Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

City of Tucson, City of Phoenix v. State of Arizona Ken Bennett

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided August 18, 2014No. 2 CA-CV 2013-0146PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MILLER, Judge.

¶ 1 Section 16-204(E), AR.S., was added in 2012 to require that most municipal candidate elections be held simultaneously with state and national candidate elections. 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 353, § 1. As originally enacted in 1996, § 16-204 limited these elections to only four specified days each year, which the Legislature declared was for the “purpose[ ] of increasing voter participation and for decreasing the costs to taxpayers.” 1996 Adz. Sess. Laws, ch. 271, § 16. By mandating municipal candidate elections be held on even-numbered years, concurrent with general…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lackey v. State Ex Rel. GrantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. Forty-Seventh Legislature v. NapolitanoArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Strode v. SullivanArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  4. City of Wewoka v. RodmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. United States v. Village of Port ChesterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewitArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Puppies 'N Love v. City of PhoenixDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2015
  3. Puppies 'N Love v. City of Phx.District Court, D. Arizona · 2017
  4. State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewitArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewitArizona Supreme Court · 2017

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API