Background
Lydia Hernandez was serving on the five-member governing board of Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83 when voters elected her daughter, Cassandra Hernandez, to the same board. The parties stipulated that Lydia and Cassandra had lived in the same residence during at least part of the four years preceding Cassandra’s election.
District elector Cecilia Moreno sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under A.R.S. § 15-421(I), which provides that qualifying immediate family members who shared a household within the prior four years may not serve simultaneously on the same five-member school board. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Hernandezes and the District, reasoning that subsection (I) applied only to appointments filling vacancies and that Moreno should have challenged Cassandra during the election cycle.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that § 15-421(I)’s unambiguous text prohibits the simultaneous service itself, regardless of whether a board member obtained office through election or appointment. Subsection (I) governs concurrent service, while subsections (J) and (K) separately regulate candidacies and elections; the provisions are complementary rather than redundant.
The court also held that Title 16’s election-contest deadlines did not bar Moreno’s claim. Section 15-421(I) contains no deadline for bringing a declaratory action to enforce its prohibition, even though Cassandra disclosed the family relationship before the election and Moreno waited until afterward to sue.
The court remanded for the superior court to apply § 15-421(I) and address the constitutional and laches arguments it had not reached. It denied Moreno’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees but awarded her taxable appellate costs subject to compliance with the applicable rule.
Key Takeaways
- A.R.S. § 15-421(I) independently prohibits qualifying immediate family members who recently shared a household from serving simultaneously on the same five-member school board.
- The statute is not limited to appointments made to fill board vacancies.
- Election-contest deadlines do not foreclose a post-election action challenging concurrent service under subsection (I), although constitutional and laches defenses remain for the superior court to decide on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes eligibility to run for office from eligibility to continue serving after election. A failure to bring a timely candidacy challenge does not necessarily insulate simultaneous school-board service that the Legislature separately prohibited.
Because the memorandum decision is designated not for official publication, it is nonprecedential and may be cited only as permitted by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).