Cited by

“In the context of election matters, the laches doctrine seeks to prevent dilatory conduct and will bar a claim if a party’s unreasonable delay prejudices the opposing party or the administration of justice.” ¶ 10 (2006); see also League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009) (“Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.”).

In doing so, the County Recorder “may invalidate Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0104-AP/EL Page 3 of 5 signatures for legitimate reasons other than those specifically alleged in the challenger's complaint.” Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 496, 499 ¶ 19 (2006).

Bullock, 405 U.S. at 145; Jenness, 403 U.S. at 442; ¶ 15

“[T]he laches doctrine seeks to prevent dilatory conduct and will bar a claim if a party’s unreasonable delay prejudices the opposing party or the administration of justice.” , 497 ¶ 10

¶11 ¶ 19, to support his argument that one may challenge signatures on any ground of invalidity, whether or not previously raised.

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).

See In re Waldren , (considering senate fact sheet as evidence of intent); , (same).

513, 521 , ¶ 10 , (finding prejudice to system).

¶ 10, (noting appeals in election matters may be dismissed for laches when unreasonable delay prejudices opponent or administration of justice).

These signatures are meant to ensure that candidates have “adequate support from eligible voters to warrant being placed on the ballot.” Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 15

(in reviewing signatures in nomination petition, county recorder may invalidate signatures for any legitimate reason, not merely for reasons raised by challengers, because purpose of review “not served by holding that a signature should be treated as valid merely because the County Reco