Candidates submit “nonpartisan nomination petitions” with 297 valid signatures to secure a place on the primary ballot. The town clerk is responsible to review signatures based on “substantially complying” with A.R.S. § 16-315; A.R.S. § 16-321; A.R.S. § 16-341(I). The basis is a good-faith attempt. This is subjective.
The town attorney was recently asked if submitting referendum petitions was “illegal” because the back page of the petition didn’t have the serial number. He said, “yes.” He has stated it is a lower standard than a referendum “that often requires a nearly perfect or strict compliance standard.” The town attorney is on record as saying the referendum petition submission would be “illegal,” but the standard is not strict compliance, but nearly perfect or strict compliance. Why is this “illegal” if the standard is “nearly perfect?”
I reviewed every candidate’s petitions. Tolis and Male are the worst offenders of submitting what appear to be invalid signatures. Tolis presented 325 signatures. At least four were duplicates. I found approximately 75 signatures were not legible, the entire date was missing, no year was included, and unit numbers of multi-residential dwellings were not included. These are statutory requirements.
One signature on McDowell Mountain Drive left off the zip and town, but I found the address is Rio Verde. Another on Mountainaire Drive, also in Rio Verde, but identified the zip of 85263 on the form. All 10 signatures on the page were counted. Others where 85268 is the correct zip code, but the residence is in Scottsdale and at least one instance of a signature in Phoenix.
A quick review of each page indicates the candidate included all these signatures in his final count. Is this the type of representative you want serving on the Town Council when simple due diligence should have excluded several signatures submitted?
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
