Photos

Referenda & Initiatives

The Arizona Supreme Court holds that Referendum & Initiative petitions are so "vital" to the legislative process that they have been made self-executing.

Even Bisbee City Hall has no authority to abridge the constitutional right to petition!

It is every voter's right -- as well as every conscientious voter's prerogative -- to participate in the legislative process. Rather than let ill-conceived legislation undermine the vitality of a community, why not oppose it through Referendum? When legislation is sorely needed to maintain the vigor of a community, why should citizens not take it upon themselves to author and then enact such legislation through Initiative?

Two Initiative Petitions now being circulated!

Two Initiative Petitions are now being circulated and all voters registered in the City of Bisbee may (and are encouraged to) sign.

In order to overcome a virtual 'news blackout' of these Initiative Measures, they are available here:

Initiative Measure O-08-01 asks that the numerical thresholds be reduced so that more subdivisions are subjected to the closer scrutiny of this city's Master Plan Development regulation and that the Council reach a consensus before approving a subdivision covered under this regulation.

(Click here to see the actual wording of O-08-01)

Initiative Measure O-08-02 asks that the basis for calculating the number of signatures required for initiative petitions be brought back in line with Arizona state statute (specifically with A.R.S. § 19-143) and in line with Arizona public policy favoring initiative (and referendum) petitions.

(Click here to see the actual wording of O-08-02)

Using A.R.S. § 19-143 to establish the basis for calculation, the minimum number of signatures required for an initiative petition would be 255 signatures. However, Bisbee City Hall has reestablished this basis so that now a minimum of 558 signatures are required for local initiative petitions. 558 signatures is substantially more than the total number of voters who voted in the last election here in Bisbee (when approximately 400 voters total decided the fate of the Charter amendments).

On May 27, 2008, Jeff Harris submitted to the Bisbee City Clerk (as elections officer for the City of Bisbee) a memorandum seeking to clarify some of the issues surrounding initiative petitions in general and Initiative Petition I-08-02 in particular. Some of the issues that arose as the result of the City's refusal to properly process the Porter Recall petitions (in 2005) have been addressed and the arguments made are supported by Arizona case law (e.g., Van Riper v. Threadgill which is posted below) .

(Click here to view the memo submitted to the City Clerk)

Why has City Hall abandoned its duty to uphold
the constitutionaly guaranteed right to petition?

Is due process on life support?

The fate of two Referendum petitions from 2006 (RF-06-01 & RF-06-02) is now being decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals:

The City of Bisbee's former City Clerk, Helen Lehr, was found in Superior Court to have exceeded her legal authority by refusing to properly process two valid referendum petitions. The City Clerk, assisted by the City Attorney, chose to not count signatures eligible for verification on any petition sheet that allegedly contained at least one unspecified signature that was in some inadequately explained manner somehow ineligible. Unfortunately for due process, the Clerk admitted at trial that her supposed insufficiencies were based on nothing more than her entirely unsubstantiated suspicions. This is no better than refusing to count valid election ballots simply because it is suspected that the ballot box might also contain a few ballots that might turn out to be spoiled.

 Gross injustice done to Plaintiff in Recall case!
Submitted  by  Drew  A. Blank

Has the Rule of Law been overruled?

One of the issues that has not come out regarding (the special action lawsuit resulting from the City Clerk's refusal to properly process) the Porter Recall petition is that case law precisely in point (and which would have fully supported the Plainitff’s claim that she was well within her legal right to file as an individual) was never disclosed — by either City Attorney MacKinnon *or* by the Plaintiff's attorney, Chuck George. In George’s case, the failure to bring forth the case of Van Riper v. Threadgill would seem to suggest either gross incompetence or outright collusion with the City. (I fail to find another explanation for his ‘overlooking’ a case so very much in point.)

However, MacKinnon is also potentially in deep doodoo (i.e., subject to a Bar complaint or perhaps even censure) for not complying with his legal obligation to disclose a case so very much in point (especially since the case undermined the very arguments MacKinnon speciously made). To my mind, MacKinnon either failed utterly in his due diligence (which is somewhat hard to believe) or he purposely failed — in bad faith — to disclose a case in point that was harmful to him (despite his legal obligation to do so as an officer of the court).

The utter failure to disclose a 1995 Arizona case almost perfectly in point (and which should have been controlling) does not paint a pretty picture for either George or MacKinnon.

(Click on case to view text of Van Riper v. Threadgill decision.)

Demand that City Hall put and end to the assault on public participation in government! The Council is elected to represent the the best interests of the citizens and not to run roughshod over fundamental freedoms.

Back to Home