## Facts

- Stephen H. Abbey was elected judge of the Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona, for a term running from January 1, 1923, to December 31, 1926.
- After Abbey had served more than six months, electors pursued a recall under the Arizona Constitution and implementing statutes by circulating and filing a recall petition with the county board of supervisors.
- The petition stated reasons for recall, including allegations of incompetence and abusive use of court proceedings to rebuke county officials.
- The board of supervisors determined the petition had sufficient signatures and called a recall election.
- Abbey appeared on the ballot as the incumbent subject to recall and also as a candidate; E. L. Green appeared as a challenger. Green received the highest number of votes and assumed the office.
- Abbey filed a quo warranto action to test Green’s title, asserting defects in the petition’s form and content, signature information and verification, election procedures, Green’s nomination filings, and the constitutionality of recalling judges.
- The trial court entered judgment for Green and dismissed Abbey’s claim; Abbey appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Green proved valid title to the office in a quo warranto proceeding based on the recall election.
2. Whether the recall petition was legally sufficient, including whether (a) recall grounds had to appear on each signature sheet, (b) a petition to recall a judge had to allege specific misconduct in office, and (c) omission of street and house numbers for signers invalidated the petition.
3. Whether the board of supervisors adequately examined and verified the petition’s signatures under governing law.
4. Whether defects known before the election could be raised only after the election, or were waived by failure to timely object.
5. Whether a recall challenger had to file both a nomination petition and a nomination paper to appear on the ballot.
6. Whether Arizona’s recall provisions, as applied to judges, violated the federal Constitution.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Green.
- Green satisfied his burden to show title to the office by proving election at the recall election conducted under the recall scheme.
- The recall petition and election substantially complied with constitutional and statutory requirements; alleged irregularities were not jurisdictional.
- Grounds for recall did not have to be attached to each petition sheet.
- A recall petition against a judge did not need to charge specific misconduct; any reasons stated by electors were sufficient.
- The petition was not fatally defective merely because signers did not provide street and house numbers absent a showing those details were required for meaningful identification, particularly where objections were first made after the election.
- The board’s examination of an apparently regular petition, together with practical verification methods (including the recorder’s registration review), supported the board’s determination of sufficiency.
- Signature genuineness was presumed unless timely and seasonably challenged.
- Known pre-election objections not promptly pursued were treated as waived.
- Recall candidates were not required to comply with primary-election nomination petition requirements; the recall statute’s nomination paper procedure controlled.
- Judicial recall under Arizona’s constitution was not unconstitutional under the federal Constitution.

## Legal Principles

- In quo warranto to try title to public office, the respondent must prove title; proof of election under the governing election framework satisfies that burden.
- Recall provisions are applied under a substantial compliance approach; nonjurisdictional irregularities do not invalidate an election absent timely objection or a showing of material effect.
- Recall petition grounds need not appear on every signature sheet when multiple sheets are contemplated.
- A recall petition for a judge need not allege specific, chargeable misconduct in office; stated reasons for removal by electors are legally sufficient.
- Failure to include street and house number information for signers does not automatically void a recall petition, especially absent proof such information was necessary to identify signers and where objections were delayed until after the election.
- Election officials have a mandatory duty to examine recall petitions for signature sufficiency; signatures are presumed genuine unless promptly contested.
- Defects known before a recall election must be raised before the election or they are waived; post-election challenges are disfavored to protect election finality and avoid unnecessary public expense.
- Special recall election nomination procedures control over general primary-election nomination requirements unless the recall scheme expressly incorporates them.
- State constitutional provisions allowing recall of judges do not, by themselves, conflict with the federal Constitution.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the recall election that replaced Abbey with Green, holding that the recall process substantially complied with Arizona law, that technical petition and verification objections were waived when not timely raised, that recall grounds for judges need not allege specific misconduct, and that judicial recall authorized by the state constitution is consistent with the federal Constitution.


Abbey v. Green, 28 Ariz. 53, 235 P. 150 (1925)