Clark v. Pima County Bd. of Sup'rs, 15112

• Decision Date: 18 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. 15112,15112
• Citation: Clark v. Pima County Bd. of Sup'rs, 624 P.2d 871, 128 Ariz. 193 (Ariz. 1981)
• Parties: Ray G. CLARK, Elbert W. "Al" Fowler, Kenneth J. DeSautel, Richard F. Jaskiewicz, Lupita Shesteko-Montiel, Mary Francis Trimble, Jimmy S. Trimble, and Don Frew, qualified electors of Pima County, Arizona, Appellants, v. PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Katie Dusenberry, Sam Lena, E. S. "Bud" Walker, Conrad Joyner, and David Yetman, Members of and Constituting the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona; Eugenia Wells, Clerk of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; and Gilbert Hoyos, Acting Director of Elections of Pima County, Arizona, and Richard Dolny, Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 871

624 P.2d 871

128 Ariz. 193

Ray G. CLARK, Elbert W. "Al" Fowler, Kenneth J. DeSautel, Richard F. Jaskiewicz, Lupita Shesteko-Montiel, Mary Francis Trimble, Jimmy S. Trimble, and Don Frew, qualified electors of Pima County, Arizona, Appellants, v.PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Katie Dusenberry, Sam Lena, E. S. "Bud" Walker, Conrad Joyner, and David Yetman, Members of and Constituting the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona; Eugenia Wells, Clerk of the Pima County Board of Supervisors; and Gilbert Hoyos, Acting Director of Elections of Pima County, Arizona andRichard Dolny, Appellees.

No. 15112.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Feb. 18, 1981.

Miller, Pitt & Feldman, P. C. by Linda A. Drake, Tucson, for appellants.

Louie Carrasco, Tucson, for appellees.

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

The appellants challenged the legal sufficiency of the signatures appearing on the nominating petitions filed by appelleeRichard Dolny to run as an independent candidate for the office of Pima County Supervisor for District 3.The superior court denied the challenge, and appellants filed an appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A).After hearing oral argument, this court issued an order affirming the judgment of the superior court noting that a written opinion would follow at a later date.

The facts presented by the record show that the appellee filed 29 nominating petitions containing 369 signatures.To qualify for placement of his name on the ballot, he was required to have filed 147 valid signatures of qualified electors.A.R.S. § 16-341(E) and (F).The superior court found 175 signatures invalid for a number of specified reasons which included: not registered in the district; not registered at time of signing the petition; illegible signatures; and signed twice.Both sides agree that 72 signatures are valid in all respects.There were 128 signatures which were at variance with the affidavits of registration.The superior court ruled two of this latter type as invalid and the remaining 126 as valid.In order for the appellee to qualify for placement on the ballot the signatures represented by the class of 126 signatures at variance with the affidavit of registration would have to be ruled valid.

The issue presented by appellant is whether the signers of nominating petitions must sign with the exact name under which they are registered to vote.

A.R.S. § 16-351(C) provides that the general county register at the time of filing the court action challenging a nomination petition shall constitute the official record to determine on a prima facie basis whether a signer was registered to vote at the address given on the date the petition was signed.Although the term "general county register" is not specifically defined, we believe the Legislature meant the systems authorized by A.R.S. § 16-162 for the permanent preservation of affidavits of registration.In this case copies of the original affidavits of registration were used in checking each signature against current voter registration.Appellants point out that A.R.S. § 16-315(A) requires that nomination petitions be signed with the "signature as registered."The old statute(A.R.S. § 16-303) required only the "names of signers."Appellants...