On July 7, the Arizona Supreme Court had put a candidate on the Democratic primary ballot, even though many of his petition signers wrote down a Post Office box on the petition, instead of a residence address. The Court said at the time that the candidate should be on the ballot, and that the decision would be issued later.

On August 19, the Court issued its opinion. It says that the law requires a residence address, not a post office box. But, it also says that the signature is not necessarily invalid, just because it lists a post office box instead of the residence location. “Invalidating signatures of duly registered electors does not further the purpose, intent, or spirit of Arizona’s nominating petition statutes.” When a signer lists a post office box, the burden shifts to the challenged candidate to show where that voter lives. If the candidate can show that the voter lives in the correct district, the signature is valid. The philosophy behind this decision is admirable, and contrasts with the behavior of the Maine Supreme Court in Herb Hoffman’s ballot access case earlier this year. The Maine Supreme Court had invalidated the signatures of validly registered voters because they had signed on the same sheet on which appeared an invalid signature.

The Arizona decision is Jenkins v Hale, cv-08-0208.