barber response to tro 111014
Post on 02-Jun-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
1/16
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
2/16
I
2
a
J
4
5
6
1
8
9
l0
1t
t2
13
T4
l5
t6
11
l8
T9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
criteria
required
to
obtain
this extraordinary
relief,
especially
here
whete such
relief
would:
(l)
interfere with
the statutory
duties
and discretion
of
the
Pima County
Director
of Elections,
and
(2)
more
importantly,
would
improperly
elevate
what are,
at most,
technical
requirements
placed
on
election
day
poll workers over
the
true
object of
elections
under
Arizona
l1-((6
ascertain
a
free expression
of
the will
of
the
voters.
Territory
v.
Bd.
of
Sup'rs
of Mohave
Cnly.,2
ti2.248,
252-53,
12 P . 130,
732
(1557).
As a
result,
and detailed
further
below,
Plaintiff
s
request
for a
TRO, and
indeed,
her request
for
special
action
relief
in
its entirety,
must
be denied.
Factual
Background
At
the
heart of
Plaintiffs
complaint
and
request
for a
TRO is an
extremely
close
Congressional
election.
At
last check,
the
unofficial
margin
between
Republican
Martha
McSally
and
incumbent
Democratic
Congressman
Ron Barber
was 341
votes.
I
Provisional
ballot
verification
by
the Pima
County Recorder
(the Recorder )
has
ended, and
the
Pima
County
Director
of
Elections
(the
Director )
will
begin counting
those
ballots
(and
others)
today.
On November
8,
2074,
the
Republican
Party l}y'rartha
Mcsally
for
Congress
campaign
( McSally ) lodged
a
challenge
with the
Recorder
requesting
that
she
cease
the
process
of
verifying
provisional ballots
which
bear
the signature
of
the voter,
but
do not
also have
a
signature
of a
poll
worker
on the
provisional ballot
envelope.2
The
Campaign
unclerstands
that
several
hundred
ballots
may fall
into
this category,
and that
the
poll
workers
did
not
sign
provisional ballot
envelopes
in
most
precincts,
but
most notably,
Pima County
precincts
53,57,
58,80 100,113,and216.
In a series of emails
with Mcsally's
counsel, the
Recorder
indicated that
her
oflice
would
not stop
the verification
process as to this
category
of
provisional ballots.3
The
filing
of the
rizona Secretary
of
State's
Office, Unofficial
Election
Results,
available
at
c
WebOl/
See
E-mail
from
Eric Spencer
as
Exhibit
A
to
Pirna County
Recorder
F.
Ann
Roddguez,
Nov.
9,
2014,9;
47 AM
[attached
hereto
.See
E-mail from
Deputy
Pima
County
Recorder Chris
Roads
to
Eric
Spencer,
Nov
9,201410:05
AM
fsee
Exhibit
Al
1
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
3/16
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
i5
16
T7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
complaint
for
special
action
and request
for
TRO in this
case
followed.
Argumcnt
Just
one day
after
voters
all over
Arizonawent
to the
polls, and
when
confronted
with
the
reality of
another
close
election
in
Arizona's
Second
Congressional
District,
Martha
McSally
issued
a statement
explaining
that
while
the
democratic
process can be
slower
than
we want
at
times,
it's
critical
to make
sure
all
Arizonans
have
their
voices
heard,
and that
her
carnpaign
intendfed]
to make
sure
that
every
vote
is counted. 4
But the f,rling
of
this actiou
(by
McSally's
campaign
counsel,
no
less) evidences
that
Plaintiff
is
among
Mcsally's
supporters
who
do
not
agree.
Plaintiff
seeks
to invalidate
potentially several
hundred
on which
poll
workers,
for
whatever
reason, did
not sign
provisional ballot
envelopes.
This,
at best,
is the
very
definition
of
a technical
enor
in the
complicated
election
process, and
Plaintiffls
requested
relief
would
work
only
to
punish voters, who
otherwise
complied
with
all election
law
and
voting
requirements,
for
a
mistake
they did
not
make.
But
more fundamentally,
it
is not
an
error
at all because
the
signing
of
a provisional
ballot
envelope
by
a
poll
worker
is not
a
mandatory requirement
irnposed
by
Arizona's
comprehensive
statutory
scheme
governing
elections.
As a
result,
Plaintiff s
request is
as
misguided
as
it
is
political,
and
should
be
denied.
I.
PLAINTIFF
CANNOT
ESTAIILISH
ANY OF
THE
FOUR
CRITERIA
FOR
TI-IE
ENTRY
OF
A TEMPOIIARY
RESTRAINING
ORDER
Plaintiff
cannot
demonstrate
that he
is entitled
to
a TRO that
would
prevent Pima
County
from verifying
and
counting
the
ballots
in
question.
A
party
seeking
a
TRO-like
one seeking
a
preliminary injunction-must
establish
four
traditional
equitable
criteria :
1)
A strong
likelihood
that
he will
succeed at
trial
on the
merits;
2)
The
possibility of irreparable
injury
to
him not
remediable
by
dmages
if
the
requested
relief
is not
granted;
4
availqble
at
Bill
Hess
httu://www.
tng
in tabulating
CDS
race,
Siena
Vista
Flerald
Q''lov.
6,2014),
content/bill-hess/20
1
,
Slow
d.com/
a
J-
41111061391781
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
4/16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
l2
l3
I4
15
16
1l
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
3)
A
balance
of
hardships
favors
himself;
and
4) Public
policy favors the
injunction.
Shoenv.
Shoen,16l
riz.58,
63,
804 P.2d
787,792
(Ct.
App.
1990)
(citations
omitted).
A
court
applying this
standard
may apply
a sliding
scale,
under which
the
moving
pafty
may
establish
either
1)
probable
success
on the
merits
and
the
possibility
of
irreparable
injury;
or
2)
the
presence
of
serious
questions
and
[that]
'the
balance
of
hardships
tip[s]
sharply '
in
its
favor.
Smithv.
Ariz.
Citizens Clean
Elections Comm'n,212
Ari2.407,410-11
T
10,
l32P3d
lIB7,
1190-91
(2006).
Whatever the
standard,
Plaintiff cannot
prevail.
A. Plaintiff
Will
Not Succeed
on the Merits.
Plaintiff
cannot
(and
will
not) succeed
at a
trial
on the
merits
of
this action
because
his
claim
will fail as
a
matter
of
law
for
at least four separate reasons.
First, it is clear
from the
plain
language
of
the controlling statute
governing
the handling,
processing,
and
counting
of
provisional
ballots
that:
(1)
the
signature
of a
poll worker on a
provisional
ballot envelope
is not
required,
and
(2)
even
if a signature
were
required,
its
absence
would not
work
to invalidate a
voter's
otherwise-clear
expression
of her intent.
See
Bither
v.
Country
Mut. Ins. Co.,226 Ariz. 198,
200
T
8,245
P.3d 883, 885
(App.
2010)
( The
best
indication
of
legislative intent
is the
plain language of the statute. )
(citation omitted).
Indeed,
all
that the slatute contemplates
is that the
provisional
ballot,
once
voted,
be
placed
into an
envelope
and
then
verified
by election
officials
through a specilc
procedure:
On
completion
of
the
hllot,
the electiott
officil sltall
remove
tlte
bllot
stub,
sltll
place
the
bullot
in
a
provisionul ballot
envelope
and
shall deposit the envelope
in
the
ballot
box. Within ten
calendar days after a
general
election that
includes an
election
for
a
federal office
and
within
five business
days after any other
election
or
no
later than
the
time
at
which challenged
early
voting ballots are
resolved, the
signature
shall be compared
to the
precinct
signature
roster
of
the former
precinct where the voter was registered.
If
the
voter's name is not signed on
the roster and if there
is no
indication
that
the
voter voted an early
ballot, the
provisional
ballot
envelope
shall
be
opened and
the ballot sliall be counted.
If
there is
information
showing
the
person
did
vote, the
provisional
ballot
shall remain
unopened and
shall not
be counted. When
provisional
-4-
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
5/16
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
1l
12
13
I4
15
t6
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
z5
24
25
26
ballots are
conf,rrmed
for
counting, the
county recorder shall
use the
information
supplied
on
the
provisional
ballot
envelope
to
correct
the
address
record
ofthe
voter.
A.R.S.
$
16-584(D)
(emphasis
added). And,
in
the
absence
of
eitl-rer
a
statutory
requirement or
statutory disqualification
of
a
ballot
on
these
grounds,
it is
not the
role
of the
judiciary
to
create
them. Cf Fish v.
Redeker,2 Ariz.
App.602,606,411
P.zd
40,44
(1966)
( This
Court
is
reluctant to deprive a successful
candidate
of the fruits of
an election
unless such
penalty
is
speciJiclly
setforth
by
statute. )
(emphasis added).
Second, Plaintiff
points
to
the following
language
in the
Arizona
Secretary
of
State's
Elections
Manual
(the
Manual ),s
which describes
the process
of handling
provisional
ballots:
'lhe
voter and the election
official
sign the
provisional
ballot
form See
Manual
aI
152.
Although
the Manual
does contain
this
language,
it
is not
cast
in a mandatory
form.
But
even if
it
were,
it
would be
trumped
by
a
later
provision
of
the Manual,
which
provides
that
provisional
ballots
shttll
be counteil'if:
(1)
the
registration
of the
voter is verified
and
the
voter is
eligible
to
vote in the
precinct,
and'
(2)
the
voter's signature
does
not
appear
on any on
any other
signature
roster
for that
election, and'
(3)
there is
no
record
that the
voter voted early
for
that
election.
,Se Manual at
185
(emphasis
added). And, the affidavit
on
the
provisional
ballot
envelope
is
sufficient
if
the
voter signs
it and
if
the signature
matches the signature
on the
voter's
registration
.
Id.
at
162.
Thus, even
if
the
language
relied
on
by
Plaintiff were mandatory
(which
it is not), it
cannot supersede
the statute
(A.R.S.
$
16-584) and the
Manual at
page
185,
particularly
considering
Arizona's
policy
under
which
votes
are
counted
absent
a
substantive
irregularity.
At
worst, there
is
an internal inconsistency
between two
provisions
of
the
Manual
and
the
authorizing
statute,
which
must be resolved in
favor of
the statute
and
the
provision
of
the
Manual
that is
virtually
identical to the
statute.
As
a
result,
the
signature
of a
poll
worker
(or
lack thereof)
has
notlting to do
witli the
validity
of
a
provisional
ballot
when
the scheme
prescribed
by the Manual
is
considered
in
its
S e e http
:
l
l
www,
azsos.
gov/election/Electronic
Voting
S
ystern/manual. pdf
-5-
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
6/16
I
2
-1
4
5
6
,7
8
9
l0
11
T2
13
t4
l5
t6
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
entirety
(as
it must).
Grant
v. Bd. of
Regents
of Universities & State
Colleges of
Ariz.,
133 Ariz.
527,
529,
652 P.2d 1374,
1376
(I9SZ) ( statutory
construction
requires that the
provisions of
a
statute be
read
and
construed in context
with
the
related
provisions
and
in light
of
its
place
in
the
statutory scheme ).
Above all, the
Manual says nothing
about
the disqualification
of
provisional
ballots
that lack the signature of
a
poll
worker
on the
envelope,
which is hardly surprising
given
that
'in
counting
the ballots, the determination
of the intent of
the
vs[s1 -11t
a
poll
worker's
technical compliance with the
Manual- is
the
question
of
primary
importance.
White
v.
De
Arman, 89
Ariz.
327, 328,
362 P.2d
122,
122
(1961) (citation
omitted)
Third, to the extent that
Arizona law
requires
that
poll
workers sign
provisional
ballot
envelopes, their failure
to
do so
is
a
technicality
that
cannot
work
to
deprive a voter
of
the
opportunity to make their voice
heard,
and
the
candidates
for whom they
voted the benefit
of their
support. Territory v.
Bd.
of Sup'rs
of Mohave
Cnty.,2 Ariz.248,252-53,
12P.730,732
(1887)
( It
is the object
of
elections to ascertain
a free expression
of
the
will
of the voters,
and no mere
irregularity
can
be
considered,
unless
it
be shown that the result
has
been affected
by
such
irregularity. );
Findley
v.
Sorenson,35
Ari2.265,269,276 P. 843, 844
(1929)
( honest
mistakes
or
mere
omissions
on
the
part
of the election offrcers, or irregularities in directory
matters,
even
though
gross,
if not fraudulent, will not
void an election,
unless they
affect the result, or at
least
render it uncedain. ).
Importantly,
the
most
recent Atizona authority
on
point
makes clear that votes
and
elections
will
be
voided only
in
the
case
of
substantive irregulaties, hardly the
case presented
here. Miller v.
Picacho Peak
School
District, 179 Ariz. 178,877 P.2d277
(1994).
In Miller,
voters in a school district
contested
the
results
of a
budget
override election
because
school
district employees had
been
closely
involved with the distribution and collection
of absentee
ballots, in
violation of
A.R.S. 16-542(B) which required that only electors may
possess
[absentee]
ballots. Id. at 178,
877 P.2d
at 277
. The
Supreme Courl held that
the
school
district
employees
had
violated
the
express
terms
of
a
non-technical statute,
that the
absentee
ballots in
-6-
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
7/16
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
8/16
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
15
l6
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
would
be
void as a
matter of
administrative
law.
Though
the
Manual
is
a
binding adrninistrative
rule,
A.R.S .
16-452,
but
like all
other
rules, it
should
not
be
inconsistent
with
or contrary
to
the
provisions
of a statute,
particularly the
statute
it seeks to
effectuate.
Ferguson
v. Arizona
Dep't
of
Econ.
Sec.,
722
Ariz.
290,292, 594
P.2d 544,546
(App.
1979).
To
construe
this
section
of
the
Manual
as
requiring
the disqualification
of ballots
based
on an honest
and innocent
poll
worker
error when
no
disqualification
mandate
is set
forth
in
the
authorizing
statute
(A.R.S.
$
l6-584(D))
would
be
inconsistent with the statutory
scheme,
and
undermine
a
strong
Arizona
policy
of
ensuring
that
elections ascertain
a
free
expression
of
the will
of
the
voters.
Territory,2
Ariz.
at
252-53,
12P. at732; see /so
Discussion at
p.
5,
supr
B.
Plaintiff Wilt
Not Suffer
Irreparable
Harm if Relief
is
Not Granted.
Beyond
Plaintiffls
inability
to demonstrate
that he
will
succeed
on the
rnerits at
trial, he
also cannot
establish that he
would
sustain
irreparable
harm
absent
the
entry
of
a
TRO.
If
the
provisional
ballots
at
issue here
are
counted and
ultimately affect
the
outcome
of the
election,
Plaintiff
clearly
has
a
statutory
remedy through
an
election
contest
brought
pursuant
to
A.R.S.
$
16-672. That statute
clearly
provides
that
any
elector
may contest the
election of
any
person
declared
elected to a state
offrce for, among other things, the counting
of
illegal votes. A.R.S,
16-672(^)(4).
That
is
precisely
the
procedure
followed in
Mille. Because
the
legislature
has
plovided
Plaintiff with
an adequate
remedy
at
law
that
is not
yet
ripe, he
will
not sustain
irreparable injury
if
he
does not obtain
its requested
TRO.
C.
The
Balance of
l{ardships
Favors the
Non-Moving Parfy.
In weighing
the
balance of
hardships,
there
is no
doubt thal
a
TRO
preventing elections
officials
from
oounting
the disputed
provisional
ballots
would
harm the Carnpaign
and
those
who
potentially
cast
ballots in
Congressman
Barber's favor. Among
other things,
granting
Plaintiff
his
requested relief
rnay
ultimately deny
the
Campaign
its
right to an automatic recount.
This
could
occur if
not counting
the
disputed
provisional
ballots would bring the
spread between
the
candidates to
greater
than
one-tenth of one
percent,
the
trigger for
such a recount
under Arizona
-8-
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
9/16
1
2
a
J
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
tl
I2
13
t4
l5
16
l7
l8
t9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
law.
,See A.R.S.
$
16-661.
In contrast,
the Plaintiff and
his
efforts
to invalidate
those ballots
would
not be
adversely affected
by
the denial
of
its
requested
TRO.
D.
The Public Interest
Favors the
Counting
of
All
Ballots.
Above
all,
the
public
interest
does
not favor
punishing
voters for a mistake
they
did
not
make,
or
casting aside
several hundred
otherwise-valid
provisional
ballots as
a
result
of
an
invented
technicality that has no basis
in Arizona law.
To
the
contrary,
those
ballots
must le
counted
consistent with
the constitutional significance
of
the
act of
participation
in the
political
process.
See Burdiclc
v.
Takushi, 504
U.S.
428,
433
(It
is
beyond
cavil
that
voting
is
of
the
most
fundamental
significance under our
constitutional structure. )
(citation
and
internal
quotation
marks
omitted);
Wesberry v. Sanders,376
U.S. l,17
(1964)
( No
right is
more
precious
in
a
ee
country than that
of
having
a
voice
in
the election
of those
who
make
the laws
under
which, as
good
citizens, we
must live. Other rights,
even the
most
basic,
are
illusory
if
the
right to
vote
is
undermined. ). The Court should not interfere with the
process
of counting all valid ballots
and
permitting
elections
officials to fulfill their
statutory
duties to
perform
a
full
canvass
of
the
votes
that can later be certified
by
the Board of Supervisors.
Conclusion
For the
foregoing
reasons, the Campaign respectfully request
that
the
Court
deny
Plaintifls
request
for a temporary restraining
order
in this
matter.
-9-
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
10/16
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
11/16
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
12/16
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
13/16
Gaona,
D.
Andrew
(Perkins
Coie)
From:
Sent:
To:
F. Ann Rodriguez
Sunday,
November
09,2014
1l-:45 AM
Spencer,
Eric; Chris J
Roads; brad.nelson@pima.gov;
Barr, Daniel
(Perkins
Coie);
Gaona,
D. Andrew
(Perkins
Coie)
Recorder-admin;
Mary.Martinson@pima.gov;
Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima'gov;
Tweeten,
Carlie; Jenkins,
Amanda;
jkaucher@gustlaw.com;
Chris
Straub
RE:
Challenge to
Provisional
Ballot Forms
With
Missing
Election
Official
Signature
Cc
Subject:
Eric,
I
believe we have already
answered
you
on this
matterfully.
I
believe the emails crossed
that Mr.
Roads
sent
and
then
we received this email.
We
are
proceeding
as
planned
and explained
in other emails
I
have already
given
the
attorneys
that
are
here representing
both
candidates
the below
report verbally on
our
progress
for
Provisional
Ballots at approximately
11:30
a.m,
Completed
first
checks done
9,254
Completed 2nd checl
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
14/16
Fric l-1.
Spencer
Snell &
Wilmer
L.L.P.
One
Arizona
Center
Phoenix,
Arizona
B5OO4-2202
Office: 602.382.6573
espencer@swlaw.com
www.swlaw.com/eric_spencer
n:li
,\iilntut
Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange
County, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, Tucson
From:
Spencer, Eric
Sentr Sunday, November 09,2014 10:21 AM
To:
'Chris
J
Roads';
F.
Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov
Cc: Recorder-admin;
Marv.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.nima.gov;
Tweeten,
Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda;
jkaucher@gustlaw.conr
Subject:
RE:
Challenge
to
Provisional
Ballot
Forms
With Missing Election Official Signature
Importance:
High
Mr. Roads,
Thank
you
for
your
response.
However,
I
do
not
believe
that
your
response
directly
addressed
the
issues
raised in
our
cha
llenge.
First, I
would
like
to
clarify
the
response
time horizon.
The
campaign
merely asked for confirmation within
30
minutes
that the
recorder's office
and elections
department
intended to implement
the
requested
protective
measures.
The
campaign certainly did not expect the identification, collection and embargo
process
to be
completed
within
30
minutes
Second,
the
campaign dd not request
that
a//
provisional
ballot
processng
cease
altogether,
s
your
response appears
to assume. With
respect
to the
recorder's
office, the
campaign
requested:
1.
That
any/ulure
provisional
ballot found with a missing signature be rejected
as
unverified,
and set aside
pending
a
legal
review.
This universe could end up being
quite
small.
2.
That
the
recorder's
office,
n
conjunction
with
political
party
observers, conduct
a
review of
previously-verified
provisional
ballots
before those ballots
are
transmitted to the
elections
department.
This
strikes
me as a
very
reasonable
and limited
request
that
will not impede
your
office's statutory
processing
deadlines. Once
the
ballots in
question
are
segregated,
which again
-
could
be a
quite
limited
universe
-
the
parties
can
make
a
final
legal determination.
To confirm,
the campaign is not requesting thatthe recorder's office
cease
processingvalid provisional
ballots.
ln
light
of
these clarifications, and
in
order
to
preclude
the
parties
from
having to
unnecessarily
seek
special action
relief
in Superior
Court,
please
confirm
whether
the recorder's
will implement
these
targeted
protectve
measures,,
Very
truly
yours,
Eric
Spencer
Erc
H.
Spencer
2
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
15/16
Snell &
Wilmer
L.L.P.
One
Arizona
Center
Phoenix,
Arizona 85004-2202
Office: 602.382.6573
espencer@swlaw.com
www.swlaw.com/eric-spencer
Snrll
\ilrnt
Denver,
Las
Vegas,
Los
Angeles,
Los
Cabos,
Orange
County,
Phoenix,
Reno,
Salt
Lake City,
Tucson
From: Chris J
Roads
l-mailto:Chris.Roa
l
Sent: Sunday,
November
09,
2014 10:05
AM
To:
Spencer, Eric;
F,
Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov
Cc: Recorder-admin;
Mary,Martinson@pima,gov;
Daniel,Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.qov;
Tweeten,
Carlie;
Jenkins,
Amanda;
ikaucher@gustlaw.com
Subject:
RE:
Challenge
to
Provisional
Ballot
Forms With
Missing
Election Official
Signature
Mr. Spencer,
ln response
to
your
challenge,
the Pima County
Recorder's
Office
will
not stop
processing the
provisional
ballots. Whetherornotthepoll
workersignedtheprovisional
isclearlyidentifiablefromasmpleexaminationofthe
provisional
ballot
form
whether or not the
provisional is
processed
by the
Recorder's
Office. Therefore
our
processing
has
no bearing
as to
your
challenge.
ln
other words,
the fact that
we
processed
the
provisional form
will
not
impact
your
abilityto
proceed
with
your challenge.
The Recorder's Office
is
under
a
statutory
deadline
to
complete
processing
the
provisional
ballots
and
we
will
continue to
proceed toward meeting that
deadline.
Please
note
that
your
extremely
short deadlines
for
responses
are unreasonable.
Under
Arizona
law we
have
a
reasonable
time to respond to
public records requests
and
other
matters.
A
deadline
of
less
than 30
minutes
is far
less
than
reasonable.
Both
candidates
have attorneys
on site in our office
observing
our
processes
and
tracking the
work
we are doing
Chris
Roads
Chief
Deputy Recorder/Registrar
of Voters
Pima
County
Recorder's Office
From
:
Spencer,
Eric
Imailto:
espencer@swlaw.com]
Sent:
Sunday, November
9,20L4 9:47
AM
To:
F.
Ann Rodriguez;
brad.nefson@rpima.qov
Cc: Recorder-admin;
Marv.Martinson@pima,gov;
Daniel.Jurkowitz@rpcao.pima.qov;
Tweeten,
Carlie; Jenkins,
Amanda;
tkaucher@gustlaw.com
Subject:
Challenge
to Provisional
Ballot
Forms
With Missing
Election Official
Signature
Importance: High
Ms. Rodriguez and
Mr.
Nelson,
The
Republican
Party/McSally
for Congress campaign
(collectively
the
campaign ) formally
challenges
the validity
of
all
provisional
ballots
that have
a
provisional
ballot
form
with
a missing
election
official
signature.
3
-
8/10/2019 Barber Response to Tro 111014
16/16
Page
152 of
the Secretary of State's
Election Procedures
Manual
states
that,
priorto voting a
provisional
ballot:
An
election official or
voter completes
a
provisional
ballot
form.
The
voter and
the election
official
sien the
provisional
ballot
form.
After
voting the
ballot, [t]he
voter
will
return the
sealed envelope
to
the election
official,
who
will verify the envelope
s
properly
filled
out,
signed and
sealed.
/d.
Accordingly,
the campaign
respectfully
requests the
following immediate
relief:
The recorder's
office instruct
staff
to
not
verify any
provisional
ballots
with a
missing
election
official
signature
on
the
provisional
ballot
form;
The
recorder's
office
cease
transmitting any
prevously-verified
provisional
ballots
to
the
elections
department,
pending
a
review of
the
provisional
ballot forms
for
missing
election official
signatures;
The elections department
cease
processing any
provisional
ballots
ortransmtting any
provisional
ballots
for
counting,
pending
a
review of
the
provisional
ballot forms
for
missing election
official signatures;
and
The recorder's office
and elections
department
collect
and embargo any
provisional
ballots
that
contain
a
provisional
ballot
form
with missing
election official
signatures,
pending
a final
legal
review and
determination
in
conjunction
with
the County
Attorney's office.
Given
the exigency
of ths
matter,
please
confirm
by
1-0:L5
a.m.
that the recorder's office
and
elections
department
will
immediately
implement these
prophylactic
procedures.
Very
truly
yours,
Eric
Spencer
Eric H.
Spencer
Snell &
Wilmer
L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, Arizona
85004-2202
Office: 602.382.6573
espencer@swlaw.com
www.swlaw.com/eric-spencer
tnsll
c\Siilnrr
Denver, Las
Vegas, Los
Angeles,
Los Cabos,
Orange
County,
Phoenix,
Reno,
Salt
Lake City,
Tucson
a
4
top related