§ 10.7 Nominating Petition Appeals.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 10.7 Nominating Petition Appeals. By statute, a challenge to a candidate’s nominating petition is expedited. A.R.S. § 16-351. Section 16-351(A) provides that the superior court’s decision is appealable only to the supreme court. See, e.g., Miller v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pinal County, 175 Ariz. 296, 297, 855 P.2d 1357, 1358 (1993). The notice of appeal must be filed at the superior court within 5 calendar days after the superior court’s decision. A.R.S. § 16-351(A); see also Bedard v. Gonzales,120 Ariz. 19, 19-20, 583 P.2d 906, 906-07 (1978). The 5-day time limit for appealing a trial court’s decision of a nominating petition challenge includes weekends and holidays. See Bohart v. Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 482, ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 1021, 1023 (2006) (appeal filed 6 calendar days after trial court’s decision was untimely). Laches applies to actions challenging candidate nomination petitions, so merely filing a timely notice of appeal may be insufficient if the appellant fails to promptly prosecute the appeal. See Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 496, 497-98, ¶¶ 9-10, 144 P.3d 510, 511-12 (2006).

Transcripts are not required for an appeal from a decision regarding a candidate’s nomination petition. See Brousseau v. Fitzgerald,138 Ariz. 453, 457, 675 P.2d 713, 717 (1984). However, in the absence of a transcript, the supreme court will presume the evidence was sufficient to sustain the superior court’s findings, and will rely on those findings and any additional facts agreed upon by the parties. Id. The appellant may not challenge signatures on grounds that were not alleged in the complaint. McClung v. Bennett, 225 Ariz. 154, 156, ¶¶ 11-14, 235 P.3d 1037, 1039-1040 (2010).

Ariz. City Sanitary Dist. v. Olson, 224 Ariz. 330, 230 P.3d 713 (App. 2010)......... 10-1

Ariz. Legislative Council v. Howe, 192 Ariz. 378, 965 P.2d 770 (1998).................. 10-1

Ariz. Libertarian Party , Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Cochise County, 205 Ariz. 345, 70 P.3d 1146 (App. 2003)................................................................................................. 10-4

Bedard v. Gonzales,120 Ariz. 19, 583 P.2d 906 (1978)........................................ 10-10

Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505, 189 P.3d 1078 (2008)................................................... 10-5

Bohart v. Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 143 P.3d 1021 (2006)........................................ 10-10

Brousseau v. Fitzgerald,138 Ariz. 453, 675 P.2d 713 (1984)............................... 10-10

Browne v. Bayless, 200 Ariz. 261, 25 P.3d 749 (App. 2001)................................... 10-4

Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, 199 Ariz. 71, 13 P.3d 1188 (2000)........... 10-9

Escamilla v. Cuello, 230 Ariz. 202, 282 P.3d 405 (2012)........................................ 10-2

Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444, 123 P.3d 180 (2005)...................................... 10-8

Fisher v. City of Apache Junction, 200 Ariz. 484, 28 P.3d 946 (App. 2001)........... 10-9

Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 214 Ariz. 406, 153 P.3d 1035 (2007)................... 10-8

Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria, 195 Ariz. 137, 985 P.2d 622 (App. 1999) 10-3

Hancock v. Bisnar, 212 Ariz. 344, 132 P.3d 283 (2006)......................................... 10-9

Harris v. City of Bisbee, 219 Ariz. 36, 192 P.3d 162 (App. 2008)........................... 10-9

Harris v. Purcell, 193 Ariz. 409, 973 P.2d 1166 (1998).......................................... 10-1

Jennings v. Woods, 194 Ariz. 314, 982 P.2d 274 (1999)......................................... 10-8

Johnson v. Maehling, 123 Ariz. 15, 597 P.2d 1 (1979)...................................... 10-8, 10

Kennedy v. Lodge, 230 Ariz. 134, 281 P.3d 488 (2012).......................................... 10-4

Korte v. Bayless, 199 Ariz. 173, 16 P.3d 200 (2001)........................................... 10-2, 9

KZPZ Broad., Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens, 199 Ariz. 30, 13 P.3d 772 (App...