This is a revised version of this post focusing on
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Section 38-296, Paragraph B,
instead of the Arizona Constitution.
TL;DR: Camp Verde Mayor Denise Jenkins applied for the Yavapai County District 2 Supervisor seat in her first year of a two-year term, seemingly violating ARS 38-296, Paragraph B, which bars incumbents from offering themselves for nomination to another salaried office until their final year.
Her letter of interest, dated March 1, 2025, and inclusion on the applicant list show her intent.
Per Paragraph E, if found in violation, she’d be guilty of misfeasance in office and her mayoral position would be declared vacant, with no additional penalties specified.
Enforcement requires formal action, but the consequence is clear if upheld.
However:
Mayor Jenkins’ application for the District 2 Supervisor appointment might not violate ARS 38-296(B)’s “offer for nomination” clause, as the board-driven process isn’t a traditional nomination or election.
Yet, “offer himself” could broadly apply, leaving it ambiguous without legal precedent.
We will update this post it there is any new information on this topic.
Below is our original post based on the Arizona Constitution Dated March 11, 2025.
A Yavapai County Board of Supervisors seat became available when District 2 Supervisor James Gregory resigned.
The Board of Supervisors began soliciting applications for appointment to the position of the District 2 Supervisor until April 16, 2025.
Camp Verde Mayor Denise (Dee) Jenkins has applied for the open District 2 Supervisor seat (see applicant list: https://www.yavapaiaz.gov/News-articles/Appointment-for-District-2-Supervisor).
Mayor Jenkins was reelected as Mayor of the Town of Camp Verde, Arizona in 2024 for a term that runs through December 2026
Her application appears to violate Article XXII, Section 18 of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits incumbent elected officials, like Jenkins—who is in her first year of a two-year term—from seeking nomination to another salaried office before their final year.
“… which prohibits incumbent elected officials from seeking nomination to another salaried office before their final year.”
By offering herself for this position, she appears to be breaching this clear rule.
While the Constitution doesn’t specify penalties, legal consequences could include disqualification from the appointment, challenges to her current office, or court action to enforce the provision.
Since Article XXII, Section 18 doesn’t prescribe penalties directly, any consequences would likely depend on Arizona state law or judicial interpretation. Typically, when constitutional provisions lack explicit penalties, the legislature is tasked with enacting laws to enforce them, or courts step in to adjudicate violations.
(See Page 98 of the Arizona Constitution: https://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf )
Based on general legal principles and the structure of Arizona’s legal system, here are potential penalties or outcomes that could apply:
- Disqualification from the New Office: The most immediate penalty could be disqualification from being appointed to the Supervisor seat. If challenged—say, by another applicant or a citizen—the Yavapai County Board or a court could rule that Jenkins’ application is invalid due to her current term, barring her from taking the position.
- Legal Challenge to Current Office: While less common, her action might prompt a legal challenge to her mayoral position. Arizona law could interpret her candidacy as an implicit resignation (a “resign-to-run” principle), though this isn’t explicitly stated in Article XXII, Section 18. Some states with similar rules impose automatic forfeiture of the current office, but no clear Arizona statute confirms this here.
- Court-Ordered Remedies: If someone files a lawsuit (e.g., a writ of quo warranto to question her eligibility), a court could impose remedies like barring her from the new office or issuing an injunction. Penalties would depend on the plaintiff’s request and judicial discretion, potentially including fines or legal costs if deemed a willful violation.
- Political Consequences: Beyond legal penalties, Jenkins could face political fallout—public backlash, recall efforts, or damaged credibility—which, while not formal punishments, often accompany such breaches.
The lack of explicit penalties in the Constitution suggests enforcement relies on external mechanisms (lawsuits, board decisions, or statutes).
Historically, Arizona’s “resign-to-run” rule (strengthened by a 1980 referendum) reflects a strict stance against office-hopping, but without a clear penalty clause, outcomes hinge on how authorities interpret and act on the violation.
In practice, if uncontested, she might proceed unpenalized; if challenged, disqualification from the Supervisor role seems the likeliest result based on the provision’s intent.
The penalties remain speculative but rooted in logical extensions of legal norms.
When Arizona elected officials are sworn into office, they take a solemn oath to uphold the Arizona Constitution, a commitment that binds them to act within its legal boundaries and protect the principles it enshrines.
This oath, typically administered during inauguration ceremonies, is not just a formality but a foundational pledge to govern responsibly and in accordance with the state’s highest legal authority.
By applying for the Board of Supervisors seat, Mayer Jenkins may have committed a Breach of Oath,
undermining the very document she swore to defend.
A Breach of Oath in this context carries significant implications, as it erodes public trust in elected leadership and challenges the integrity of Arizona’s constitutional framework.
Even though there are no explicit penalties for such a breach, violating the oath could lead to legal challenges, including lawsuits from constituents or other officials seeking to disqualify Jenkins from the Supervisor position or even question her current mayoral role.
Additionally, Arizona law might allow for penalties like censure, removal proceedings, or civil action, depending on statutory provisions or judicial rulings.
Beyond legal consequences, this breach could spark a political firestorm, with voters potentially pursuing a recall or expressing their discontent at the ballot box, reflecting the seriousness of failing to honor the oath to uphold the Arizona Constitution.
Important Dates
- March 7, 2025: Application Deadline
- March 28, 2025: Deadline for public comments
- April 16, 2025: Board Meeting to Vote on Replacement
- August 4, 2026: Next Regular Primary Election
- November 3, 2026: Next Regular General Election
Email Public comments to the Clerk of the Board:
Share this post:
