Page:Ward v. Jackson (CV-20-0343-AP EL) (2020) Decision Order.pdf/5

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0343-AP/EL

Page 5 of 7 that out of 100 signatures, six to eleven of the signatures were “inconclusive” but neither expert could identify any sign of forgery or simulation and neither could provide any basis to reject the signatures.

Election contests are “purely statutory and dependent upon statutory provisions for their conduct.” Fish v. Redeker, 2 Ariz. App. 602 (1966). Election will not be held invalid for mere irregularities unless it can be shown that the result has been affected by such irregularity. Territory v. Board of Sup’rs of Mohave County, 2 Ariz. 248 (1887). The validity of an election is not voided by honest mistakes or omissions unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain. Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 269 (1929). Where an election is contested on the ground of illegal voting, the contestant has the burden of showing that sufficient illegal votes were cast to change the result,. [sic] Morgan v. Board of Sup’rs, 67 Ariz. 133 (1948).

The legislature has expressly delegated to the Secretary the authority to promulgate rules and instructions for early voting. A.R.S. § 16-452(A). After consulting with county boards and election officials, the Secretary is directed to compile the rules “in an official instructions and procedures manual.” The Election Procedures Manual “EPM,” has the force of law. The Court recently considered a challenge to an election process and granted relief where the county recorder adopted a practice contrary to the EPM.