On September 22, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the city of Phoenix, in Jones v Paniagua. The issue is how many signatures are needed for a city referendum. The law says the number of signatures must be 10% of the vote cast in the last city election. But the uncertainty involved knowing which was the last city election, the 2007 first round (which had a high turnout and included the Mayor’s race), or the 2007 second round (which just had contests in some city council districts, plus a citywide ballot measure), which had a far lower turnout. The State Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the second round, which meant far fewer signatures for referenda this year.
In September 2007, there was an election for mayor and four (of 8) city council seats. Two of the districts required a runoff in November 2007.
There was no citywide ballot measure for the November election, it was simply an election in which only voters from 2 of 8 districts could legally vote. The citywide election in September itself had light turnout (19%), so the petition standard is effectively being set on the basis of an election in which turnout was about 5% of city voters.
The two interpretations meant a difference between a requirement for 9798 signatures and 2727 signatures. The 10% standard is for a referendum, because the petitioners were (are) seeking to overturn a zoning ordinance; it would be 15% for an initiative.
It could have actually been worse. The leader in one of the city council races had 47% of the vote in September, and turnout was very low in the other district. If there had been a single district runoff, “citywide” turnout would have been under 2%.
The conflict is between Arizona law and Phoenix law. Arizona law says that the petition threshold is based on the last election for mayor or city council. Phoenix law says the threshold is based on the last mayoral election. Phoenix argued that the State law gave Phoenix discretion to choose which election was used.
The Arizona courts have ruled that the state statute is unambiguous, and that the effect is not absurd.
Phoenix has just held a city council election in the other four city council districts (no mayoral election this time), and turnout was even lower than 2007. So under the courts’ interpretation, the petition threshold will be based on 4 districts. But one district requires a runoff, so after that is held in November, the threshold will probably be even lower than after the 2007 runoffs in two districts.
Thanks for the added detail and the correction about referenda versus initiative.