Rogers v. Cook
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Moreno v. Jones 213 Ariz. 94
- O'HERN v. Bowling 109 Ariz. 90
- Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer 235 Ariz. 199
- 198 Ariz. 330 not in our corpus
- Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett 228 Ariz. 174
Opinion text
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
WENDY ROGERS, individually, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-24-0084-AP/EL
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) No. CV2024-008715
DAVID COOK, individually, et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
)
__________________________________) FILED 05/09/2024
DECISION ORDER
The Court, by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Brutinel,
Justice Bolick, Justice Lopez, and Justice Beene, has considered
the record, the parties’ briefs, the trial court’s under
advisement ruling following trial, and the relevant legal
authorities in this expedited election matter.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s ruling that Appellee, a
Republican candidate for state senate representing Legislative
District 7, had more than the 595 valid signatures required to
appear on the ballot. Appellant claims that the trial court
erred in failing to invalidate 132 out-of-district signatures
and in failing to invalidate either all, or at least 66,
signatures collected by circulator Jason Wessel on the ground
that he forged signatures and falsely certified petitions.
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’Hern v.
Bowling, 109 Ariz. 90, 92–93 (1973)); Shooter v. Farmer, 235
Ariz. 199, 200 ¶ 4 (2014). Here, the Court cannot conclude that
the trial court’s failure to find that Wessel committed forgery
was clearly erroneous.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the trial court did not
rule that Appellant’s challenge to the signatures collected by
Wessel failed because there was no direct evidence Wessel forged
signatures or because the counties had already invalidated
signatures collected by Wessel for not matching a signature on
file. Rather, the trial court was simply noting these facts as a
part of its findings, just as it noted Appellant’s evidence of
forgery--the testimony of four witness that they had not signed
petitions circulated by Wessel and the testimony of a Gila
County recorder who had a concern about fraudulent signatures on
petitions circulated by Wessel--and the conflicting trial
evidence--Wessel’s testimony denying he had forged signatures.
Considering this evidence and the trial court’s superior
position to “weigh[] the evidence and resolve[] any conflicting
facts, expert opinions, and inferences therefrom,” the trial
court’s finding that Appellant failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Wessel committed forgery was not
clearly erroneous, and it therefore did not err in failing to
invalidate any further signatures collected by Wessel. See
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0084-AP/EL
Page 3 of 4
Shooter, 235 Ariz. at 200 ¶ 4 (quoting In re Gen. Adjudication
of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 198
Ariz. 330, 340 ¶ 25 (2000)).
Given our resolution of this issue, the disposition of
Appellant’s remaining claim related to the alleged 132 out-of-
district signatures is moot. See Ross v. Bennett, 228 Ariz. 174,
181 ¶ 38 (2011). The parties do not dispute that Appellee
collected 781 valid signatures after the counties’ review and
that 595 were required to qualify for the ballot. Thus, even if
Appellant’s challenge to the 132 out-of-district signatures
prevailed, Appellee would still have 649 signatures, 54 more
than necessary to qualify for the ballot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s ruling is affirmed.
David Cook is eligible for placement on the ballot for the
primary election to be held on July 30, 2024, as a Republican
candidate for State Senator for Legislative District 7.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court issue the
mandate in this matter immediately.
DATED this ___9th day of May, 2024.
______/s/____________________
ROBERT BRUTINEL
Chief Justice
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0084-AP/EL
Page 4 of 4
TO:
Timothy A LaSota
Jason S Moore
Craig C Cameron
Roy Herrera
Daniel A Arellano
Jane Ahern
Austin T Marshall
Rose Winkeler
Jefferson R Dalton
Joshua M Conway
Hon John L Blanchard, Judge
Hon Jeff Fine, Clerk
Alberto Rodriguez
**** ****
Karen J Hartman-Tellez
Kara Karlson
Kyle R Cummings