SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
In Division
ROYCE JENKINS, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-08-0208-AP/EL
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) No. CV2008-013774
ALBERT HALE; JAN BREWER, in her )
official capacity as Arizona )
Secretary of State; COCONINO )
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; NAVAJO ) O P I N I O N
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; )
APACHE COUNTY BOARD OF )
SUPERVISORS; MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD )
OF SUPERVISORS; YAVAPAI COUNTY )
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; CANDACE D. )
OWENS, in her official capacity )
as Coconino County Recorder; )
LAURETTE JUSTMAN, in her )
official capacity as Navajo )
County Recorder; LENORA Y. )
JOHNSON, in her official )
capacity as Apache County )
Recorder; JOAN McCALL, in her )
official capacity as Mohave )
County Recorder; and ANA )
WAYMAN-TRUJILLO, in her official )
capacity as Yavapai County )
Recorder, )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
_________________________________ )
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Hon. Joseph B. Heilman, Judge
AFFIRMED
________________________________________________________________
CANTELME & BROWN, P.L.C. Phoenix
By David J. Cantelme
D. Aaron Brown
Paul R. Neil
Attorneys for Royce Jenkins
PERKINS, COIE, BROWN, & BAIN, P.A. Phoenix
By Paul F. Eckstein
Daniel C. Barr
Rhonda L. Barnes
Craig A. Morgan
James E. Barton, II
Attorneys for Albert Hale
TERRY GODDARD, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix
By Mary R. O’Grady, Solicitor General
Tanja K. Shipman, Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Janice K. Brewer
________________________________________________________________
B E R C H, Vice Chief Justice
¶1 We have been asked to decide whether an elector’s
signature on a nominating petition is invalid as a matter of law
if the elector provides a post office box address in the address
portion of the signature line. We hold that it is not.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Albert Hale seeks his party’s nomination for state
senator from Legislative District Two. To qualify for the
primary ballot, Hale needs 522 valid signatures on his
nominating petitions. Hale submitted eighty petition sheets
that contained more than 800 signatures from electors in Apache,
Coconino, and Navajo Counties.
¶3 Royce Jenkins, a qualified elector, challenged 513
signatures: 321 from Apache County, 159 from Navajo County, and
33 from Coconino County. Of the challenged signatures, the
Apache County Recorder validated 227 signatures and the Navajo
County Recorder validated two signatures. The Coconino County
- 2 -
Recorder found every challenged signature to be invalid. In
total, the county recorders rejected 284 signatures. But the
recorders differed in their validating methodologies: The
Navajo and Coconino County Recorders invalidated signatures that
contained only a post office box address; the Apache County
Recorder, on the other hand, did not. If the Apache County
Recorder could verify that the signer was a registered voter,
the signature was approved.
¶4 On June 27, 2008, the superior court conducted a
hearing. The trial judge found that Hale’s petitions contained
523 valid signatures1 and granted Hale’s motion for judgment as a
matter of law. Jenkins appealed to this Court, and by an order
dated July 7, 2008, we affirmed. This opinion explains our
reasoning.
¶5 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 16-351(A) (2006).
II. DISCUSSION
¶6 In Arizona, candidates seeking placement on primary
election ballots must gather signatures from qualified electors
and file them with the appropriate elections official. A.R.S.
1
There is some discrepancy in the record whether Hale
submitted 523 or 533 valid signatures. Because it makes no
difference to the resolution of this case, we treat the trial
court’s finding as correct.
- 3 -
§ 16-322(A). These signatures are meant to ensure that
candidates have “adequate support from eligible voters to
warrant being placed on the ballot.” Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz.
496, 498, ¶ 15, 144 P.3d 510, 512 (2006).
¶7 The signatures must be collected on “nomination
petitions,” A.R.S. § 16-314(B), which must conform to certain
enumerated statutory requirements, § 16-315(A). At the center
of this controversy is the requirement that the petitions be
divided into four columns bearing the following headings:
signature; printed name; actual residence address or
description of place of residence, city, town or post
office; and date of signing.
§ 16-315(A)(4) (emphasis added). Once signatures have been
collected, the petition circulator must “verify that . . . in
his belief each signer was a qualified elector who resides at
the address given as the signer’s residence on the date
indicated . . . .” § 16-321(D).
¶8 Any qualified elector may challenge a candidate’s
petitions. See § 16-351(A) (regarding nomination challenges).
The challenger may question the candidate’s qualifications for
office, § 16-351(B), or may test the validity of the nominating
petitions or the signatures on the forms themselves, § 16-
351(A)-(B). As a general rule, nominating petitions that are
“circulated, signed and filed” are presumptively valid, Miller
v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pinal County, 175 Ariz. 296, 301, 855
- 4 -
P.2d 1357, 1362 (1993); Bd. of Supervisors of Maricopa County v.
Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 502, 504, 446 P.2d 231, 233 (1968),
and the challenger bears the burden to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that a signer is not a qualified elector,
see Blaine v. McSpadden, 111 Ariz. 147, 149, 526 P.2d 390, 392
(1974).
¶9 Whether petition signatures are invalid if signers
provide a post office box address implicates two questions.
First, what address information did the legislature intend
petition signers to provide on the nominating petition? Second,
if the legislature intended signers to provide either a
residence address or a description of the residence location, is
a signature invalid as a matter of law if the signer provides a
post office box address?
¶10 Our primary task in answering these questions is to
discern the legislature’s intent. Clifton v. Decillis, 187
Ariz. 112, 114, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996). The statute’s text is
the best evidence of that intent, but we “will examine the
policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the
context, the language, and the historical background” if
necessary to help us determine a statute’s meaning. Lubin, 213
Ariz. at 498, ¶ 14, 144 P.3d at 512 (quoting Moreno v. Jones,
213 Ariz. 94, 98, ¶ 24, 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006)). These
questions present issues of law, which we review de novo.
- 5 -
Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 101-02, ¶ 40, 139 P.3d at 619-20.
A. What Address Information Must Signers Provide?
¶11 We must first determine what address information the
legislature intended signers to provide on nominating petitions.
Jenkins argues that the text of § 16-315(A)(4) requires either
an “actual residence address” or a “description of [a] place of
residence,” and that a post office box is neither. Jenkins also
argues that other statutory language shows the legislature’s
intent that signers provide a residence address. Finally,
Jenkins urges us to construe “post office” to exclude post
office boxes because the statute seeks to facilitate the
election official’s determination of whether the signer is a
qualified elector, and a post office box number does not further
that purpose.
¶12 Hale, on the other hand, argues that § 16-315(A)(4) is
written in the disjunctive and that “post office” is an
alternative to “actual residence address” or “description of
place of residence, city, [or] town,” and, therefore, it invites
signers to provide post office box addresses.
¶13 Although the parties briefed and argued the case under
§ 16-315(A)(4), that section does not control the inquiry before
us. It does, however, provide some guidance. Section 16-
315(A)(4) sets forth the requirements for the form of the
petition, which the petitions at issue in this case clearly
- 6 -
satisfy. But § 16-315(A) does not specify what the signers of
the petition must put in each column on the form. This lack of
statutory guidance differs from the procedure for initiative,
referendum, and recall elections, for which specific statutes
dictate the information signers must provide on the petition
forms. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(9) (requiring
initiative and referendum petitions to “contain” a declaration,
address, and date of signing). Compare A.R.S. §§ 19-101, -102
(2002) (describing form of petition), with A.R.S. § 19-112(A)
(2002) (requiring signers of initiative and referendum petitions
to write, “in the appropriate spaces” on the initiative or
referendum petition, a residence address or a description of
residence location), and A.R.S. § 19-205(A) (2002) (same for
recall petitions). Section 16-315(A) therefore does not control
the disposition of this case because the nominating petitions
were prepared exactly as § 16-315(A) requires.
¶14 Nonetheless, the format required by § 16-315(A)(4),
when considered with other provisions of the election statutes,
provides guidance by suggesting that the legislature intended
for signers to provide their residence address or a description
of the residence location. Considered alone, § 16-315(A)(4)
does not clearly require this information; the column heading
indicates that a signer may provide either (1) an “actual
residence address” or (2) a “description of [a] place of
- 7 -
residence, city, town or post office.” This language arguably
invites the signer to provide a “description of [a] . . . post
office” that is distinct from one’s “place of residence.”
¶15 Other statutes, such as A.R.S. §§ 16-315(B)(4) and 16-
321(D), however, shed light on the information desired. Section
16-315(B)(4) specifically requires the petition to include the
circulator’s “actual residence address or, if no street address,
a description of residence location.” We see no reason that the
legislature would desire different address information from
circulators than from signers since the purpose of the address
requirement is to determine whether the signer is a qualified
elector and whether the circulator is qualified to register to
vote.
¶16 Section 16-321(D) similarly suggests that an actual
residence location was desired. That section requires the
circulator to verify that the signer “resides at the address
given as the signer’s residence.” The “address given” evidently
refers to the information beside the signer’s name on the
petition form. A circulator could not believe that a person
resides at a post office box.
¶17 Instead, we believe that the legislature intended the
signer to identify, on the nominating petition form, the
signer’s actual residence address or some description of its
location, whether by reference to “[a] place,” or to the
- 8 -
relevant “city, town or post office.”2
B. Are Signatures That Provide a Post Office Box Instead of a
Residence Address Automatically Invalid?
¶18 Having determined that the legislature intended signers
to provide their residence address or a description of the
residence location, we must nevertheless determine whether
signatures must be invalidated if signers provide a post office
box address. We conclude that they need not be.
¶19 Unlike statutes governing initiative, referendum, and
recall petitions, no statute directs election officials to
invalidate nominating petition signatures that contain a post
office box address.3 See A.R.S. § 19-121.01(A)(1), (A)(3)(b).
2
Legislative clarification of the statutory requirements for
signatures on candidate nominating petitions would be helpful to
both candidates and election officials. In other contexts, the
legislature has clearly indicated that a post office box is
distinct from a signer’s residence address or a description of
the location of residence. See A.R.S. §§ 19-101(A), -102(A)
(describing form of petition in referendum and initiative
petitions to include separate columns for “[a]ctual address”
(or, if no street address, a description of residence location)
and for “Arizona post office address”); § 16-152(A)(4)
(describing voter registration form to permit “post office
address” for a mailing address as distinct from required address
of actual place of residence or description of residence
location).
3
Our analysis deals only with nominating petitions.
Initiative, referendum, or recall petitions are governed by
different statutes, which require the Secretary of State to
disqualify signatures “[i]f the residence address or the
description of residence location is missing.” A.R.S. §§ 19-
121.01(A)(3)(b), -208.01 (2002). They also require the county
recorder, as part of the random sampling procedure, to
- 9 -
We therefore look to the purpose supporting Arizona’s nominating
petition statutes to determine whether these signatures should
be disqualified as a matter of law. Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz.
316, 320, 271 P.2d 472, 474 (1954) (observing that it is “the
intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must
control”). Nominating petitions are designed to “[weed] out the
cranks, the publicity seekers, [and] the frivolous candidates
who have no intention of going through with the campaign . . . .
yet not keep out those who are serious in their efforts and have
a reasonable number of supporters.” Clifton, 187 Ariz. at 115,
927 P.2d at 775 (quoting Adams, 77 Ariz. at 320, 271 P.2d at
475) (first alteration in Clifton). We require signers to
supply their name, address, and date of signing to “provide a
means of identifying [the signer] as a person entitled to sign
such [a] petition and prevent forgeries of names, as well as to
indicate the precinct in which he lives.” Adams, 77 Ariz. at
321, 271 P.2d at 475. “[T]he purpose for requiring the address
of the petitioner is to afford a convenient method of checking
whether [the person signing a petition] is a qualified elector.”
Whitman v. Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 224, 125 P.2d 445, 452 (1942),
overruled in part on other grounds by Renck v. Superior Court,
66 Ariz. 320, 327, 187 P.2d 656, 660 (1947). Indeed, “[t]he
disqualify signatures if “[n]o residence address or description
of residence location is provided.” §§ 19-121.02(A)(1), -208.02.
- 10 -
ultimate substantive question . . . is whether the signer is in
all respects a qualified elector, and all the requirements in
regard to residence, date of signing, verification and the like
are to assist interested parties to ascertain this fact.” Id.
at 225, 125 P.2d at 453.4
¶20 We have analyzed whether nominating petition signatures
are invalid as a matter of law if signers’ information varies
from what the legislature intended the signers to provide. In
Clark v. Pima County Board of Supervisors, 128 Ariz. 193, 195,
624 P.2d 871, 873 (1981), for example, we addressed whether
signatures that varied from the affidavits of registration were
invalid because, at the time, § 16-315(A) provided that
nominating petitions contain a column entitled “signature as
registered.” We found that variances did not render the
signatures invalid per se; rather, we concluded that minor
variations would not invalidate an elector’s signature:
We believe that the Legislature intended to
require stricter adherence to form by the use of the
clear language of A.R.S. § 16-315(A), but we do not
believe that such action means that minor variations
4
We reject Jenkin’s argument that Whitman applies only to
cases involving initiatives and referenda, and not to those
involving nominating petitions. We are mindful of the
differences between initiatives, referenda, and nominating
petitions, but we have looked to Whitman on several occasions in
the context of nominating petitions. See, e.g., Pacuilla v.
Cochise County Bd. of Supervisors, 186 Ariz. 367, 368, 923 P.2d
833, 834 (1996) (noting that “the reasoning [of Whitman] extends
to the power to nominate persons for office”); Clark, 128 Ariz.
at 195, 624 P.2d at 873 (same).
- 11 -
in name signing would disqualify an otherwise valid
signature from consideration . . . .
When the signature appearing on a nominating
petition is not exactly the same as that on the
affidavit of registration, a prima facie case is made
by the contestant that the signer is not a registered
voter, but the proponent of the petition is free to
make an affirmative showing that the signature is in
fact that of a properly registered voter. If the
trier of fact is satisfied with the showing made by
the proponent, the signature should be accepted.
Id.
¶21 We find the reasoning in Clark instructive. As in the
case before us, Clark dealt not with whether the petition form
itself complied with § 16-315(A), but with whether the signers
completed the form in accordance with the legislature’s intent.
Providing a post office box address, which is not what the
legislature intended, see supra ¶¶ 11-17, is not unlike signing
the nominating petition with a signature that differs from the
name “as registered.” In light of the statutory purpose of
determining whether signers are qualified electors, we find it
difficult to see how a post office box address renders a
signature invalid per se if an elections official can verify
that the signer is a qualified elector. In some instances, the
election official may even have the post office box address on
file. See A.R.S. § 16-152(A)(4) (describing registration form
to allow registrants to provide a “post office address” as a
mailing address). Invalidating signatures of duly registered
electors does not further the purpose, intent, or spirit of
- 12 -
Arizona’s nominating petition statutes. See Whitman, 59 Ariz.
at 225, 125 P.2d at 453.
¶22 Of course, providing a post office box address is not
without consequence. If an elector challenges the signatures of
those petition signers who failed to provide a residence address
or a description of the residence location, the presumption of
validity of those signatures disappears and the absence of the
information provides a prima facie showing that the signers are
not qualified electors. The proponent, however, may demonstrate
to the trier of fact that the challenged signatures are those of
qualified electors. If the trier accepts the proponent’s
showing, the signatures are deemed valid and should be counted
unless some other ground requires disqualification.
¶23 Here, Jenkins challenged the signatures on various
grounds, but primarily on the ground that signers provided a
post office box address. As to those signatures, the absence of
a residence address or a description of the residence location
displaced the presumption of validity, and the burden shifted to
Hale to re-establish the validity of the signatures. Hale
offered evidence from the county recorders’ review of the
signatures. In Apache County, the recorder verified that many
of the signers who provided post office box addresses were, in
fact, registered voters. Jenkins presented no evidence to rebut
Hale’s evidence that the signers were qualified electors. The
- 13 -
superior court therefore appropriately counted those signatures.
See A.R.S. § 16-121.01.
III. CONCLUSION
¶24 Because the number of valid signatures exceeded the 522
signatures Hale needed to be placed on the primary ballot, we
affirm the judgment of the superior court.
_______________________________________
Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice
CONCURRING:
___________________________________
W. Scott Bales, Justice
___________________________________
Patrick Irvine, Judge*
*Pursuant to Article 6, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution,
the Honorable Patrick Irvine, Judge of the Court of Appeals,
Division One, was designated to sit in this matter.
- 14 -