Following a rezoning of certain property at the request of a developer, a community group, “Save Our Small Town,” submitted a referendum to the Town Clerk for the ballot. Following state statute which requires that the referendum petition describe in one hundred words or less the “principal provisions of the measure,” the petition described the principal provisions as “changes the land uses on [the Property],” and that it “changes the zoning of [the Property.]” Further, the descriptions noted that they would impose major impacts on existing residents,” and that the Property “should be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and in compliance with ‘the town’s] existing…protection and subdivision requirements.” A qualified elector in town then filed a complaint asking the Court to invalidate the referendums and to prohibit the town from placing them on the ballot since they failed to meet the strict requirements of State Statute (A.R.S. §19-101(A)).
The Arizona appeals court agreed with the superior court, holding that the town was prohibited from placing the measures on the ballot for failure to substantively describe any of the material provisions of the resolution and ordinance. The Court explained that the purpose of the statute is to “ensure that the public ha[d] immediate and full disclosure of the exact public action that [could] be reversed.” In this case, the Court concluded that, “[T]he petitions merely describe[d] the purported anticipatory effect of the provisions, and fail[ed] to identify in any meaningful way any of the provisions…let alone the principal ones.” The Court found the words used to be misleading, uninformative, not helpful and subjective.
Sklar v. Town of Fountain Hills, 2008 WL 4982449 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 11/25/2008).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CV/CV080519.pdf
