 “A person who does not file a timely nomination paper 

that complies with [§ 16-311] is not eligible to have the 

person’s name printed on the official ballot for that office.” 

Id. § 16-311(H). Under well-settled law, however, “we do not 

remove candidates from the ballot for mere technical departures” 

from the statutorily required forms. Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505, 

507 ¶¶ 9-10, 189 P.3d 1078, 1080 (2008). Respecting the 

electors’ right to nominate legitimate candidates, we assess 

whether nominating papers substantially comply with the 

statutory requirements. See id.

¶4 Bahney Dedolph brought this action seeking to 

disqualify McDermott because her nomination paper stated that 

she desired to appear on the ballot as “Cheuvront-McDermott, 

Jean” when her legal surname is McDermott. McDermott responded 

by arguing that this challenge was untimely under A.R.S. § 16-

351; that § 16-311(G) allowed her to identify herself as 
4 

“Cheuvront-McDermott” as a nickname; and, in any event, that she 

had substantially complied with the statutory requirements. 

¶5 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, at which 

the following facts were undisputed. In 1957, McDermott, who 

had moved to Phoenix the preceding year, married Jerry Cheuvront 

and changed her name to Lois Jean Cheuvront. The next year, the 

couple moved into the area that is now District 24, where they 

lived until the 1970s and McDermott taught in public schools. 

Students and parents knew her under her married name Cheuvront. 

In the mid-1970s, McDermott moved out of District 24, but she 

continued working at a hospital and art museum there. She also 

maintained business dealings in the district under the name of 

Cheuvront, both as a realtor and through her husband’s 

construction company. In 1984, she moved back to District 24 

for several years before relocating to Massachusetts in 1988. 

¶6 In 1989, McDermott remarried and changed her legal 

surname from Cheuvront to McDermott. After Mr. McDermott became 

ill in 1993, the couple moved to Phoenix. In 1998, she 

successfully ran for precinct committeewoman as Jean McDermott. 

After Mr. McDermott died in 2002, she again ran for precinct 

committeewoman as Jean McDermott in 2002, 2004, and 2006. 

¶7 McDermott now again lives in District 24. She 

testified that, because she was known as Jean Cheuvront when she 

previously lived in this district, she often introduces herself 
5 

as Jean Cheuvront-McDermott or clarifies that her previous name 

was Cheuvront. As a candidate for the House of Representatives 

for District 24, McDermott circulated nomination petition forms 

for electors to sign that identified her as “Jean Cheuvront 

McDermott.” Dedolph does not dispute that McDermott obtained 

sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. 

¶8 The superior court ruled that Dedolph’s challenge was 

timely, that McDermott had not complied with § 16-311 because 

“Cheuvront-McDermott” is not her surname, and that she also had 

not substantially complied with the statute. Accordingly, the 

superior court ordered that McDermott not be listed as a 

candidate on the 2012 primary election ballot. McDermott filed 

a timely appeal with this Court pursuant to § 16-351(A) and 

ARCAP 8.1. 

II. 

¶9 McDermott first argues that Dedolph’s challenge to her 

nomination was untimely under § 16-351(A), which provides that 

such actions must be filed “no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth 

day, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays, after 

the last day for filing nominating papers and petitions.” The 

deadline for filing nominating papers and petitions was May 30, 

2012. See § 16-311(A). Because the tenth day after May 30 was 

June 9, a Saturday, McDermott concludes that the deadline for 

filing a challenge to her nomination was Monday, June 11, 2012. 
6 

Dedolph filed this action on Wednesday, June 13.

¶10 Before 2003, § 16-351(A) required that nomination 

challenges be filed “within ten days, excluding Saturday, Sunday 

and other legal holidays, after the last day for filing 

nomination papers and petitions.” We construed that language as 

“giv[ing] an elector ten business days after the petition filing 

deadline to challenge the validity of signatures on nomination 

petitions.” Powers v. Carpenter, 203 Ariz. 116, 119 ¶ 15, 51 

P.3d 338, 341 (2002). Dedolph filed her challenge on the tenth 

business day after the May 30 petition filing deadline.

¶11 McDermott argues that § 16-351(A) no longer allows 

nomination challenges to be filed within ten business days after 

the petition filing deadline. In 2003, the legislature amended 

the statute by replacing “within ten days” with the phrase “no 

later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth day.” 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, 

ch. 233, § 5 (1st Reg. Sess.). Based on this amendment, 

McDermott contends that challenges now must be filed within ten 

calendar days after the petition filing deadline, unless the 

tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or other legal holiday. 

¶12 We disagree. Under McDermott’s interpretation, the 

phrase “excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays” 

would effectively be rendered superfluous. Even without this 

language, if the deadline falls on one of the identified days, a 

challenge filed on the next business day would be timely. See 
7 

Bohart v. Hannah, 213 Ariz. 480, 482 n.2 ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 1021, 

1023 n.2 (2006) (noting that under § 16-351(A), if fivecalendar-day deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday, 

notice of appeal is timely when filed on the next business day); 

A.R.S. § 1-303 (allowing performance on next business day when 

deadline falls on a holiday). Moreover, McDermott’s 

interpretation implies that the legislature, through the 2003 

amendment, intended to significantly reduce the time for filing 

nomination petition challenges by replacing the ten-business-day 

period with a ten-calendar-day period. If the legislature had 

intended this result, it could have simply provided that 

nomination challenges must be filed “not later than 5:00 p.m. 

within ten days after” the petition filing deadline. Instead, 

the legislature evidently intended to set a 5:00 p.m. deadline 

on the tenth business day after the petition filing deadline. 

See Ariz. State Senate, Fact Sheet for S.B. 1046, 46th Leg., 1st 

Reg. Sess. (Feb. 23, 2003) (noting that 2003 amendment 

“[c]larifies that the deadline for filing any court action 

challenging the nomination of candidates is 5:00 p.m. of the 

10th day following the last day for filing nominating papers and 

petitions, excluding weekends and legal holidays”). 

¶13 Dedolph timely filed her challenge by 5:00 p.m. on the 

tenth business day after the petition filing deadline. 
8 

III. 

¶14 McDermott argues that § 16-311(G) allowed her to list 

her name on the ballot as “Cheuvront-McDermott, Jean” and, 

alternatively, that she should remain on the ballot because she 

substantially complied with the statutory requirements. 

¶15 We agree with the superior court that McDermott did 

not technically comply with § 16-311(G). The first sentence of 

subsection (G) requires a candidate to specify how his or her 

name should appear on the official ballot, restricting the 

choices to “the candidate’s surname and given name or names, an 

abbreviated version of such names or appropriate initials such 

as “Bob” for “Robert”, “Jim” for James, “Wm.” for “William” or 

“S.” for “Samuel.”” McDermott notes that the next sentence 

provides that “[n]icknames are permissible, but in no event 

shall nicknames, abbreviated versions or initials of given names 

suggest reference to professional, fraternal, religious or 

military titles.” She then contends that “Cheuvront-McDermott” 

is a permissible “nickname surname” under the statute. 

¶16 Under § 16-311(G), a candidate must list his or her 

legal surname in the nomination papers, and that name must 

appear first on the ballot. The statute begins by directing 

that the candidate’s name “shall be limited to the candidate’s 

surname and given name or names, an abbreviated version of such 

names or appropriate initials,” and it concludes by requiring 
9 

that “[t]he candidate’s surname shall be printed first, followed 

by the given name or names.” Id. (emphasis added). The 

intervening statutory declaration that “[n]icknames are 

permissible” allows nicknames in addition to or in place of a 

candidate’s given name, but it does not allow the substitution 

of a nickname for the required surname. For example, the 

statute might have allowed Ernest W. McFarland to appear on the 

ballot as “McFarland, Ernest ‘Mac’”, because his nickname was 

“Mac,” but it would not have allowed him to use “Mac” in lieu of 

his surname. Cf. James W. Johnson, Arizona Politicians: The 

Noble and the Notorious 62, 65 (2002) (discussing political 

career of Ernest “Mac” McFarland as U.S. Senator, Arizona 

Governor, and Arizona Supreme Court Justice). 

¶17 If McDermott wanted the ballot to reflect that she is 

also known as Cheuvront, she should have listed her name in the 

nomination paper as “McDermott, Jean Cheuvront” rather than 

“Cheuvront-McDermott, Jean.” Because she did not strictly 

comply with § 16-311(G), we must consider whether she 

substantially complied, an issue we review de novo. Moreno v. 

Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 101-02 ¶ 40, 139 P.3d 612, 619-20 (2006). 

This analysis considers the nomination paper as a whole, see 

Bee, 218 Ariz. at 507-08 ¶ 12, 189 P.3d at 1080-81, and 

“focuse[s] on whether the omission of information could confuse 

or mislead electors,” Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 102 ¶ 42, 139 P.3d at 
10 

620. 

¶18 McDermott substantially complied with § 16-311(G). 

Her nomination petition forms listed her name as “Jean Cheuvront 

McDermott,” three names by which she has been known. She could 

have used nominating petitions in this form if she had listed 

her name as “McDermott, Jean Cheuvront” in her nomination paper 

filed under § 16-311(G). Nothing suggests that McDermott’s 

listing her name as “Cheuvront-McDermott, Jean” in her 

nomination paper would cause electors signing her nomination 

petitions to be confused or misled about her identity. 

¶19 Our conclusion that McDermott substantially complied 

with the requirements in § 16-311(G) does not mean that she 

should appear on the ballot as “Cheuvront-McDermott, Jean.” The 

statute directs that “[t]he candidate’s surname shall be printed 

first,” and McDermott’s substantial compliance does not relieve 

the election officials responsible for printing the ballots from 

this statutory requirement. See A.R.S. § 16-503 (duty to 

prepare ballots containing the names of candidates). 

Accordingly, we ordered that McDermott’s name be printed on the 

primary ballot as “McDermott, Jean Cheuvront.” 
11 

IV.

¶20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirmed in part and 

reversed in part the judgment of the superior court. 

 ___________________________________

 Scott Bales, Vice Chief Justice

CONCURRING: 

___________________________________ 

Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice 

___________________________________

Robert M. Brutinel, Justice