91原创

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two has upheld the rejection of two referendum petitions challenging zoning approvals for a proposed Marana data center project, ruling that the petitions failed to meet Arizona鈥檚 strict legal requirements for referenda.聽

affirms an earlier Pima County Superior Court ruling and leaves the Marana Town Council鈥檚 January zoning approvals in place.聽

The dispute centered on referendum petitions that were circulated with incomplete copies of the zoning ordinances. 

Arizona law requires referendum petitions challenging zoning decisions to include the full and correct text of the ordinance, along with a legal description of the affected property. Courts have long required strict compliance and construction with those requirements.  

In this case, although still publicly available, the Marana town clerk initially provided referendum organizers with copies of the ordinances that were missing required exhibits containing additional legal descriptions of the properties. Those versions were then used to collect signatures. The town later corrected the omission, but the clerk ultimately rejected the petitions because the documents circulated to voters were incomplete.  

Referendum supporters argued that they had relied on the official documents provided by the town. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the town鈥檚 mistake but reiterated that under Arizona law, responsibility for complying with referendum requirements ultimately rests with the proponents circulating the petitions. 

鈥淩egardless of whose mistake leads to a lack of strict compliance with the referendum petition statutes, a referendum petition may not move forward if its proponent fails to strictly comply with the statutory and constitutional provisions,鈥� the court wrote. 

The court also found that the missing exhibits were expressly part of the ordinances themselves and included information about the property rights affected by the zoning changes, including water rights.  

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry participated in the case as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court.  

鈥淭his is an important decision for the consistent application of Arizona鈥檚 referendum laws,鈥� said Vanessa Pomeroy, chief counsel of the Arizona Chamber Legal Center. 鈥淭he court made clear that strict compliance means strict compliance for referendum petition proponents. Clear, predictable statutory and constitutional requirements are important for voters, communities and businesses alike.鈥� 

The court separately addressed an attempt by the referendum committee to withdraw the petitions after they had been filed. It held that the power to withdraw a petition signature belongs to the individual voter who signed it, not to the committee that collected the signatures.  

For developers and local governments, the ruling adds clarity around the referendum process at a point when land-use challenges can create uncertainty for major development and investment decisions. 

The three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the Superior Court鈥檚 judgment in favor of the Town of Marana.