Opinion ID: 867406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Validity of Petition 20

Text: ¶ 39 Given our conclusion that Jones did not commit petition forgery, whether he qualifies for the ballot turns on the validity of petition 20. This petition was circulated by someone other than Jones and contains fourteen signatures. Apart from these signatures, Jones submitted 202 signatures that have not been successfully challenged, and he needs at least 207 signatures to qualify for the ballot. [4] ¶ 40 In his cross-appeal, Moreno argues that the trial court erred in not disqualifying the signatures on petition 20 because the petition form, by omitting the specific date of the primary election, failed to substantially comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 16-314(C). Whether a petition form substantially complies with the statutory requirements is a pure question of law that we review de novo. See Clifton, 187 Ariz. at 113, 927 P.2d at 773 (reviewing sufficiency of petitions for nomination other than by primary pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-341 (1996)). ¶ 41 The form of nomination petitions is addressed in A.R.S. § 16-314(C). Nomination petitions must include, in language substantially in the form of the statute, certain information, including the elector's county and party registration, the candidate's name and address, the office in question, and when the election is to be held. Here, petition 20 states that it concerns the primary election to be held _____, 2006 without specifying the day or month of the election. [5] ¶ 42 In determining whether a nomination petition form substantially complies with the statutory requirements, this court has focused on whether the omission of information could confuse or mislead electors signing the petition. See Marsh v. Haws, 111 Ariz. 139, 140, 526 P.2d 161, 162 (1974). Because the statute allows a measure of inconsistency by only requiring substantial compliance, Clifton, 187 Ariz. at 116, 927 P.2d at 776, no mere irregularity can be considered, unless it be shown that the result has been affected by such irregularity, id. (quoting Territory ex rel. Sherman v. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 Ariz. 248, 253, 12 P. 730, 732 (1887)). ¶ 43 Marsh illustrates the standard for determining substantial compliance. In that case, two candidates had noted on their petitions that they were running for justice of the peace but had failed to identify the particular precinct. 111 Ariz. at 140, 526 P.2d at 162. The justice court precinct boundaries did not coincide with voter registration precincts. Id. Given this fact, this court concluded that the petitions did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements because there was a potential for voter confusion. Id. A voter signing a petition would [not] automatically know that he was nominating a candidate for the office of `Justice of the Peace' of any particular precinct. Id. ¶ 44 Here, we do not believe that petition 20, by omitting the particular day and month of the 2006 primary, created a significant danger that electors would be confused or misled. Moreno, citing A.R.S. § 16-204(B) (Supp.2005), notes that under Arizona election laws, governmental entities could hold primary elections on four different dates in 2006. This statute, however, concerns elections for certain local offices. Petition 20 specifies that Jones is seeking nomination to run for the Arizona State Senate. There is only one primary election for state legislative office  the eighth Tuesday prior to the general election for state office, A.R.S. § 16-201 (1996), which is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, A.R.S. § 16-211 (1996). ¶ 45 In contrast to Marsh, electors would automatically know for which primary election they were signing because the petition specified the year and there is only one primary that year for state legislative office. Thus, the 2006 primary election date provided on petition 20 is in substantial compliance. Cf. Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 316, 322, 271 P.2d 472, 476 (1954) (putting the phrases hereinafter designated and the precinct designated or indicated by my address in the blank provided to indicate the relevant precinct was legally sufficient to identify elector's precinct).