The Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled against two referendum petitions challenging zoning ordinances in Marana, Arizona. The decision affects local governance and the ability of citizens to challenge legislative actions through referendums. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with election laws and the necessary procedures for submitting petitions.
The case, Marana Citizens for Ethical and Transparent Government v. Town of Marana, was filed under docket number 2 CA-CV 2026-0174 on September 29, 2026. The plaintiffs in the case included the Marana Citizens for Ethical and Transparent Government (MCETG) and Fremont Peak Properties, LLC, who sought to challenge the Town of Marana's decision to rezone specific parcels of land. The ruling has implications for how referendum petitions are handled in Arizona.
The dispute arose after the Marana Town Council passed two ordinances on January 6, 2026, which rezoned certain parcels of land from residential to “specific plan” zoning. The ordinances were signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk but did not include a critical legal description of the properties involved, referred to as Exhibit A. Following the passage of the ordinances, a coalition of concerned voter groups, including MCETG, attempted to file referendum petitions against these ordinances.
After receiving the ordinances from the Town Clerk, the referendum committee submitted applications for official serial numbers for their petitions. However, the versions of the ordinances provided to them also lacked Exhibit A. Despite this, the committee collected over 1,360 signatures, exceeding the minimum requirement for the petitions to be considered for the ballot. The Town Clerk later rejected the petitions, stating they did not include the required legal descriptions.
MCETG filed a special-action complaint seeking to compel the Town Clerk to transmit the referendum petition signature sheets to the Pima County Recorder’s Office. Fremont separately filed a mandamus action to compel the Town Clerk to accept the committee’s attempted withdrawal of the petitions. Both parties sought summary judgment, but the superior court ruled in favor of the Town, stating that the petitions did not comply with Arizona election laws.
The court ruled that the petitions failed to meet the statutory requirements because they did not contain a full and correct copy of the ordinances, including the necessary legal descriptions. Chief Judge Staring authored the opinion, stating, “The petitions did not have attached the ‘full and correct copy’ of the text of the challenged ordinances, they failed to strictly comply with § 19-121(A)(3), and the Town Clerk properly rejected them on this ground.” The ruling emphasized the need for strict adherence to the law when submitting referendum petitions.
In addition, the court addressed Fremont’s argument regarding the right to withdraw the petitions. The court concluded that the Town Clerk had no authority to accept the withdrawal of the petitions, as only the individual signers of the petitions have the right to withdraw their signatures. The court stated, “It logically follows, then, that qualified electors alone hold the power to withdraw their own signatures in support of a referendum petition.” This ruling reinforces the idea that the referendum process is designed to empower individual voters, not committees or organizations.
The implications of this ruling are significant for local governance in Arizona. The court's decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with election laws and the procedures necessary for submitting referendum petitions. This ruling may deter future attempts to challenge legislative actions through referendums, as it establishes a clear precedent that procedural errors can lead to the rejection of petitions.
Going forward, this ruling may affect how local governments handle referendum petitions and how citizens engage in the democratic process. The court's emphasis on strict compliance may lead to increased scrutiny of the petition process and a greater focus on ensuring that all necessary information is included in submissions. This could ultimately impact the ability of citizens to challenge local governance decisions effectively.
As for what’s next, the decision can be appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen if the plaintiffs will pursue that route. There are no related cases currently pending that could influence this ruling. The outcome of this case may serve as a cautionary tale for future referendum efforts in Arizona.