Cited by

When reviewing for substantial compliance, courts “focus on whether the omission of information could confuse or mislead electors.” ¶ 9 (2014) (cleaned up); ¶ 14 (2012) (explaining that substantial compliance examines whether the public may be “defraud[ed] or deceive[d]”); ¶ 14 (2005) (substantial compliance considers “the extent to which the petitions differ from the requirements, and the purpose of the requirements”).

gation process fulfilled the APA’s purpose “that those affected by a rule have adequate notice of the agency’s proposed procedures and the opportunity for input into the consideration of those procedures.” Carondelet Health Servs., Inc., 182 Ariz. at 226, 229 (further explaining intent of APA to “facilitate and encourage public participation in the formulation of rules”); (court considering various factors to determine substantial compliance with statutory requirements in context of petitions fo

1, § 1(1); (“The initiative process reserves to the people the power to propose to the electorate laws and amendments to the constitution.”).

Accordingly, Humphries and Thompson complied with the requirements for the registration of out-of-state circulators and thus there is no need to address whether they “substantially complied.” See ¶ 14 Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0087-AP/EL Page 4 of 5 (2005) (discussing “the nature of .

Mental Health No. 20200860221, ¶ 11 (2023) (explaining that substantial compliance “tolerates errors if the purpose of the relevant statutory requirements was nevertheless fulfilled”); ¶ 14 (2005) (allowing substantial compliance with initiative petition statutes if the petition “fulfills the purpose of the relevant statutory or constitutional requirements”); (allowing substantial compliance with statute requiring payment of dispu

¶37 Substantial compliance applies to petitions that, despite minor, technical errors, still “fulfill[] the purpose of the relevant statutory or constitutional requirements.” ¶ 14 (2005).

W. Devcor, 168 Ariz. at 429, 814 P.2d at 770; Cottonwood Dev., 134 Ariz. at 49, 653 P.2d at 697.

at 58, 811 P.2d at 19 (citations omitted); (test for initiatives, unlike referenda, is whether petition substantially complies with requirements of constitution and statute).

See, ¶ 11, (citing W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426, 428, ).

See Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444, 449, (finding 7 Not only does the oath track § 19-205(C), it is also the same language the secretary of state uses on the sample recall petition forms available to the public.

I A ¶2 When considering challenges to the form of initiative petitions, Arizona courts follow a rule of “substantial compliance.” Feldmeier v. Watson (Citizens for Responsible Growth), -48, ¶¶ 14-15, -84 (2005).

¶19 The City asserts the legislative history of § 19-112 and the rules of statutory construction require us to interpret subsection (D) (apparently despite its actual language) as the required text of a circulator’s affidavit and subsection (C) as describing “what the avowal 5 Harris contends the supreme court “overrule[d]” P.3d 180 (2005).

of Tucson, Inc., ¶¶ 14-15, -84 (2005).