Cited by

This Court will “uphold a trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous as not either ‘supported by reasonable evidence or based on a reasonable conflict of evidence.’” Moreno Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0084-AP/EL Page 2 of 4 v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 98 ¶ 20 (2006) (quoting O’–93 (1973)); ¶ 4 (2014).

“We uphold a trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous as not either ‘supported by reasonable evidence or based on a reasonable conflict of evidence.’” (citation omitted).

When there is a challenge to the content of a nomination petition, we review de novo whether “‘a petition substantially complies with the statutory requirements’ before denying access to a ballot.” Bee, 218 Ariz. at 507 ¶ 8 (– 02 ¶ 40 (2006)).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a challenge to the form or content of nomination documents to determine whether the documents “‘substantially compl[ied] with the statutory requirements’ before denying access to a ballot.” ¶ 8 (2008) (– 02 ¶ 40 (2006)).

¶ 28 (2006) (in pari materia statutes “relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose”) (citation omitted).

¶13 We will not disturb a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous as not either supported by reasonable evidence or based on a reasonable conflict of evidence.” ¶ 20 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

at 93, 505 P.2d at 553; ¶ 20

In determining whether substantial compliance exists, we focus on “whether the omission of information could confuse or mislead electors.” Dedolph, 230 Ariz. at 133 ¶ 17, 281 P.3d at 487 ( ¶ 42, ); see also Bee, 218 Ariz. at 507 ¶ 10, 189 P.3d at 1080.

¶ 38, we held that the term “petition forgery” in § 16-351(F) refers to the class 1 misdemeanor defined in A.R.S.

¶ 38, we held that the term “petition forgery” in § 16-351(F) refers to the class 1 misdemeanor defined in A.R.S.

- 5 - 94, 101 n.4 ¶ 39, n.4 (2006)

Such challenges, however, typically attack qualifications of signators, e.g., Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 496, 497 ¶ 6, the validity of the circulator’s verification, ¶ 22, or the form of the petitions, -08 ¶¶ 11-14, -81 (2008).

(findings may be clearly erroneous if based on reasonable conflict of evidence).

Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 101-02 ¶ 40, -20 (2006).

Lubin, 213 Ariz. at 498, ¶ 14, 144 P.3d at 512 ( ¶ 24, ).

¶ 28 , (looking to other provisions in a statutory scheme to assist in determining meaning).

94, Clifton v. Decillis, l87 Ariz. li2, and Marsh v. Haws, lll Ariz. l39, (l9?4}, support the textual conclusion that substantial compliance suffices.