SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
NAKETA ROSS, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) No. CV2022-004709
SHAWN PEARSON, et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellants. )
)
__________________________________) FILED 05/09/2022
DECISION ORDER
Pending before the Court is an expedited election appeal brought
by Appellant Shawn Pearson, a Democratic candidate for State
Representative in Legislative District 11.
The Court, by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Brutinel,
Justice Beene, Justice Montgomery, and Justice King, has considered
the briefs of the parties, the trial court’s minute entry order, and
the relevant statutes and case law in this expedited election matter.
Based on the record before the trial court, we cannot say that it
clearly erred in finding the County Recorder’s Petition Verification
Summary Report (“PVS Report”) accurate and relying on the report to
invalidate 355 signatures in Appellant’s nomination petition.
Candidates seeking placement on a partisan primary election
ballot must gather a sufficient number of signatures in a nominating
petition from “qualified signers.” A.R.S. § 16-322(A). A “qualified
signer” is a person “who at the time of signing is a registered voter
in the electoral district of the office the candidate is seeking” and
is registered as a member of the candidate’s party, a party not
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL
Page 2 of 5
entitled to continued representation on the ballot, or an
independent. A.R.S. § 16-321(B), (E).
Appellee Ross challenged the legal sufficiency of Appellant’s
nomination petition and signatures. As a candidate, Appellant was
required to have 469 valid signatures to be placed on the ballot.
After a trial, the superior court found that 355 of Appellant’s 796
signatures were proven invalid. It concluded that Appellant had only
441 valid signatures, 28 fewer signatures than she needed to be
placed on the ballot. Appellant timely appealed.
“We uphold a trial court's findings of fact unless clearly
erroneous as not either ‘supported by reasonable evidence or based on
a reasonable conflict of evidence.’” Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94,
98 (2006)(citation omitted). And, “[a]s an appellate court, we are
confined to reviewing only those matters contained in the record.”
Schaefer v. Murphey, 131 Ariz. 295, 299 (1982); see also ARCAP
11(a)(1) (“The official record, which consists of documents . . .
filed in the superior court before and including the effective date
of the filing of a notice of appeal”).
By statute, “[t]he county recorder or other officer in charge of
elections shall perform petition signature verifications for
nomination petition challenges for signatures of qualified electors
who are residents of that county and shall provide testimony and
other evidence on request of any of the parties to the challenge.”
A.R.S. § 16-351(E). In doing so, the County Recorder “may invalidate
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL
Page 3 of 5
signatures for legitimate reasons other than those specifically
alleged in the challenger's complaint.” Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz.
496, 499 ¶ 19 (2006). If the presumptive validity of a signature has
been displaced, “the burden shifts to the proponent of the signatures
to prove the signer was a qualified elector and eligible to sign the
petition.” McKenna v. Soto, 250 Ariz. 469, 473 ¶ 18 (2021).
Appellant claims the trial testimony showed the PVS Report
could, due to processing times, be inaccurate about the registration
status of individuals that, within the year or so before the report
was generated, newly registered, re-registered after a cancellation,
or updated their registration. But even assuming this were the import
of the trial testimony, Appellant failed to present evidence to the
trial court establishing that at least 28 signers, whose signatures
the report found invalid, fell into this class. The trial court
therefore did not clearly err in relying on the report to find 355 of
Appellant’s signatures invalid.
However, given Appellee’s concession in her answering brief, the
Court finds that Appellant has two additional signatures, which is
still 26 fewer signatures than needed to be placed on the ballot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED affirming the superior court’s judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors, Recorder, and Election Directors to remove Shawn Pearson
from the Democratic ballot for State Representative in District 11.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL
Page 4 of 5
The requested injunction is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Ross’ request for attorneys’ fees.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2022.
______/s/_______________
ROBERT BRUTINEL
Chief Justice
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL
Page 5 of 5
TO:
Shawn Pearson
James E Barton II
Joseph Branco
Jonathan Simon
Joseph Eugene La Rue
Hon. Randall H Warner
Alicia Moffatt
Alberto Rodriguez
Hon. Jeff Fine