Opinion ID: 867400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disqualifying Signatures

Text: ¶ 12 On the merits, Thomas's appeal turns on A.R.S. § 16-351(A). This statute requires an elector challenging a candidate's nomination petitions to specify in the action the petition number, line number and basis for the challenge for each signature being challenged. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the action. Id. Thomas does not contend that Lubin's challenge failed to specify a basis for challenging particular signatures. Thomas instead argues that once Lubin had alleged certain grounds for questioning a signature, § 16-351(A) prevented the County Recorder from relying on a different basis to invalidate the signature. ¶ 13 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 98 ¶ 23, 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006). ¶ 14 By its terms, A.R.S. § 16-351(A) does not indicate whether the County Recorder may disqualify signatures on bases other than those specifically alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, we look outside the statute to determine its meaning. To discern the [legislative] intent the court will examine the policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the context, the language, and the historical background of the statute. Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 98 ¶ 24, 139 P.3d at 616 (citing Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 114, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996)). ¶ 15 Candidates are required to obtain nomination petitions to ensure that they have adequate support from eligible voters to warrant being placed on the ballot. See Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 316, 320, 271 P.2d 472, 475 (1954) (stating that the purpose of requiring nomination petitions is to make the requirements stringent enough to discourage those [candidates] who do not for an instant merit the voter's consideration, yet not keep out those who are serious in their efforts and have a reasonable number of supporters). If the County Recorder's review of the challenged signatures were limited solely to the reasons stated in the challenging document, this principle would be disserved. It makes little sense to allow an inadequately supported candidate to be placed on the ballot simply because the challenger misidentified in the complaint why certain signatures are invalid. ¶ 16 Additionally, the legislative history of A.R.S. § 16-351(A) is instructive on the purposes behind the requirement that a challenger specify the petition number, line number, and basis for each signature challenge. The primary purpose is to allow the Elections office to more efficiently do preliminary work to deal with candidate challenges, and . . . eliminate the need to go to court in some cases. Ariz. State Senate Fact Sheet for H.B. 2101, 44th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 1999). Before the amendment to A.R.S. § 16-351(A), signature verification was often difficult for the County Recorder, and the amendment was meant to simplify the process. As the committee minutes indicate: Helen Purcell, Recorder, Maricopa County, testified that the Recorders [sic] Office is in support of H.B. 2101. She said this legislation gives her office a better idea of what to look for in the challenge process. It is extremely difficult for her office if it does not know what the challenges are. This legislation will make it easier for the Recorder's Office to locate the information. Minutes of House Comm. on Judiciary, 44th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. Jan. 27, 1999) (House Minutes). ¶ 17 The pleading requirement of A.R.S. § 16-351(A) also serves to discourage frivolous challenges. As Representative Gerard explained to the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, a person can challenge a nomination just to cause trouble. This bill requires the challenger to show that some evidence exists for the challenge. House Minutes. ¶ 18 Nothing in the legislative history of A.R.S. § 16-351(A) indicates that the legislature intended to limit the County Recorder's review of questioned signatures only to the bases stated in the complaint. If a challenger is able, consistent with A.R.S. § 16-351(A) and the requirements of Rule 11 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, to allege particular grounds for challenging signatures, the statutory purposes are not served by holding that a signature should be treated as valid merely because the County Recorder has found it invalid for a reason other than that alleged. ¶ 19 We therefore hold that the County Recorder, in reviewing challenged nomination petition signatures, may invalidate signatures for legitimate reasons other than those specifically alleged in the challenger's complaint.