SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
In Division
KRISTA PACION, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-10-0179-AP/EL
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) Nos. CV2010-017916
BOB THOMAS; KENNETH BENNETT; ) CV2010-017814
FULTON BROCK; DON STAPELY; ANDY ) (Consolidated)
KUNASEK; MAX WILSON; MARY ROSE )
WILCOX; and HELEN PURCELL, )
)
Defendants/Appellees. ) O P I N I O N
__________________________________)
)
SEAN BOWIE, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
JOHN HUPPENTHAL; KEN BENNETT, et )
al., )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
)
__________________________________)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig, Judge
AFFIRMED
________________________________________________________________
Bob Thomas Phoenix
In Propria Persona
PERKINS COIE BROWN & BAIN P.A. Phoenix
By Daniel C. Barr
Rhonda L. Barnes
Craig A. Morgan
Jessica J. Berch
Kirstin T. Eidenbach
Attorneys for Krista Pacion and Sean Bowie
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH & HERROD, P.C. Phoenix
By Timothy J. Casey
Drew Metcalf
Attorneys for John Huppenthal
BARBARA LAWALL, PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY Tucson
By Daniel S. Jurkowitz, Deputy County Attorney
Attorneys for Ann Day, Ramon Valadez, Sharon Bronson,
Raymond J. Carroll, Richard Elias, and F. Ann Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________
H U R W I T Z, Vice Chief Justice
¶1 The issue in these consolidated cases is whether
signatures obtained on nomination petitions before the formation
of a candidate’s campaign committee pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-
903(A) (2006) must be stricken. We issued an order on June 28,
2010, affirming the judgment of the superior court with an
opinion to follow. This is that opinion.
I.
¶2 John Huppenthal is a Republican candidate for
Superintendent of Public Instruction. Bob Thomas is a
Republican candidate for State Senator in Legislative District
15. Huppenthal and Thomas (the “Candidates”) each submitted
nominating petitions with the requisite number of signatures.
Each collected all signatures after creating an exploratory
committee in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-903(B) but before
creating a campaign committee pursuant to § 16-903(A).
¶3 Separate special actions were filed in the superior
court seeking to enjoin the placement of the Candidates’ names
2
on the primary ballot. The plaintiffs’ (collectively the
“Contestants”) only contention was that, by collecting
signatures before forming a campaign committee, the Candidates
had violated § 16-903(A). The Contestants conceded that the
nominating petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to
qualify the Candidates for the primary ballot.
¶4 The superior court consolidated the two special
actions and denied relief. The judge found that the Candidates
had violated § 16-903(A), but held that the disqualification of
signatures on their nominating petitions was not the appropriate
remedy. Rather, the court held that the sole consequence for
such a violation was the civil penalty prescribed by A.R.S.
§§ 16-903(G) and 16-924 (2006).
¶5 The Contestants appealed and Huppenthal cross-
appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 16-351(A) (2006)
and Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.
II.
A.
¶6 Title 16, Chapter 6, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.
§§ 16-901 to 16-961), is entitled “Campaign Contributions and
Expenses” and contains a comprehensive statutory scheme
governing election campaign finance. Most relevant to today’s
inquiry are two provisions in Article 1 of Chapter 6 requiring
formation of political committees by those making campaign
3
expenditures or receiving contributions, A.R.S. §§ 16-903(A) and
(B).
¶7 A “candidate” is defined as “an individual who
receives or gives consent for receipt of a contribution for his
nomination for or election to any office in this state.” A.R.S.
§ 16-901(2) (2006). A candidate is required to form a campaign
committee “before making any expenditures, accepting any
contributions, distributing any campaign literature or
circulating any petitions.” A.R.S. § 16-903(A). Section 16-
903(B) requires an “individual” to form an exploratory committee
“before making any expenditures, accepting any contributions or
distributing any campaign literature.” The term “individual” is
not separately defined, but in context refers to a subset of
persons who do not meet the statutory definition of a candidate.
¶8 The Contestants claim that circulating nominating
petitions before the formation of a campaign committee violates
§ 16-903(A). The Candidates claim that, because it does not
mention circulating petitions, § 16-903(B) does not proscribe
such activity after formation of an exploratory committee by an
individual who has not yet become a candidate.
¶9 We need not resolve this dispute today. We assume,
without deciding, that the Contestants violated § 16-903(A) by
circulating nominating petitions before forming campaign
committees. But, like the superior court, we conclude that the
4
exclusive remedy for such a violation is the civil penalty
provided in the campaign finance statutes.
B.
¶10 When the secretary of state “has reasonable cause to
believe” that a candidate for statewide office or the
legislature is violating “any provision of [Title 16, Chapter 6,
Article 1],” he must “notify the attorney general.” A.R.S.
§ 16-924(A). The attorney general then “may serve on the person
an order requiring compliance with that provision.” Id. The
alleged violator has twenty days to comply with the order or
request an administrative hearing. Id. Absent compliance or
appeal, the attorney general “shall issue an order assessing a
civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars.” A.R.S.
§ 16-924(B).
¶11 In turn, § 16-903(G) provides:
A person who violates this section [§ 16-903] is
subject to a civil penalty imposed as prescribed in
§ 16-924 of up to three times the amount of money that
has been received, expended or promised in violation
of this section or up to three times the value in
money for an equivalent of money or other things of
value that have been received, expended or promised in
violation of this section.
Chapter 6 contains no provision authorizing a court to strike
signatures obtained before formation of a campaign committee.
In contrast, A.R.S. § 19-114(B) (Supp. 2010), which governs
initiatives and referenda, expressly provides that signatures
5
obtained “prior to the filing of the committee’s statement of
organization . . . are void and shall not be counted in
determining the legal sufficiency of the petition.”
¶12 Election contests “are purely statutory and dependent
upon statutory provisions for their conduct.” Van Ardsell v.
Shumway, 165 Ariz. 289, 291, 798 P.2d 1298, 1300 (1990) (quoting
Donaghey v. Att’y Gen., 120 Ariz. 93, 95, 584 P.2d 557, 559
(1978)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legislature
expressly chose in § 19-114(B) to disqualify signatures on
initiative and referendum petitions obtained before formation of
a political committee, yet provided only a civil penalty for
violations of the campaign finance statutes governing
candidates, including § 16-903(A). We decline to infer a
statutory remedy into the campaign finance statutes that the
legislature eschewed.
¶13 Contestants argue that § 16-903(G) provides no
protection against the misconduct alleged here because it
calculates the penalty based on the amount of money or other
value received or expended in violation of § 16-903, and
premature circulation of nominating petitions may not involve
any such receipt or expenditure. This argument misconstrues the
statutory scheme. Section 16-903(G) simply allows the basic
penalty applicable to all violations of Chapter 6, Article 1
under § 16-924(B) — “a civil penalty of not more than one
6
thousand dollars” — to be increased to three times the amount
received or expended in violation of § 16-903. When there are
no such receipts or expenditures, the basic penalty of up to one
thousand dollars remains applicable.
C.
¶14 Contestants also claim that A.R.S. § 16-351 authorizes
injunctive relief against a candidate violating § 16-903(A).
But no decision of this Court has so held, nor does any
provision in § 16-351 so provide. Section 16-351(A)
contemplates challenges to individual signatures on a nominating
petition. Such challenges, however, typically attack
qualifications of signators, e.g., Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz.
496, 497 ¶ 6, 144 P.3d 510, 511 (2006), the validity of the
circulator’s verification, e.g., Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94,
98 ¶ 22, 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006), or the form of the petitions,
e.g., Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505, 507-08 ¶¶ 11-14, 189 P.3d 1078,
1080-81 (2008). Section 16-351(A) is part of Title 16, Chapter
3, which governs “Nomination Procedures,” and applies to “any
court action challenging the nomination of a candidate as
provided for in this chapter,” not to alleged violations of the
campaign finance laws in Chapter 6.
¶15 Nor does A.R.S. § 16-351(B) authorize the remedy
sought by the Contestants. That statute allows an elector to
“challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications
7
for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age,
residency or professional requirements.” Id. Under that
provision, a court may enjoin placement on the primary ballot of
a candidate who does not meet the statutory or constitutional
requirements for the office sought. See, e.g., Bearup v. Voss,
142 Ariz. 489, 491, 690 P.2d 790, 792 (App. 1984); see generally
Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, §§ 2, 4-5 (stating qualifications
for legislative candidates); id. art. 5, § 2 (same for executive
candidates); A.R.S. § 16-311(A) (2006) (requiring candidates to
be qualified electors). It does not apply to alleged violation
of campaign finance laws.
D.
¶16 The Contestants contend that signatures collected
before the formation of a campaign committee must be stricken to
ensure candidates do not circumvent Arizona’s “resign to run”
law, under which an “incumbent of a salaried elective office”
cannot “offer himself for nomination or election” to any other
salaried office except “during the final year of the term being
served.” A.R.S. § 38-296(A) (2001). The Contestants argue that
if incumbents are allowed to form an exploratory committee and
circulate nominating petitions before the final year of their
terms, the “resign to run” law will be rendered a nullity.
¶17 The argument fails. This is not an action seeking to
oust an incumbent from public office, but rather an election
8
contest. See A.R.S. § 12-2041 (2003) (authorizing attorney
general to bring action against any person unlawfully holding
public office); Op. Pima County Att’y 09-02 (declining, after
attorney general recused himself and assigned matter to Pima
County Attorney, to institute action against Huppenthal for a
violation of § 38-296).
¶18 In any event, nothing in our opinion today conflicts
with § 38-296 or prevents its enforcement in an appropriate
case. The legislature has expressly provided that “[a]n elected
official is not deemed to have offered himself for nomination or
election to an office . . . solely by his designation of a
candidate campaign committee.” A.R.S. § 16-903(F); see also Op.
Ariz. Att’y Gen. I10-005 (opining that formation of an
exploratory committee does not trigger obligation to resign from
current office). Moreover, an incumbent is only “deemed to have
offered himself for nomination . . . upon the filing of a
nomination paper . . . or formal public declaration of candidacy
for such office whichever occurs first.” A.R.S. § 38-296(B)
(emphasis added). There is thus little danger that our decision
will encourage incumbents to form § 16-903(B) exploratory
committees rather than § 16-903(A) campaign committees before
circulating nominating petitions in order to avoid the
strictures of § 38-296.
9
III.
¶19 For the reasons above, we affirm the judgment of the
superior court.
_____________________________________
Andrew D. Hurwitz, Vice Chief Justice
CONCURRING:
_____________________________________
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
_____________________________________
A. John Pelander, Justice
10