483 P.3d 194
Ariz.2021Background
- Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare (the Committee) submitted petitions to place the "Stop Surprise Billing and Protect Patients Act" on the 2020 ballot and needed 237,645 valid signatures.
- Leach et al. (the Challengers) filed an election challenge under A.R.S. § 19-118(F); they subpoenaed 332 of 1,167 registered petition circulators after the Committee cancelled ("de-registered") its circulators per the Secretary of State's 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM).
- The court set up virtual check-in and testimony procedures due to COVID-19; 94 subpoenaed circulators did not appear for trial via the virtual process.
- The trial court struck signatures collected by non-appearing subpoenaed circulators under A.R.S. § 19-118(E), applied a special master’s count, and concluded the Committee had only 221,536 valid signatures—short of the required number—so the Initiative was disqualified from the ballot.
- The Committee appealed, arguing de-registration insulated circulators from § 19-118(E) and that subpoenas were not properly or timely served; the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed these issues and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circulator who "de-registered" under the EPM can avoid § 19-118(E)’s requirement to appear when subpoenaed | Committee: de-registration removes status as a "registered circulator," so § 19-118(E) should not apply | Challengers: § 19-118(E) applies to persons who were registered when they circulated petitions; de-registration cannot evade statutory duty | Held: Court rejected de-registration defense; § 19-118(E) applies to those registered when they circulated and a circulator may not evade subpoena duties by de-registering; EPM cannot override statute |
| Whether subpoenas were properly and timely served on circulators | Committee: service was defective (insufficient time to comply; lack of electronic delivery; subpoenas lacked check-in time) | Challengers: subpoenas and associated "tickets" provided adequate notice; parties stipulated to virtual process and counsel received complete sets | Held: Court affirmed proper service—Rule 45 standards applied (proof of service and reasonable time to comply satisfied); record showed adequate notice and accommodations |
| Whether challengers abused the subpoena process (used subpoenas as a trap) | Committee: issuance/usage of broad subpoenas was an abuse designed to invalidate signatures rather than obtain relevant testimony | Challengers: subpoenas were necessary for fact-finding; failure to appear materially prejudiced the process | Held: Court acknowledged potential for abuse but found no abuse here—the trial court reasonably concluded non-appearances materially prejudiced fact-finding and § 19-118(E) was properly applied |
| Effect of striking signatures and final disposition | Committee: striking these signatures was improper because circulators were de-registered or improperly served | Challengers: struck signatures were validly invalidated under § 19-118(E), leaving insufficient valid signatures | Held: Court affirmed striking of signatures, leaving the Initiative ~16,000 signatures short and disqualified from ballot; court declined to decide the 100-word summary issue as moot (concurring justice would have affirmed that summary was misleading) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanwitz v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 344 (Ariz. 2018) (upheld § 19-118(E) as a valid integrity measure and emphasized the circulator's sworn role)
- Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3 (Ariz. 1972) (initiative process limits and reasonableness of regulatory requirements)
- W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426 (Ariz. 1991) (importance of sworn circulator statements for credibility)
- Molera v. Hobbs (Molera II), 250 Ariz. 13 (Ariz. 2020) (standards for a 100-word initiative summary—omissions or misleading phrasing can invalidate a summary)
- Molera v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 291 (Ariz. 2018) (example of misleading summary omitting material effects)
- Schwartz v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 617 (App. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of motion to quash subpoena)