Robert Backie v. Kim George

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

ROBERT BACKIE, an individual and ) Arizona Supreme Court
a qualified elector of ) No. CV-24-0089-AP/EL
Congressional District 1, )
) Maricopa County
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Superior Court
) No. CV2024-008687
v. )
)
KIM GEORGE, et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
)
__________________________________) FILED 05/08/2024

DECISION ORDER

On April 29, 2024, Appellant/Plaintiff/Challenger Backie filed a

timely Notice of Appeal. On April 30, 2024, Maricopa County filed the

“Maricopa County Defendants-Appellees’ Notice of Decision-Deadline

for Ballot Printing” advising the Court of the need to decide this

matter no later than May 13, 2024. The parties agreed to an expedited

stipulated briefing schedule and submitted simultaneous briefs. Upon

consideration of the briefs filed by Challenger and by

Appellee/Defendant Candidate George, along with the record in this

matter, a panel, consisting of Vice Chief Justice Timmer and Justices

Bolick, Montgomery, and King finds as follows.

On April 24, 2024, the trial court conducted a trial in this

expedited election challenge. Candidate filed her nomination petition

as a Republican seeking the office of U.S. Representative for

Congressional District 1. The parties have stipulated that pertinent

to the appeal, out-of-state circulators Lopez, Ramirez, Weltman, and

Arizona Supreme Court Case No. CV-24-0089-AP/EL
Page 2 of 4

Okwaraji all collected signatures for Candidate after they opened

their Circulator Portal accounts but before registering on the

Circulator Portal to circulate for Candidate. Circulator Humphries

collected signatures for Candidate after he opened his Circulator

Portal account but never registered to circulate nomination petitions

for Candidate.

As we set forth in our decision order in Breckling v. Hernandez,

CV-24-0087-AP/EL (May 7, 2024):

A.R.S. § 16-315(D) provides that non-resident circulators
must register. The statute does not require that non-
resident circulators register for a specific candidate. In
other contexts, the Legislature has required discrete
registrations for specific petition issues. See A.R.S.
§ 19-118(A); Leibsohn v. Hobbs, 254 Ariz. 1, 6-7, ¶ 20
(2022) (reviewing statewide initiative and referendum
petitions). The requirements for candidate petitions [are]
different than for ballot measures. See Powers v.
Carpenter, 203 Ariz. 116, 118, ¶ 10 (2002) (refusing to
apply statute governing ballot measure petitions to
candidate nomination petitions); Morales v. Archibald, 246
Ariz. 398, 401, ¶ 12 (2019) (declining to “conflate[] the
process for recalls with those for initiatives and
referenda”).

The Legislature has authorized the Secretary to “establish
. . . a procedure for registering circulators” through the
Elections Procedures Manual (“EPM”), see A.R.S.
§ 16-315(D). The EPM does not expressly instruct that
separate, per-candidate registrations are a prerequisite to
the associated signatures’ substantive validity. See EPM
Chapter 6, sec. 2 subsec. (C). Even if that were true, the
statute does not contain a requirement that circulators
register for a particular candidate. Cf. Leach v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 572, 576, ¶¶ 20–21 (2021) (EPM’s creation of a
de-registration process for ballot measure circulators
could not affect the circulators’ statutory
responsibilities or the legal sufficiency of underlying
signatures). The EPM confirms that circulators who are not

Arizona Supreme Court Case No. CV-24-0089-AP/EL
Page 3 of 4

residents of Arizona must register with the Secretary of
State “prior to circulating: . . . a candidate petition in
any Arizona jurisdiction (statewide, county, city, or
town).” See EPM Chapter 6, sec. 2 subsec. (B) (emphasis
added). Failure to do so invalidates the signatures
collected by the circulator prior to registration.

In this case, the challenged circulators properly registered as

required by A.R.S. § 16-315(D) prior to circulating nomination

petitions on behalf of Candidate George. Therefore, Candidate had

sufficient signatures in her nomination petitions to appear on the

ballot.

IT IS ORDERED affirming the trial court’s decision and directing

Maricopa County to include candidate Kim George on the ballot.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2024.

___________/s/________________
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER
Vice Chief Justice

TO:

Arizona Supreme Court Case No. CV-24-0089-AP/EL
Page 4 of 4

Eric H Spencer
Charlene Anne Warner
Savannah C Wix
Jennifer Wright
Nancy M Bonnell
Kara Karlson
Karen J Hartman-Tellez
Kyle R Cummings
Amy B. Chan
William Davis
Joseph Eugene La Rue
Jack O'Connor
Rosa Aguilar
Anna Critz
Kimberly D Chamberlain
Stephanie Large
Hon. John R Hannah Jr, Judge
Hon. Jeff Fine, Clerk