Kennedy v. Lodge
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arizona Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Joseph Lodge was a judge of a county superior court who sought to run for election to a new term in that office. To qualify for the primary election ballot, Lodge needed to obtain 525 valid signatures on his nominating petitions. Lodge timely filed ninety-nine nominating petitions containing a total of 1,110 signatures. Jill Kennedy, a qualified elector, challenged Lodge's petitions, arguing that they did not substantially comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-314, -331, and -333 because they did not specify the office that Lodge was seeking. The superior court entered judgment for Kennedy and ordered that Lodge's name not be placed on the 2012 primary or general election ballots. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petitions failed to substantially comply with statutory requirements.
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA In Division JILL KENNEDY, an individual and qualified elector, ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JOSEPH LODGE, an individual, ) Real Party in Interest, ) THE HONORABLE CARL TAYLOR, MATT ) RYAN, ELIZABETH ARCHULETA, LENA ) FOWLER AND MANDY METZGER, THE ) DULY ELECTED OR APPOINTED ) MEMBERS OF THE COCONINO COUNTY ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHO ARE ) NAMED SOLELY IN THEIR OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY; WENDY ESCOFFIER, CLERK ) OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHO ) IS NAMED SOLELY IN HER OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY; THE COCONINO COUNTY ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; THE ) HONORABLE CANDACE D. OWENS, THE ) DULY ELECTED COCONINO COUNTY ) RECORDER, WHO IS NAMED SOLELY IN ) HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE ) HONORABLE PATTY HANSEN, THE DULY ) APPOINTED COCONINO COUNTY ) ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR, WHO IS ) NAMED SOLELY IN HER OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY, ) ) Defendants/Appellants. ) _________________________________ ) Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-12-0221-AP/EL Coconino County Superior Court No. CV2012-00386 O P I N I O N Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ WILLIAMS, ZINMAN, & PARHAM, P.C. By Scott E. Williams Mark B. Zinman Melissa A. Parham Attorneys for Jill Kennedy Scottsdale COPPERSMITH, SCHERMER, & BROCKELMAN, PLC Phoenix By Andrew S. Gordon Roopali Hardin Desai Attorneys for Joseph Lodge ________________________________________________________________ B E R C H, Chief Justice ¶1 On June 27, 2012, we issued an order affirming the superior court s judgment that nominating petitions designating the office sought as Superior Court, without specifying the office and division number, did not substantially comply with A.R.S. §§ 16-314 (Supp. 2011), -331, and -333 (2006). This opinion explains our reasoning. I. ¶2 Joseph FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lodge is a judge of Division Five of the Superior Court in Coconino County who seeks to run for election to a new term in that office. Two Coconino County judgeships, Division Three and Division Five, are up for election this year. The primary election is scheduled for August 28, 2012. ¶3 needed To to qualify for the obtain 525 valid petitions. See A.R.S. §§ (requiring certain primary signatures 16-314, percentage election of on his -322(A)(4) qualified Lodge nominating (Supp. electors nominating petitions for superior court judge). - 2 - ballot, to 2011) sign He timely filed 99 nominating petitions containing a total of 1,110 signatures. Each petition states that Lodge is running for the office of Superior Court. The petitions do not specify that he is running for the office of Judge, nor do they specify that he seeks election to Division Five. ¶4 Jill Kennedy, a qualified elector, challenged Lodge s petitions, arguing that they do not substantially comply with A.R.S. §§ 16-314, -331, and -333 because they do not specify the office that Lodge was seeking. At an evidentiary hearing below, however, Lodge and several of his petition circulators testified that when they circulated petitions they told signers that Lodge was running for superior court judge in Division Five. The circulators also testified that they offered cards to signers specifying the division number. some petition signers, after Other testimony indicated that looking at Lodge s petition, inquired as to the office for which he was running. ¶5 The superior court found insufficient evidence . . . to establish whether or not petition signers were . . . actually confused or misled by the petitions. electors reading superior Lodge s signing the Mr. petition court he petitions was Lodge s what petitions office seeking. substantially The court concluded that and After complied would not division ruling with within that the know none by the of applicable statutes, the court entered judgment for Kennedy and ordered - 3 - that Lodge s name not be placed on the 2012 primary or general election ballots. ¶6 Lodge timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 16-351(A) (Supp. 2011), which provides for a direct appeal to this Court. II. DISCUSSION ¶7 We review de novo whether a petition form substantially complies with statutory requirements. Moreno v. Jones, Ariz. 94, 101-02 ¶ 40, 139 P.3d 612, 619-20 (2006). this determination, omission of this Court has information could confuse signing the petition. focused or on In making whether mislead 213 the electors Id. ¶ 42 (citation omitted); Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505, 508 ¶ 13, 189 P.3d 1078, 1081 (2008); see also A.R.S. § 16-333 ( Any petition filed by a candidate for [superior] court which does not comply with the provisions of this chapter shall have no force or effect. ). Thus, we must determine whether the omission of the office or the division number from Lodge s petitions could have confused or misled the electors who signed them. A. ¶8 Omission of the Office Designation Judge The omission of the word Judge from Lodge s petitions does not render the petitions fatally defective. - 4 - Our opinion in Moreno is instructive. There, an elector challenged the validity of a state senate candidate s petition that omitted the specific date of the primary election and included only the year of the election. at 619-20. have Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 101-02 ¶¶ 40-42, 139 P.3d We concluded that the omitted information could not confused or misled electors because there is only one primary election for state legislative office in any election year. Id. at 102 ¶ 44, 139 P.3d at 620. We therefore held that electors would automatically know for which primary election they were signing. Id. ¶ 45 (internal quotes omitted); see also Bee, 218 Ariz. at 508 ¶¶ 13-14, 189 P.3d at 1081 (holding that the omission of the expiration date of the candidate s unexpired vacant term was not fatal because only one seat for that office was open in that election). ¶9 Likewise, only one Coconino office is up for election this year: County Superior Court superior court judge. Therefore, electors would automatically know for which office they were signing. The omission of Judge from Lodge s petitions could not have confused or misled signers and, thus, does not render the petitions fatally defective. B. ¶10 Omission of the Division Number We turn to the omission of the division number from Lodge s petitions. Arizona law provides that if two or more judges of the superior court are to be . . . elected for the - 5 - same term, it shall be deemed that there are as many separate offices to be filled as there are judges of the superior court to be elected. A.R.S. § 16-331(A). Further, each office must be designated by the distinguishing number of the division of the court, id., and that designation shall be used on all nominating petitions, id. § 16-331(B); see also Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 12(A) (requiring ballots for superior court judicial candidates to include the division and title of the office ). Thus, each superior court judgeship is a separate office identifiable by the particular division to which the candidate seeks election. needs to know And, as Lodge acknowledges, a petition signer for which division he is nominating someone because he can only nominate one candidate for each division. See A.R.S. § 16-314(C). ¶11 In Marsh v. Haws, the plaintiff challenged the validity of three candidates petitions to run for the office of Justice of the Peace for the South Phoenix Precinct. 140, 526 P.2d candidates 161, petitions 162 (1974) listed the (per 111 Ariz. 139, curiam). office Peace, without specifying the precinct. as Two of the Justice of the Id. At the time, Maricopa County had seventeen Justice of the Peace precincts, fourteen of which were up for election that year. that the petitions substantially comply for with these two statutory - 6 - Id. candidates requirements We held did not because electors could not determine from the face of the petitions for which precinct the candidates were running. ¶12 Id. Like the petitions in Marsh, Lodge s petitions did not include any information that would inform the petition signers of the division for which he was running. Because of that material omission, a signer would not automatically know that he was nominating a candidate for the office of Division Five of the Coconino County Superior Court. Moreno, 213 Ariz. at 102 ¶ 43, 139 P.3d at 620 (quoting Marsh, 111 Ariz. at 140, 526 P.2d at 162). Lodge s nominating petitions therefore substantially comply with statutory requirements. do not See A.R.S. § 16-331(A); see also Marsh, 111 Ariz. at 140, 526 P.2d at 162. ¶13 Lodge argues that his petitions substantially complied because little evidence showed that confused or misled by the omission. electors were actually He asserts that electors were aware of the division for which he was running because he and some petition circulators handed out palm cards, wore campaign stickers, posted campaign signs, and recited a speech all of which identified Lodge as a candidate for superior court judge in Division Five. 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, - 7 - Lodge relies on Clifton v. Decillis, 187 Ariz. 112, 116, 927 P.2d 772, 776 candidate s (1996), in petitions which we held substantially that an complied with independent 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 our substantial Id. at 113, 927 P.2d at 773. compliance analysis. did not factor into Rather, we concluded that the party designation was not essential to an independent candidacy because independent candidates do not run in primary elections designation. and, by definition, have Id. at 115-16, 927 P.2d at 775-76. no party Because party designation was not essential, its omission was not fatal to the petitions. Clifton does not support Lodge s use of and reliance on extrinsic evidence in the context presented here. ¶15 The relevant inquiry thus is whether the nominating petition itself requirements. substantially complies with statutory See Bee, 218 Ariz. at 508 ¶ 12, 189 P.3d at 1081 ( In reviewing non-compliance with any component of the form, the relevant substantially (emphasis inquiry is complies added)). whether with Allowing the the form statutory candidates to as a whole requirements. compensate for petition defects with extrinsic evidence that such defects did not result in voter confusion would eviscerate the statutory - 8 - requirement that all essential information be made available to the elector on the petition form. -331, -333. whether See A.R.S. §§ 16-314(C), Furthermore, it would encourage an inquiry into each determination signer that was could actually be made confused here only or by misled, a ascertaining whether at least 525 qualified petition signers understood that Lodge was running for judge of Division Five when each signed Lodge s petition. This is precisely the type of inquiry that the statutory petition requirements are designed to avoid. ¶16 The applicable statutes require superior court judicial nominating petitions to specifically designate number of the judicial office sought. relevant inquiry is whether an the division Under our cases, the elector would know just reading his petitions for which division Lodge was running. by The petitions here fail to adequately inform electors that Lodge sought election to Division Five because they do not specify any division and more than one division is up for election in this cycle. Accordingly, the petitions comply with statutory requirements. - 9 - failed to substantially III. ¶17 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the superior court. __________________________________ Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice CONCURRING: ___________________________________ A. John Pelander, Justice ___________________________________ Robert M. Brutinel, Justice - 10 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
