Referenda & InitiativesThe Arizona Supreme Court holds that Referendum &
Initiative petitions are so "vital" to the
legislative process that they have been made self-executing.
Even
|
Sierra Vista's Initiative Petition is successful! |
||
Circulators
obtained more than the minimum number of 660 signatures of qualified electors on their
initiative petition submitted in March of 2010. Therefore, on the August
24, 2010 ballot must be the question as to whether
_________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
In 2008, two initiative measures were written
for Bisbee voters, but were not filed (given the daunting task of obtaining 558 signatures on an initiative petition
in a town the size of Bisbee; almost as many signatures as is required in |
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,
(Click here to view the memo submitted to the City
Clerk)
|
|
Why has City Hall abandoned its duty to uphold
In 2008, the fate of two referendum petitions from 2006 (RF 06-01 & 06-02) was 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.Refusing to accept the Superior Court's 2007 decision that held these petitions to be valid (and the City Clerk's actions to be unlawful), The City of Bisbee appealed. Harris then counter-appealed. Much like the Superior Court before it, the Arizona Court of Appeals also ruled against the City of Bisbee while affirming the lower court's ruling that the referendum petitions are valid. In its published opinion dated August 4, 2008 (192 P.3d 162), the Court of Appeals even went so far as to state that the City's pivotal position in its appeal was without basis in either "law or logic." |
|
Gross injustice done to plaintiff in recall case!
|
||
|
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.) |
||
|
