Clifton v. Decillis

5 Citing cases

  1. Kennedy v. Lodge

    230 Ariz. 134 (Ariz. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    We conclude, however, that this extrinsic information cannot be used to cure the defect in his petitions. ¶ 14 To support his claim that we should consider evidence extrinsic to the petitions to show voters' lack of confusion, Lodge relies on Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 116, 927 P.2d 772, 776 (1996), in which we held that an independent candidate's petitions substantially complied with statutory requirements despite leaving blank the space reserved for party designation. Although we noted in Clifton that the candidate told each elector that she was running as an independent, that extrinsic information did not factor into our substantial compliance analysis.

  2. Jenkins v. Hale

    218 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Nominating petitions

    ¶ 10 Our primary task in answering these questions is to discern the legislature's intent. Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, ¶ 14, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996). The statute's text is the best evidence of that intent, but we "will examine the policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the context, the language, and the historical background" if necessary to help us determine a statute's meaning.

  3. Moreno v. Jones

    213 Ariz. 94 (Ariz. 2006)   Cited 40 times
    Denying a comparable challenge to a candidate's nominating petition when candidate omitted day and month, but not the year of the primary election

    "To discern the intent the court will examine the policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the context, the language, and the historical background of the statute." Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 114, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996). ¶ 25 Jones argues that "petition forgery" should be understood to refer to the conduct proscribed in A.R.S. § 16-1020 (1996), the penal provision of the election laws concerning the improper signing of nomination petitions.

  4. Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified School District No. 68

    210 Ariz. 183 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    At oral argument, Wenc suggested we would elevate "personal sentiment" over the law if we upheld the election outcome notwithstanding the County's noncompliance with the technical requirements of the canvassing statute. But, in the absence of any specific legislative instruction that such an error requires us to overturn the result of an election, we must be cognizant that "`[i]t is the object of elections to ascertain a free expression of the will of the voters,'" Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 116, 927 P.2d 772, 776 (1996), quoting Territory v. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 Ariz. 248, 253, 12 P. 730, 732 (1887), and, so, "the determination of the intent of the voter is the question of primary importance." Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 270, 276 P. 843, 844 (1929).

  5. Lubin v. Thomas

    213 Ariz. 496 (Ariz. 2006)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that the laches doctrine applies to actions challenging candidate nomination petitions

    "To discern the [legislative] intent the court will examine the policy behind the statute, the evil sought to be remedied, the context, the language, and the historical background of the statute." Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 98 ¶ 24, 139 P.3d at 616 (citing Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 114, 927 P.2d 772, 774 (1996)). ¶ 15 Candidates are required to obtain nomination petitions to ensure that they have adequate support from eligible voters to warrant being placed on the ballot.