On March 26, the Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that the number of signatures needed for a city initiative or referendum should be based on the last city council election, not the last mayoral election. Jones v Paniagua. Phoenix had rejected an initiative because the petition didn’t have enough valid signatures, but the court ruling validates the petition. Phoenix had argued that the law requires 10% of the last Mayoral election, but the Court ruled that the law only requires 10% of the last city council election, which happened to have been a low turnout run-off earlier this year. The last Mayoral election had been in 2007.
Talk about a cuckoo decision. Phoenix held a mayoral election and races for 4 of 8 city council districts in September 2007. 2 of the council races went to a runoff which was held in November 2007.
Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that the referendum requirements for the city should be based on turnout in an election in which it was illegal for 3/4 of the voters to participate. This reduced the petition requirement from 9798 to 2727.
The Phoenix charter sets the standard at 10% of turnout in the last election in which a mayor is elected, while the state law sets the standard at 10% of turnout at the last election at which a mayor or city councilmen were elected. Since two city councilmen were elected at the runoff in the 2 districts, the court ruled that was the relevant election under state law.
The judges made their decision despite quoting a legal standard of an absurd law:
“An absurd result is one “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.—