Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett
228 Ariz. 174
| Ariz. | 2011Background
- Recall petition for State Senator Russell Pearce filed by Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA).
- Petition initially certified with 16,934 signatures; county recorder later reduced to 10,296 valid signatures after verification.
- Governor Brewer ordered a recall election for November 8, 2011.
- Ross sought to enjoin the recall; trial court denied relief; appellate transfer occurred to Arizona Supreme Court.
- Court reviews whether recall petition substantially complies with constitutional/statutory requirements; issues center on substantial compliance, genuineness of signatures, circulator oath, grounds for recall, and signature-sheet validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abbey’s substantial compliance standard should be abandoned | Ross seeks strict compliance. | Abbey remains valid and liberal recall safeguards. | Abbey’s substantial compliance standard reaffirmed |
| Whether the circulator oath satisfies genuineness requirement | Oath may be too lax; signatures not genuinely verified. | Affidavits substantially verify signatures. | Oath substantively satisfies genuineness requirement |
| Whether recall oath language can include additional statements | Additional recall oath language violates constitutional form. | Additional language is permissible; consistent with statute. | Additional language satisfies recall oath requirements |
| Whether the grounds for recall on each sheet are compliant | General, non-specific ground may mislead voters. | General grounds are permissible in recall petitions. | General grounds permissible; petition substantially complies with § 19-203(A) and Art. 8 |
| Whether striking entire sheets for some illegitimate signatures is proper | If circulator affidavits are defective, entire sheets should be invalidated. | Cannot strike entire sheets for isolated defects; requires fraud evidence. | Do not strike entire sheets; distinguish fraud from minor irregularities; Brousseau not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbey v. Green, 28 Ariz. 53 (1925) (recall procedure liberally construed to benefit public)
- Pacuilla v. Cochise Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 186 Ariz. 367 (1996) (liberal recall interpretation; public welfare focus)
- Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc., 134 Ariz. 46 (1982) (strict compliance for referenda where minority power is significant)
- Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453 (1984) (invalidating petition sheets when affidavits are fraudulent; scope of invalidation)
- Johnson v. Maehling, 123 Ariz. 15 (1979) (recall is for public benefit; liberal construction favored)
- Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 (2005) (substantial compliance in initiative context; relevant standard)