461 P.3d 428
Ariz.2020Background
- Thomas Morrissey won Payson mayoralty by a majority in the August 28, 2018 primary; Payson Code provides that a primary majority results in election effective on the general election date.
- Unite Payson filed a recall petition on August 12, 2019; the town clerk calculated required signatures as 25% of votes cast in the last preceding general election (2002) and required 770 signatures.
- Unite Payson submitted 970 signatures; after invalidations the recorder certified 821 valid signatures and the clerk called a recall election.
- Morrissey sued to enjoin the recall, arguing the 25% baseline should be 25% of votes cast in the 2018 primary (1,255), not the 2002 general election; the trial court agreed and enjoined the recall.
- The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional interpretation de novo and affirmed: a primary that functionally elects a candidate (under statute and local code) serves as the relevant "last preceding general election" for computing recall-signature thresholds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "last preceding general election" for calculating 25% recall-signature threshold | Morrissey: use the most recent election that actually elected the officer (2018 primary) | Unite Payson: use the most recent formal general election for the office (2002) | Court: functional approach — a primary that elects a candidate under statute/local code counts; use 2018 primary |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallardo v. State, 236 Ariz. 84 (constitutional interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Dunn v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 177 Ariz. 190 (plain meaning governs absent absurdity)
- Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 246 Ariz. 89 (interpret text in overall context to effectuate purpose)
- Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566 (give meaning to every word to avoid surplusage)
- Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193 (ambiguity exists when language is reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations)
- Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 239 Ariz. 19 (use dictionaries and secondary sources when constitutional language is ambiguous)
- Kyle v. Daniels, 198 Ariz. 304 (functional distinction: primaries nominate; general elections determine officeholders)
- City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 246 Ariz. 206 (apply expressio unius to infer exclusion when like entities are omitted)