Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 19-118(C), which invalidates signatures collected by a registered initiative-petition circulator who is properly subpoenaed but fails to appear or produce documents. The court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of 8,824 signatures and the resulting disqualification of the Stop Political Dirty Money Amendment from the November 2018 ballot. The court also held that service on the building guard was proper and that the subpoena process did not unreasonably hinder the initiative process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether A.R.S. § 19-118(C), which invalidates signatures collected by a registered circulator who is properly subpoenaed but fails to appear or produce documents, is facially constitutional.
- Whether A.R.S. § 19-118(C) is constitutional as applied to the subpoenaed circulators in this case.
- Whether service of the subpoenas on the guard at the circulators' designated service address was valid.
- Whether alleged violations of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 45 required quashing the subpoenas or prevented disqualification of the signatures.
- Whether the superior court properly disqualified the signatures collected by the nonappearing circulators, thereby rendering the Initiative ineligible for the November 2018 ballot.
Holdings
- A.R.S. § 19-118(C) is facially constitutional because its requirement that a registered petition circulator subpoenaed in an election challenge appear for trial does not unreasonably hinder or restrict the initiative process and reasonably supplements the constitutional purpose by fostering the integrity of the process.
- Applying A.R.S. § 19-118(C) to invalidate the signatures collected by the fifteen subpoenaed circulators was constitutional because the subpoenas concerned serious allegations about the circulators' statutory qualifications, involved only 0.6% of the Committee's circulators, and gave the Committee eleven days' notice before the hearing.
- Service of the subpoenas was proper when copies were left with the guard at the building designated by the circulators as their statutory service address, where the guard signed the service form and represented that he was authorized to accept service.
- The alleged failures to provide timely proof of service or a reasonable time to comply under Rule 45 did not require quashing the subpoenas because the Committee had notice and failed to show prejudice.
Key quotations
“We hold that A.R.S. § 19-118(C) is constitutional, both facially and as applied here, because its requirement that registered petition circulators subpoenaed in an election challenge appear for trial “does not unreasonably hinder or restrict” the initiative process and it “reasonably supplements the constitutional purpose” by fostering the integrity of the process.” (¶ 1)
“For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment disqualifying the Initiative from the November 2018 ballot.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Outlaw Dirty Money submitted petitions for a proposed constitutional amendment concerning disclosure of the original sources of campaign contributions. Petitioners challenged the qualifications and conduct of certain circulators, and subpoenaed fifteen circulators to testify at an evidentiary hearing. None appeared or responded, and the superior court disqualified the 8,824 signatures collected by them. The Secretary's final review estimated 223,892 valid signatures, below the 225,963 signatures required for ballot placement.
Procedural history
Stanwitz and other petitioners challenged the validity of signatures supporting the Initiative, including objections to petition circulators. Outlaw Dirty Money separately challenged the Secretary of State's removal of petition sheets and signatures. The superior court consolidated the actions, upheld the constitutionality of A.R.S. §§ 19-102.01(A) and 19-118(C), found service of subpoenas proper, disqualified 8,824 signatures collected by fifteen circulators who failed to appear, and ruled that the Initiative did not qualify for the ballot. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed and did not consider the petitioners' appeal because the parties agreed that the disputed signatures were dispositive.