Cited by

See W. Devcor, (distinguishing “voter-initiated referenda” from “[r]eferral by the Legislature” of “proposed legislation to the electorate”).

Thus, the VPA serves as a defensive bulwark protecting “Arizona’s strong public policy favoring the initiative and referendum.” See W. Devcor, Ariz. Free Enter.

In that context it connotes an intolerance for technical errors, see W. Devcor, and contrasts with “substantial compliance”—a standard that instead tolerates errors if the purpose of the relevant statutory requirements was nevertheless fulfilled, ¶ 2 (2008).

See W. Devcor, (“[O]ur statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, [the Secretary of State’s Office] to pass ultimate judgment on whether petitions comply with constitutional requirements.

See W. Devcor, (“we require referendum proponents to comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.”) (citation omitted); see also Comm.

See W. Devcor, (“[The defendant] cannot rely on the Secretary of State’s sample form any more than they can rely on a statute that conflicts with the constitution.

Because this power “permits a minority to forestall implementation of enacted legislation, it ‘requires strict compliance with [applicable] constitutional and statutory requirements.’” (alteration in Price) (quoting W. Devcor, ); see also Comm.

Arizona’s public policy strongly favors the initiative and referendum processes, W. Devcor, which compels broad construction of the constitutional right to referendum.

which contravenes its provisions must fall.’” W. Devcor, –31 (1991) (); (stating that “the implementing statutes and [court] rules cannot eliminate or narrow rights guaranteed by the state constitution”); (finding legislative am

Indeed, perhaps Petitioners are correct in asserting that even absent COVID-19, they, like candidates, should have had “access to E-Qual from the get-go.” But Section 1(9) is the law and we will not re-write the Constitution in the middle of an election simply because some find it “too inconvenient for present-day operation.” W. Devcor

Cf. W. Devcor, –31 (1991) (holding referendum petitions invalid because they did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements for circulators’ statements); Direct Sellers, 109 Ariz. at 5 (holding that “the requirement that circulators of referendum petitions be qualified electors is a valid exercise of legislative p

–84 (1992) (holding referendum would not appear on ballot for failure to comply with signature requirement); W. Devcor, –32 (1991) (determining referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain required circulators’ statements); –42 (1985) (holding initiative invalid for failing to propose a law or ordinance); Cottonwood Dev.

W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale , , 429, , 770 (1991) (enacted legislation may reflect view of majority); A.R.S.

Indeed, the courts of this state “have long recognized the strong public policy favoring the initiative and referendum.” citing W. Devcor

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

See W. Devcor, - 5 - (1991); Cottonwood Dev.

Sklar argued that the court must strictly construe the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 19-101(A), citing Western Devcor, , and that SOST’s petitions were invalid because they were inaccurate, misleading, and did not contain descriptions of the principal provisions of the matters to be referred.

As the City correctly notes, when determining the legal sufficiency of referendum petitions, we require that they “comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.” W. Devcor

W. Devcor, -29 , -70 (1991) (citation omitted) (requiring strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements because referendum power allows “minority to hold up the effective date of legislation which may well represent the wishes of the majority”).

presence on the date indicated, and I believe that each signer’s name and residence address or post - 6 - B ¶11 We have long “recognized Arizona’s strong public policy favoring the initiative and referendum.” W. Devcor, ( ).

erendum proponents must “comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions” because “the referendum is an ‘extraordinary’ power, Direct Sellers (Ass’n v. McBrayer, , ], that permits a ‘minority to hold up the effective date of legislation which may well represent the wishes of the majority.’” Western Devcor, , quoting Cottonwood Dev., 134 Ariz. at 49 , 653 P.2d at 697 .

Our courts have also consistently recognized “Arizona’s strong public policy favoring the initiative and referendum.” Western Devcor

permit substantial compliance in the initiative context, but require strict compliance in the referendum context.” Western Devcor, , (citations omitted).