Bedard v. Gonzales, s. 13871
| Decision Date | 03 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | 13875,Nos. 13871,s. 13871 |
| Citation | 583 P.2d 906,120 Ariz. 19 |
| Parties | Joseph D. BEDARD, a qualified elector of Pima County, Appellant, v. Luis A. GONZALES, the Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, and the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Appellees. Joseph D. BEDARD, a qualified elector of Pima County, Appellant, v. Roy E. WOODS, the Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, and the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bilby, Shoenhair, Warnock & Dolph by Barry M. Davis, Tucson, for appellant.
Risner, Raven & Collins by William J. Risner, Tucson, for appellee Gonzales.
Stompoly & Even by Scott J. Loomis, John Patrick Lyons, Tucson, for appellee Woods.
John A. LaSota, Jr., Atty. Gen. by Bradford C. Detrick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellees Secretary of State and Pima County Board of Supervisors.
The appellant, Joseph D. Bedard, filed separate actions against appellees, Luis Armando Gonzales and Roy E. Woods, challenging the sufficiency of their nomination petitions to run for state senator in District 10. The appellees moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that it was not timely filed. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the action. This appeal followed.
The appeal was heard and an order entered affirming the ruling of the trial court, with an opinion to follow. We have consolidated the appeals for purposes of decision.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the five-day time period provided for bringing an action under A.R.S. § 16-306 excludes an intervening Saturday and Sunday.
The last day for filing nomination petitions for the primary election was July 14, 1978. Appellees Gonzales and Woods filed their petitions on the last day. Appellant filed his action challenging the nomination petitions on July 21, 1978.
A.R.S. § 16-306(A) provides in part:
"Any elector filing any court action challenging the nomination petitions provided for in this article shall do so within five days after the last day for filing nomination papers and petitions."
The appellant contends that Rule 6(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., must be read in conjunction with the statute. The material part of Rule 6(a) provides: "When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation."
In Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 502, 446 P.2d 231 (1968), this court pointed out that the time elements in the election statutes were to be construed strictly. The necessity for this position is apparent when the various time schedules for filing nomination petitions, preparation of ballots, and absentee voting are considered. See A.R.S. §§ 16-301A; 16-531, 16-1102. Considering the statutory time schedules, we believe that the legislature intended the five-day limit for challenging nomination petitions to mean...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mohajerin
...and addresses the issue of jurisdiction, it does not stand as authority for the existence of jurisdiction. Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 20 n. 1, 583 P.2d 906, 907 n. 1 (1978); Berry v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 507, 508, 788 P.2d 1258, 1259 (App.1989); Pace v. Pace, 128 Ariz. 455, 457,......
-
Thielking v. Kirschner
...to its counterpart in the 1954 statute. See Ariz.Code of 1939 § 4-907 (Supp.1954) [Laws 1954, ch. 101, § 7].5 In Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 583 P.2d 906 (1978) the supreme court refused to exclude intermediate weekend days under Rule 6(a) when calculating the five day filing period p......
-
State v. Miguel
...not every statutory time period should be made subject to time-extending rules. For example, our supreme court in Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 20, 583 P.2d 906, 907 (1978), held that Rule 6(a) had no application to the time requirements for challenging the nomination petitions of candi......
-
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald
...the filing of the action, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter." Fitzgerald argues that Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 583 P.2d 906 (1978), held that the time elements in the election statutes were to be construed strictly. Bedard, however, deals with the tim......