Cited by

–23 (1954), the court observed that “a writ of mandamus cannot issue to public officials who have no legal discretion concerning the matter at issue.” But, as noted, § 16-602 can be interpreted as limiting the hand count audit to precincts, thus arguably prohibiting election officials from using voting centers for

¶42 Third, the court found that ARP failed to address the principle that “a writ of mandamus cannot issue to public officials who have no legal discretion concerning the matter at issue.” –23 (1954).

tially comply with the statutory requirements; strict compliance is not necessary “[a]bsent a clear statement that the legislature intended a particular form requirement to be indispensable.” ¶ 10 (2008); accord Adams v. 3 MCKENNA V. SOTO, et al. Opinion of the Court Bolin

Providing an address in the district in which Bolick lives and seeks to represent also fulfills the purpose of the statutory address requirement which is to ensure that a candidate “reside[s] in the county, district or precinct that the person proposes to represent.” § 16-311(A); (explaining the general purpose of statutory nomination requirements is to ensure only bona-fide, eligible candidates are placed on the ballot).

§ 19-122(A) (stating that a party may bring a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to “accept and file” initiative petitions); (addressing whether to grant mandamus to compel the Secretary to accept a candidate’s nomination petition based on the Secretary’s legal obligation to do so); see also Ariz. R.P.

- 23, (finding mandamus unavailable to require a state officer to accept and hold prematurely submitted nomination papers in an election case).

Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 316, 320, (observing that it is “the intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must control”).

See Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 316, 320, (stating that the purpose of requiring nomination petitions is to “make the requirements stringent enough to discourage those [candidates] who do not for an instant merit the voter's consideration, yet not keep out those w

(putting the phrases “hereinafter designated” and “the precinct designated or indicated by my address” in the blank provided to indicate the relevant precinct was legally sufficient to identify elector’s precinct).

The nominating petitions were designed to “in some measure [weed] out the cranks, the publicity seekers, the frivolous candidates who have no intention of going through with the campaign.”

As to defendant Gray, , we agree with the determination made by the trial judge that his petitions are in substantial compliance with the provisions of A.R.S.

This court has said that mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of an act, Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc., v. Tucson Airport Auth., , ; , ; State Board of Technical *173 , , and that the purpose of mandamus is to require public officers to perform their official duties when they refuse to act, Territory ex rel.

we pointed out that “It is fundamental that statutes are not interpreted piecemeal.” , 108 P. 482 , 485: “ ‘In the construction of a statute, it is the intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must control, a

§ 12-2021; , ; Adams v. Bolin, *240 , .

We conclude that since the writ of mandamus is issued only to compel performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty, concerning which a public officer has no discretion, , , , , and.