Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of the State of Arizona;
Pima County Board of Supervisors, a body
politic; Ally Miller, in her official capacity
as a member of the Pima County Board of
Supervisors; Ramn Valadez, in his official
capacity as a member of the Pima County
Board of Supervisors; Sharon Bronson, in
her official capacity as a member of the
Pima County Board of Supervisors; Ray
Carroll, in his official capacity as a member
of the Pima County Board of Supervisors;
Richard Elas, in his official capacity as a
member of the Pima County Board of
Supervisors; the Cochise County Board of
Supervisors, a body politic; Patrick Call, in
his official capacity as a member of the
Cochise County Board of Supervisors; Ann
English, in her official capacity as a
member of the Cochise County Board of
Supervisors; Richard Searle, in his official
capacity as a member of the Cochise
County Board of Supervisors,
Defendants.
McSally for Congress Motion to Dismiss, the glaring holes in Plaintiffs case cannot be
missed: (1) four Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring specific claims on behalf of more
than 130 non-parties who chose not to bring suit in this matter, (2) Plaintiffs should have
sought equitable relief before the county boards of supervisors acted to ensure any
missing votes were counted, (3) the alleged specific unintentional isolated technical
errors were in no way pervasive to now justify selectively counting ballots, and (4) the
state processes are underway. Plaintiffs have failed to show why the Court should not
allow the state system to address Plaintiffs concerns. Instead, Plaintiffs request that the
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
10
Court issue an injunction based on a number of votes that would still require a recount.
11
12
jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). And, even if jurisdiction
13
had attached, Plaintiffs fail to state claims for which this Court can grant relief. Fed. R.
14
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs must show grounds for relief beyond the formulaic labels and
15
conclusions theyve put before the Court; their factual allegations must be enough for
16
them to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
17
18
Lacking jurisdictional basis and standing to bring their claims in this Court,
19
Plaintiffs seek to delay the Secretary of State from certifying the canvass and, in this case,
20
from referring the matter to the Maricopa County Superior Court to order a recount. The
21
Secretarys duties are non-discretionary. (Doc. 18, at 4.) It would be contrary to legislative
22
intent and futile for this Court to attempt to intervene and insert its discretion in an arena
23
where state law provides none, and Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, claim pervasive errors
24
25
Glaringly missing from Plaintiffs Response (Doc. 21) is any standing argument
26
allowing them to bring claims on behalf of the other 129 (or 130 or 156 as referenced in
27
various iterations) alleged voters who allegedly did not have their vote counted. This is
28
simple Black Letter law. See Simon v. E. Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 39
-2-
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
(1976) (applying standing analysis to test the allegations of each of the individual
respondents and the respondent organizations . . . for sufficiency); Sprint Commcns Co.,
L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273-74 (2008) (internal citations and some
quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have no standing
on behalf of the non-appearing declarants or that they lack allegations of pervasive errors
sufficient for a candidate to object on behalf of an entire class of affected voters. Also
missing is any showing that Ron Barber for Congress interests here are more than
10
Although irrelevant due to the lack of jurisdictional basis and the lack of any
11
allegation of pervasive violations, Plaintiffs continual references to 133 alleged votes that
12
were allegedly not counted gloss over a missing essential element: Plaintiffs Complaint
13
does not show any poll worker conduct was intended to deprive Plaintiffs (or the
14
missing 130 other non-parties) of Constitutional rights. See Vallejo v. City of Tucson, No.
15
CV 08-500 TUC DCB, 2009 WL 1835115, *2-3 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2009). Isolated
16
technical issues on the part of election workers processing more than 200,000 voters do
17
18
19
however, do not proffer validly cast, qualified votes for rehabilitation. Instead, they
20
request inclusion of votes in violation of state election law, merely because the voters are
21
eligible to vote in the general election for the second district. (Doc. 22, at 3.) In
22
construing these ballots as constitutionally protected (Doc. 22, at 2, 7), Plaintiffs ignore
23
multiple provisions of Arizona election law, as well as extensive federal case law in
24
support of the application of those laws. See, e.g., Krieger v. City of Peoria, 2014 WL
25
4187500 at *3 (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2014) (noting the existence of state law remedies for
26
claims like those Plaintiffs bring); Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998).
27
28
recount provided for under state law is a core process bearing on the States interest in
-3-
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts. See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State
Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Ariz. Libertarian Party v.
without providing any reasonable criteria for this Courts use in evaluating non-appearing
voters individual claimsadvocate for throwing the state process away and for counting
every vote, regardless of the standards provided by state law. (Doc. 21, at 8-10.)
The Court should abstain from replacing the trained judgment of election officials
with its own. See Vallejo, 2009 WL 1835115, *3-4. Similarly, it should abstain from
10
intervening where Plaintiffs have not allowed the states processes to exhaust. See Soules
11
v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Committee, 849 F.2d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988).
12
Arizona has an orderly process, which should be allowed to run its course, especially
13
because Plaintiffs have failed to show any pervasive violations of Constitutional rights. If
14
15
federal courts would adjudicate every state election dispute, and the elaborate state
16
election contest procedures would be rendered superfluous. Soules, 849 F.2d at 1183.
17
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam)
18
that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state processes in the run-up to
19
elections. This should apply a fortiori to emergency injunctive relief sought in the midst
20
21
Plaintiffs complaints (e.g., those regarding the process for signature matching, statutory
22
bar to counting wrong-precinct votes) could have been brought well prior to now.
23
Plaintiffs spend a great deal of time chastising alleged actions of the poll workers
24
and election department.1 Their claims regarding this conduct fail to recognize that it is
25
26
27
28
In proceedings earlier this month before the Pima County Superior Court, Plaintiffs
counsel Mr. Barr argued that all the parties had to do was rely upon what elections
officials have said here, about processes used to determine whether votes were valid.
(Exhibit A, pertinent portions of transcript of proceedings in Rawson v. Nelson, No. C20145865, dated November 10, 2014, at 94:2095:9.) Yet now Plaintiffs claim that
elections officials sensible determinations that certain votes are invalid should not be
countenanced.
-4-
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed [that] is fundamental. See Bush v.
Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000). It is necessary for the Legislature to establish voting
integrity of its election process. Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489
U.S. 214, 231 (1989). Ballots that violate the Legislatures reasonable prescriptions
should not be counted, regardless of the arbitrary case-by-case standards that Plaintiffs
want to apply after the fact. In any event, this Court is not the forum in which to claim that
For example, Plaintiffs cite the failure of poll workers to direct voters who moved
10
to a different precinct. (Doc. 21, at 12.) A.R.S. 16-583(A) requires this of a poll
11
worker only when someone appears who is on the inactive voter list. Id. Yet Plaintiffs
12
bring no claims as to people who were actually on that list. The law imposes additional
13
obligations with respect to those voters who the counties have put on the inactive voter
14
list, to ensure that they have the opportunity to cast a ballot if that determination was in
15
error. See A.R.S. 16-583(A). The law does not impose this obligation with respect to all
16
17
Plaintiffs attempts to contort Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309, 320, 214 P.3d 397,
18
408 (App. 2009) to support their claims are similarly unavailing. No authority has
19
20
certification of election results because the ballots were not properly counted. As with
21
most of the cases cited by Plaintiffs, Chavez concerned a pre-election challenge to the use
22
of non-HAVA compliant voting machines. See id. In Arizona, after an election, votes are
23
presumed properly counted by state election officials, unless a contestant can show an
24
error in vote tabulation that calls the entire outcome of the election into
25
doubt. See A.R.S. 16-672(A)(5). Again, as in Chavez, a pervasive failure must exist,
26
which it does not here. Simply, Plaintiffs own declarations reflect that votes were
27
28
-5-
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
This Court may not rehabilitate a narrow selection of individual votes within
several different categories now, absent a greater showing of pervasive and intentional
misconduct on the part of election officials as to each of those categories, which showing
simply does not exist here. As the Secretary of State points out in his joinder, these voters
had remedies in different places and at different times. (Doc. 19, at 2.) Just because
Plaintiffs are without recourse at this point in this Court does not mean they were without
recourse at all. For example, voters can report knowing misapplications of Arizona law or
knowing failures to comply with Arizona law by election officials to the county attorney
for criminal investigation and possible criminal prosecution. See A.R.S. 16-1009
10
(public officer who knowingly fails or refuses to perform duty prescribed by election law
11
guilty of class 3 misdemeanor); 16-1010 (any person charged with duty under election law
12
who knowingly refuses to perform it, and knowingly acts in violation of election law,
13
14
Plaintiffs discount the sensible and time-tested edict that violations of Arizona state
15
16
contest. (Doc. 21, at 15.) If Plaintiffs claims were of pervasive error, which they are not,
17
such serious errors and omissions in ballot tabulation could be challenged under A.R.S.
18
16-672(A)(4) and (5) and, thus meet the high standard required by the legal authorities
19
cited by Plaintiffs. Instead, Plaintiffs appear to understand their claims are futile, but hope
20
21
Three electors and one candidates effort to perform an end-run around Arizona
22
law should be rejected. If Plaintiffs did not like the orderly process upon which this
23
election was administered, their time to object was prior to the election. Kerby v. Griffin,
24
48 Ariz. 434, 444, 62 P.2d 1131, 1135 (1936); Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468, 470-71
25
(1987).
26
27
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors Martha McSally and McSally for Congress
respectfully request that this action be dismissed.
28
-6-
2
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3
4
By:
5
6
7
8
9
10
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
s/ Brett W. Johnson
Brett W. Johnson
Eric H. Spencer
One Arizona Center
400 E. Van Buren Street, Suite 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
Attorneys for Martha McSally and
McSally for Congress
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
transmitted the attached document to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF system for
registrants:
8
9
10
L.L.P.
LAW OFFICES
One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6000
11
s/ Tracy Hobbs
20530599
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-