Court Opinion

ID: 9405354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 00:03:25.459355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.505714
License: Public Domain

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

VOICE OF SURPRISE, et al.,        )            Arizona Supreme Court
                                  )            No. CV-23-0117-PR
           Plaintiffs/Appellants, )
                                  )            Court of Appeals
                 v.               )            Division One
                                  )            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0696 EL
SKIP HALL, et al.,                )
                                  )            Maricopa County
            Defendants/Appellees. )            Superior Court
                                  )            No. CV 2022-013360
__________________________________)
                                               FILED 06/23/2023

                                  DECISION ORDER

      Before the Court is an expedited election appeal regarding an

effort by Appellants Voice of Surprise, a political action committee,

and Quintus Schulzke, its chairperson, to refer Surprise, Arizona,

City Council Ordinance 2022-18 to a vote of the city’s electorate.

We   issue    this   decision   order   with    a   more   explanatory   opinion   to

follow so that the parties can proceed expeditiously to conclude this

matter.      The Court’s decision is unanimous.

      Ordinance 2022-18 adopted a preliminary development plan for a

large area of property that Appellees Dominium, Inc. and Truman Ranch

46 SWC LLC (collectively, “Private Defendants”) seek to develop.                   To

succeed in referring the Ordinance to the ballot, Appellants were

required     to   gather   supportive   signatures     from   ten   percent   of   the

electorate who voted in the previous election at which a mayor or

council members were chosen.        See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(8);

A.R.S. § 19-142(A).        Appellants initiated that effort on August 29,

2022, by filing an application for a petition serial number and a
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 2 of 8

statement      of    organization       with     the     City    Clerk    for     the    City    of

Surprise.       See A.R.S. § 19-111(A).                But the application did not set

forth   the     text    of    Ordinance       2022-18,    as     required   by    § 19-111(A).

Although       the   City     Clerk     realized       the      error,   she     accepted       the

application without comment and issued a serial number for placement

on petition sheets Appellants circulated for signatures.

       Appellants returned to the City Clerk’s Office on September 16

and   submitted        petition      sheets     bearing      5,432   signatures      supporting

referral of Ordinance 2022-18 to the ballot.                            There is no dispute

that the petition sheets properly attached the Ordinance for review

by    people    signing       the    petition     sheets.         See    A.R.S.     § 19-112(B)

(requiring attachment).              Thereafter, Appellee Dominium urged the City

Clerk    to     reject       the    petitions     for     multiple       reasons,       including

Appellants’ failure to attach the Ordinance to the application for a

petition serial number.               On October 5, the City Clerk rejected all

the petition sheets and signatures based on this application error.

       Appellants initiated this action by filing a complaint against

the City Clerk, other City of Surprise officials, and the Private

Defendants      pursuant       to    A.R.S.     § 19-122(A).         Appellants         asked   the

superior court to compel the City Clerk to accept the petition sheets

and signatures and process them in accordance with A.R.S. § 19-121.01

to determine whether enough valid signatures supported placing the

referendum on the ballot.                See A.R.S. § 19-141(A) (applying A.R.S.

§§ 19-101      to    -161    to     referenda    concerning       municipal      legislation).
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 3 of 8

Dominium    filed    an   answer      and    counterclaim     challenging        the   legal

sufficiency of the referendum for multiple reasons, including the

application error.

      After holding an evidentiary hearing on Appellants’ application

for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the court denied

Appellants’ requested relief and entered judgment for Appellees.                          It

reasoned that because Appellants were required to strictly comply

with the statutory requirements directing the referendum process, see

A.R.S. § 19-101.01, Appellants’ failure to file an application that

strictly     complied     with    § 19-111(A)      was     fatal   to   the     referendum

effort.     The court of appeals affirmed.                 See Voice of Surprise v.

Skip Hall, 2023 WL 3107268, at *5 ¶ 26 (Ariz. App. Apr. 27, 2023).

We granted review to address whether the application error entitled

the City Clerk to reject the petition sheets and all signatures.

      We agree with the superior court and the court of appeals that

Appellants failed to strictly comply with § 19-111(A) by omitting the

text of Ordinance 2022-18 in the application for a petition serial

number.     We reject Appellants’ argument that this error served only

to destroy the legal presumption that the gathered signatures are

valid, and that Appellants restored that presumption by showing that

the   objective     underlying        § 19-111(A)’s      requirement      was    otherwise

satisfied.        There   is     no   challenge     presently      that    the    petition

signatures    were    improperly       gathered     from    qualified     electors       and

therefore    invalid.      Whether      or   not   the   application      complied      with
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 4 of 8

§ 19-111(A), the validity of the signatures is unaffected, and there

is nothing to “restore.”

       The application for a petition serial number cannot be corrected

at this late date to include the text of Ordinance 2022-18.                            See

Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 5 (1972) (disagreeing

that referendum proponents could “amend their petitions to comply

with   the   verification      provision”     outside     the    time   permitted      for

initiating    the     referendum   effort).    Nor   can    we    excuse      Appellants’

omission as a harmless error on the ground that neither the City

Clerk nor the electorate were confused about which Ordinance was the

subject of the proposed referendum.            Doing so would mean advancing a

referendum    effort    that   only   substantially       complied      with    statutory

requirements in violation of the legislative directive for strict

compliance.      See    § 19-101.01.        Notably,      Appellants     do    not   argue

requiring strict compliance with § 19-111(A)’s requirement to include

the text of a challenged ordinance in the application as well as the

petition     sheets    unreasonably    hindered      or     restricted        Appellants’

constitutional right of referendum.           See id.

        We also disagree with Appellants that their reliance on the

City Clerk’s acceptance of the application excused strict compliance

with § 19-111(A).       The Clerk performs a ministerial role in accepting

applications and issuing petition serial numbers.                    She must accept

and process any application submitted on the required form without

regard to its legal sufficiency.             Section 19-111(A) only authorizes
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 5 of 8

the Clerk to reject an application if it is unaccompanied by the

applicant’s      statement       of   organization.           That    did   not    occur   here.

Consequently, the Clerk had no discretion to reject the application

but was required to accept it and issue a serial number.                              Doing so

did not cure Appellants’ non-compliance with § 19-111(A).

       The City Clerk also had no obligation to tell Appellants they

had    omitted    the    text    of     Ordinance    2022-18         from   the    application.

Section 19-111(B)          formerly     authorized      city     clerks      to    “advise    the

person who has submitted the petition with a written statement of any

defects of which [the city clerk] is aware, but the [city clerk]

shall not refuse to assign a number to the petition.”                            See 1991 Ariz.

Sess. Laws ch. 1, § 1 (3d Sp. Sess.).                    But the legislature amended

the statute to remove that provision in 1991.                         Id.   This intentional

elimination of statutory discretion by the Clerk to advise applicants

of    defects    also    means    she    certainly      had    no     obligation     to    advise

Appellants of the defect here.

       Nevertheless, we conclude that the City Clerk erred by rejecting

the petition sheets and signatures submitted by Appellants.                            Sections

19-114(B), 19-121(C), 19-121.01, and 19-121.04 direct with exacting

detail how the Clerk must process the petition sheets, count the

signatures, and determine whether sufficient signatures support the

referendum.          For    example,      within       twenty        days   of    receiving     a

referendum       petition,      the     Clerk   must    remove        petition      sheets    not

containing       a      circulator’s       completed,          signed,      and      unmodified
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 6 of 8

affidavit.     § 19-121.01(A)(1)(d).            But nothing authorizes the Clerk

to reject petition sheets and signatures because the application for

a serial number was legally insufficient.               See Leach v. Reagan, 245

Ariz.   430,   436    ¶ 23    (2018)      (“Relatedly,    nothing   in     Title     19

authorizes or requires the Secretary to disqualify petition sheets or

signatures if the statement of organization, or any amendments to it,

did not comply with § 16-906.             In contrast, elsewhere in Title 19,

the legislature has explicitly stated the Secretary’s obligation to

investigate the accuracy of initiative-related filings.”).

     At oral argument before this Court, the City Clerk argued that

§ 19-101.01’s strict compliance directive for the “application and

enforcement” of the referendum statutes authorized her to reject the

petition sheets and signatures.            We disagree.      That provision does

not authorize the Clerk or anyone else to enforce strict compliance

with the statutes.      And determining whether an application is legally

sufficient is a matter for a court to decide, not the Clerk.                    See W.

Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426, 431 (1991) (“[O]ur

statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, [the

Secretary of State’s Office] to pass ultimate judgment on whether

petitions    comply    with     constitutional      requirements.        That   is    a

judicial function.”).

     The City Clerk’s lack of authority to reject the petition sheets

and signatures for the application error does not end this matter.

As   mentioned,      Dominium     filed     a     counterclaim   challenging         the
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 7 of 8

referendum      petitions          on    multiple           bases,     including          that      the

application failed to strictly comply with § 19-111(A).                                   Appellants

did not answer the counterclaim, but the time for doing so had not

expired before the superior court entered its ruling on the request

for a preliminary and permanent injunction.                          As Appellants note, it

was not able to assert a laches defense against the City defendants.

See Mohave Cnty. v. Mohave-Kingman Ests., Inc., 120 Ariz. 417, 421

(1978) (“In     general,       equitable       defenses . . . will             not      lie    against

the   state,     its        agencies     or     subdivisions          in     matters       affecting

governmental or sovereign functions.”).                           But Appellants can assert

the   defense        against       Dominium,        and     they     should     be       given     that

opportunity on remand.

      To clarify, we have decided that Appellants did not strictly

comply   with    § 19-111(A),           and    that       error    cannot     be   undone.          All

parties have had ample opportunity to be heard on that issue, and the

superior   court       is    bound      by    our    decision.         We     remand      to     permit

Appellants      to    file    an    answer     to     the    counterclaim          and    raise     any

applicable equitable defenses against Dominium.                            By doing so, we take

no position on the merits of any such defenses.

      FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

      IT IS ORDERED vacating the court of appeals’ opinion.

      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the superior court’s judgment

and   remanding       to    that    court     to    permit        Appellants       to    answer     the

Dominium counterclaim and allege any applicable equitable defenses.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0117-PR
Page 8 of 8

The court should thereafter address the merits of any such defenses.

      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a written opinion detailing the Court’s

reasoning will follow in due course.

      DATED this 23rd day of June, 2023.

                                      ____________/s/_______________
                                      ROBERT BRUTINEL
                                      Chief Justice

TO:
Timothy A LaSota
Robert W Wingo
Ellen M Van Riper
Melinda A Bird
Jeffrey D Gross
Cameron C Artigue
Hon Scott A Blaney
Michael W Zimmerman
Jennifer Wright
Nancy L Davidson
Daniel J Adelman
Kory A Langhofer
Thomas J Basile
Amy M Wood
Hon Joseph C Welty
Hon Danielle Viola
Hon Jeff Fine

blc