Joshua Stanwitz v. reagan/outlaw Dirty Money, 429 P.3d 1138

Background

Outlaw Dirty Money filed petitions for a constitutional initiative (Stop Political Dirty Money) and submitted enough raw signatures to exceed the 225,963 threshold for the ballot.
The Stanwitz petitioners challenged certain petition sheets under A.R.S. § 19-118(D), alleging defects in circulator registration, eligibility, and payment practices; the Secretary preliminarily retained ~263,000 signatures for verification.
Petitioners subpoenaed 15 registered petition circulators (≈0.6% of the circulators) to testify at an evidentiary hearing; none appeared after service was made at the circulators’ designated Arizona address (served via a building guard who acknowledged authority to accept service).
The trial court found (1) service was proper, (2) subpoenas were timely and not unduly burdensome, and (3) § 19-118(C) (which voids all signatures collected by a registered circulator who, after proper subpoena, fails to appear) is constitutional both facially and as applied, and disqualified 8,824 signatures from the nonappearing circulators.
After the trial court’s disqualification, the Secretary concluded the initiative fell short of the constitutional signature requirement and would not qualify for the November 2018 ballot; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 19-118(C) is facially unconstitutional because it unreasonably hinders the initiative power	§ 19-118(C) improperly disqualifies otherwise valid signatures simply because a circulator fails to appear; it unduly restricts the initiative process	The statute reasonably supplements the constitutional initiative process by protecting signature-gathering integrity and deterring fraud	§ 19-118(C) is facially constitutional: it reasonably supplements and does not unreasonably hinder the initiative process
Whether § 19-118(C) is unconstitutional as applied here	Subpoenas were unnecessary and issued in bad faith; circulator testimony was not required to adjudicate challenges	Petitioners legitimately needed circulator testimony on compensation, criminal history, and registration defects; nonappearance prejudiced factfinding	§ 19-118(C) is constitutional as applied; trial court reasonably found subpoenaed testimony was material and prejudice from nonappearance justified disqualification
Whether service of the subpoenas complied with § 19-118(B)(2) and Rule 45	Serving the building guard at the first-floor entrance was defective because circulators’ suite was on the ninth floor	The circulators designated that building address for service; the guard had actual or apparent authority to accept service as the tenants’ agent	Service was proper: serving the guard at the designated address satisfied statutory service and did not incentivize evasion
Whether Rule 45 procedural requirements (proof and timeliness of service) were violated prejudicially	Petitioners did not provide proper proof of service or reasonable notice under Rule 45	Petitioners gave notice and copies to Committee counsel 11 days before the hearing and served the circulators ten days prior; Committee suffered no prejudice	No reversible Rule 45 violation: notice and proof in the record were adequate and Committee did not show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3 (1972) (statute regulating initiatives valid if it reasonably supplements and does not unreasonably hinder constitutional initiative power)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (state need not narrowly tailor means to promote ballot integrity and deter fraud)
W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426 (1991) (upholding statutory circulation procedures as validity requirements for petitions)
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453 (1984) (statutory procedures for circulators reduce erroneous signatures and deter misrepresentations)