Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett, 230 Ariz. 556

Pedersen/Committee supported the Quality Education and Jobs Act initiative; two versions (CD and paper) were submitted to the Secretary of State; the paper version omitted 15 lines on page 12, affecting funding allocations; the Secretary posted the paper version on his website while the CD version circulated with petitions; over 290,000 signatures were gathered and submitted for validation; the Secretary deemed the CD version did not match the official paper version and rejected the initiative, prompting mandamus relief; the trial court found the Secretary acted arbitrarily, and the supreme court granted direct appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initiative substantially complied with constitutional/statutory requirements	Pedersen argues substantial compliance.	Bennett argues strict adherence to the official paper version.	Yes; substantial compliance satisfied. They circulated intended version and corrected timing allowed remedy.
Whether the Secretary’s handling of two versions implicated an improper ‘official copy’ rule	Committee relied on the CD version as the circulated text.	Secretary had an informal practice; no explicit rule defining ‘official’ copy.	No fatal defect; not clearly defined by statute or rule; policy favors initiative rights.
Whether fees are mandatory for prevailing party on the merits	Committee prevailed on the merits and sought fees.	Law silent on duty to award fees in this unusual two-version scenario.	Not mandatory; each side bears its own costs.

Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 (Ariz. 2005) (liberal interpretation of initiative requirements; presumption of validity)
Kromko v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 51 (Ariz. 1991) (liberal construction of initiative form/manner requirements)
Ross v. Bennett, 228 Ariz. 174 (Ariz. 2011) (maintains substantial compliance standard in recall context)
Iman v. Bolin, 98 Ariz. 358 (Ariz. 1965) (correction before election; substantial compliance observed)