Cited by

Safety, 249 Ariz. at 406 ¶ 28; (noting that when the legislature changes the language of a statute, the presumption is an intent to make a change in the law).

“[S]tatutory circulation procedures are designed to reduce the number of erroneous signatures, guard against misrepresentations, and confirm that signatures were obtained according to law.”

Consequently, because the integrity of the signature collection process is singularly dependent on the probity of circulators, “statutory circulation procedures” are critical “to reduce the number of erroneous signatures, guard against misrepresentations, and confirm that signatures were obtained according to law.” (discussing candidate nominating petitions); ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (concluding that a petition serial number requirement was “critical” to ensuring the integrity of the referendum process)

that “petitions containing false certifications by circulators are void, and the signatures on such petitions may not be considered in determining the sufficiency of the number of signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot.” The circulator affidavits on the petition sheets used h

- 5 - 94, 101 n.4 ¶ 39, n.4 (2006)

we interpreted this statutory time limit as directive and not jurisdictional.

See Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 456

(“[Nominating] petitions containing false certifications by circulators are void, and the 18 signatures on such petitions may not be considered in determining the sufficiency of the number of signatures to qualify for placement on the

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 16-321(D) (Supp. 2005) (requiring “[t]he person before whom the signatures were written” to verify signatures); Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 456, (holding that no signatures on “petitions containing false certifications” may be considered).

P.2d 713 (l984), the trial judge invalidated those petitions in their entirety.

at 484 , 657 P.2d at 897 ; , (“ten day requirement for action by the superior court is directory and not mandatory”); Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (failure to conduct hearing within statutory time did not divest agency of jurisdiction).

1 , (adopting facts agreed upon in briefs where no record of trial court proceedings available).

We ordinarily presume that a subsequent amendment is intended by the legislature to change the law existing at the time the amendment was enacted, , which would contravene our conclusion here.

overruled on other grounds, Renck, 66 Ariz. at 327 , 187 P.2d at 660-61

42) (question of whether Arizona’s constitution should reserve powers of initiative and referendum was “burning issue”; opinion of delegates who adopted and signed constitution was that powers of initiative and referendum were among the constitution’s most important provisions), overruled twice on other grounds, , , see also Leshy, The Making of the Arizona Constitution, 20 Ariz.St.L.J.