Opinion ID: 2608890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: These two special actions present questions concerning the timeliness of the filing of local initiative petitions and the method of calculating the number of valid signatures on such petitions. The trial court found the petitions to be timely filed, but lacking sufficient valid signatures to require placement on the ballot. Relief by appeal is inadequate because normal appellate procedure would result in delay beyond the scheduled election. See King v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 149-50, 673 P.2d 787, 789-90 (1983). The questions presented involve issues of law with statewide significance. See Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 469, 698 P.2d 712, 714 (1985). Therefore, we accepted jurisdiction of the special actions pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(4), and Rule 1, Ariz. R.P.Sp.Act., 17B A.R.S. We permitted the League of Arizona Cities and Towns to file an amicus curiae brief because the issues in this case are recurring and have been the subject of controversy in cities and towns throughout Arizona. See Rule 7(f), Ariz.R.P.Sp.Act., 17B A.R.S. and Rule 16, Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17A A.R.S. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. In the absence of controlling local law, what is the filing deadline for local initiative petitions? 2. If local initiative petitions are untimely filed as to the targeted election, are they nevertheless valid for a later election? 3. In the absence of controlling local law, does the Arizona Constitution require signatures on initiative petitions of fifteen percent of those who voted for mayor at the last election or fifteen percent of those eligible to vote? 4. What is the proper procedural method for calculating the number of valid signatures on initiative petitions under A.R.S. § 19-121 et seq.?