Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MARICOPA COUNTY
11
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
Defendants.
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV2016-009704
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (WITH
NOTICE)
(Expedited election challenge pursuant to
A.R.S. 19-118(D))
(Expedited consideration requested)
(Assigned to Hon. J. Rogers)
21
Based on recently obtained information from Defendant Secretary of State that she
22
intends to issue a receipt of eligible signatures for verification and perhaps also select a random
23
sample of signatures to send to the counties for certification on July 22, 2016 almost two
24
weeks before the statutory deadline to do so and almost one week before the scheduled return
25
hearing in this case Plaintiffs respectfully seek emergency relief from the Court in the form
26
of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin her from issuing a receipt until the time that
{00238720.2 }
Plaintiffs can at least make their initial appearance before the Court in this matter and have an
July 7, 2016 Defendant Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Supporting I-24-2016 (the Committee) waited until the last day legally allowed
to file initiative petitions and then filed more than 22,000 petitions containing
approximately 270,000 signatures with the Secretary of State.
July 11, 2016 Secretary of State took four days to make available copies of
petitions and then finally did so through numerous file share links, which
required hours of manual downloading.
July 14, 2016 Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint pursuant to A.R.S. 19118(D) seeking to enjoin Secretary of State from counting petitions/signatures.
July 22, 2016 Proposed date that Secretary of State will issue a receipt of
eligible signatures for verification and possible selection of random sample.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs learned about the Secretary of States plans after this case was already assigned to
Judge Joshua Rogers. Judge Rogers chambers is closed for one week due to vacations.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are providing a copy of this motion to Judge Gerlach, who is handling
emergency matters for Judge Rogers in his absence, for his decision on just this motion to
maintain the current status quo until the scheduled return hearing.
Undersigned counsel conferred with the Attorney Generals Office (AGO), which is
representing the Secretary of State in this matter, and requested that the Secretary of State
agree to wait until after an initial appearance in this matter to issue the receipt of eligible
signatures for verification. The AGO declined, but indicated that the Secretary of State may be
willing to wait: (1) if the initiative proponents and at least Maricopa and Pima counties agreed
that it would not prejudice them; or (2) if Plaintiffs obtained a court order. While we
understand the counties desire to have more time to do their work, they are not entitled to the
extra time under law and, therefore, they would not be prejudiced. The legislature has set out a
schedule that is workable with the various election deadlines. Plaintiffs should not be forced to
have to negotiate with non-party counties to get the time the statutes already allow for.
Further, given the already short timeframes in play, Plaintiffs did not want to delay raising this
issue with the Court.
{00238720.2 }
August 25, 2016 Deadline for county recorders to issue a certification of valid
signatures pursuant to A.R.S. 19-121.02(A). 4
August 30, 2016 Deadline for Secretary of State to issue a final disposition of
valid signatures and determination of qualification of the ballot measure for the
ballot. 5
2
3
4
5
6
Plaintiffs understand the Secretary of States desire to move the statutory process along
7
8
for reviewing and certifying petition signatures in light of the various election deadlines that
she and other election officials are facing with the upcoming primary and general elections.
10
However, in a circumstance such as this one where Plaintiffs filed a timely lawsuit and are
11
specifically seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from including in its count of eligible
12
signatures for verification the petitions and signatures challenged in the lawsuit, the Secretary
13
of State should not rush to issue a receipt to the detriment of Plaintiffs. That is especially true
14
where, as here, Plaintiffs were unable to file a lawsuit sooner because it did not receive copies
15
of the petitions until days before the statutory deadline for filing an action. Arizona law
16
requires an action challenging the lawful registration of circulators within five business days
17
after petitions are filed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State used two of the five
18
days (and an intervening weekend) before providing copies of the petitions. Upon receiving
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The statute provides that the Secretary of State has 20 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue its receipt of eligible signatures for verification and select a
random sample. Thus, if the Secretary of State takes the full amount of time allowed under the
statute, the deadline is August 4, 2016.
The statute provides that the county recorders have 15 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue their certifications of valid signatures. Thus, if the Secretary
of State selects and transmits a random sample earlier than August 4, 2016, the deadline for the
county recorder certifications is earlier than August 25, 2016.
The statute provides that the Secretary of State has 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue its final disposition. Thus, the deadline is contingent on when
the county recorders issue their certifications of valid signatures.
{00238720.2 }
and reviewing the petitions, Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as soon as possible and within the
statutory deadlines.
One day after filing this action, counsel for the Secretary of State notified undersigned
3
4
counsel that the Secretary of State intends to issue a receipt of eligible signatures for
around July 22, 2016. If the Secretary of State issues her receipt on or around July 22, it will
severely prejudice Plaintiffs. In particular, the statute under which Plaintiffs have brought their
claims provides that, [t]he removal or disqualification of any one or more circulators does not
invalidate the random sample of signatures made pursuant to section 19-121.01, and the
10
secretary of state shall not be required to conduct any additional random sampling of
11
signatures. A.R.S. 19-118(E). While unclear how this provision will affect the ultimate
12
relief Plaintiffs are seeking in this lawsuit, it is clear that if the Secretary of State issues a
13
receipt of eligible signatures for verification and a random sample before Plaintiffs can obtain
14
the disqualification of sheets they are seeking, the Secretary of State is not required to conduct
15
an additional random sample. Thus, an order enjoining the Secretary of State is necessary to
16
maintain the status quo and prevent severe prejudice to Plaintiffs who brought their action as
17
soon as possible and within the statutory timeframe for doing so.
Moreover, there is no urgency for the Secretary of State to issue the receipt for eligible
18
19
signatures for verification as early as July 22 and Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to
20
make an initial appearance in Court first on July 28. The lack of urgency is supported by the
21
statutory timeframes, which are intended to give elections officials enough time to conduct
22
their review and certification of petition signatures in advance of printing ballots for an
23
election. While these officials may want additional time before the printing deadlines, their
24
desire for more time should not compromise Plaintiffs legal right to challenge initiative
25
petitions and signatures. Indeed, it should not be permitted in this case where, after using two
26
{00238720.2 }
of Plaintiffs five days to file this action, the Secretary of State now wants to shave nine
business days off the back end, thus prejudicing Plaintiffs further.
To be clear, Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order
to extend the deadlines set forth in statute. In fact, Plaintiffs are not even asking this Court to
issue an order requiring the Secretary of State to take the full time allowed under law, which is
August 4. Rather, we are simply asking that the Court enjoin the Secretary of State from
issuing a receipt of eligible signatures for verification (and selecting a random sample if one is
deemed necessary) until Plaintiffs have an opportunity to appear at the currently scheduled
return hearing with Judge Rogers on July 28, 2016 at 8:45 am.
This Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (With Notice) is supported by the
10
11
12
13
order, filed herewith, to maintain the status quo by enjoining the Secretary of State from
14
issuing a receipt of eligible signatures for verification and selecting a random sample prior to
15
the statutory deadline of August 4, 2016 or, at a minimum, until after the return hearing on
16
17
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2016.
18
19
20
22
23
21
24
25
26
{00238720.2 }
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
James E. Barton
Torres Law Group PLLC
2239 West Baseline Road
Tempe, Arizona 85283-1095
james@thetorresfirm.com
James Driscoll-MacEachron
Attorney Generals Office
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926
James.Driscoll-MacEachron@azag.gov
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
{00238720.2 }
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MARICOPA COUNTY
11
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
21
Pursuant to Rule 65(d), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for Plaintiffs hereby
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
Defendants.
No. CV2016-009704
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
(Election Case)
(Expedited consideration requested)
22
certifies that efforts have been made to notify Defendants of Plaintiffs intention to seek a
23
24
25
Order to counsel for both Defendants via email at 12:53 p.m. on July 17, 2016 (attached hereto
26
as Ex. 1) and sent a copy of the Motion to counsel for both Defendants via email prior to filing
{00238827.1 }
it on July 18, 2016 (attached hereto as Ex. 2). Undersigned counsel also provided notice to
counsel for Defendants of their intent to appear in Court on this Motion upon its filing on the
4
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2016.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
{00238827.1 }