PHOENIX – The Arizona Supreme ruled today Rep. Shawnna Bolick will stay on the ballot. The Court rejected a challenge filed by a Democratic attorney that alleged Bolick shouldn’t be on the ballot in Legislative District 20 because she did not list her home address or a post office box address on her nominating petitions.
“The claim leveled against my campaign was funded by an out-of-state left-wing donor who has no idea who I am and doesn’t have the best interests of Arizona in mind. The Democrats targeted me because I am a strong Republican female legislator who has accomplished quite a bit in a short amount of time. It is very telling how the Democrats are sexist against conservative women. In 2018, they targeted Representatives Jill Norgaard and Maria Syms because they were both women committed to working for their constituents, and now, they have targeted me.”
“I’m gratified by the large number of Legislative District 20 voters who signed my petition for re-election,” Rep. Bolick declared. “It’s really a shame that left-wing Democrat partisan activists tried to deny voters their right to nominate a favorable candidate and a hard-working legislator. I very much look forward to getting back to work as we reopen Arizona.”
The Court disqualified 290 signatures from the paper petition sheets circulated by Bolick but that that she had “530 valid signatures, well above the statutory requirement,” of 455.
Democrats had hoped to knock Bolick off the ballot as part of an effort to take control of the Arizona Legislature.
According to the blog, AZMirror.com:
“The Maricopa County Democratic Party, for example, wrote Bolick’s removal would “clear the way” for Democrat Judy Schwiebert, the lone Democrat running for the House in LD20.
“If the challenge stands and incumbent Rep. Shawnna Bolick is REMOVED from the ballot, the AZ House will have a 30-30 even split – giving Democrats a say in the lawmaking process,” the Maricopa County Democratic Party wrote in a press release on April 21.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued a ruling on April 30 against Plaintiff Judith Lohr and in favor of Bolick.
Bolick, who is married to Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, filed her candidate nomination forms using a UPS mailbox due to the fact that she is on the Secured Registrants list. State law allows judges to petition to shield their home addresses on records maintained by various county-level offices as well as the state Department of Transportation. It also allows judges and those living with them to keep their address private on voter registration forms.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed an amicus brief in the case arguing, “As Arizona’s chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General has a duty to protect the rights of Arizonans who serve and protect, as well as the victims who need protection. A.R.S. § 16-153 affords legal protections for law enforcement personnel and victims of domestic violence who, through judicial process, are entitled to shield their residential address from public disclosure (“Secured Registrants”). Fundamentally, Appellant’s legal position regarding the interaction of the legal protections in § 16-153 and the requirements for candidates for election would jeopardize the personal safety of Secured Registrants who seek public office. Accordingly, this Court should reject Appellant’s contentions and affirm the Superior Court.”
“The unfortunate reality is that Secured Registrants risk their lives daily, either as a result of their selfless desire to serve and protect, or because of a dangerous former domestic partner or associate. And none of these individuals are waived into a protected status lightly,” wrote Bnovich. “Before a voting record is sealed, the individual must file an affidavit in the appropriate superior court. A.R.S. § 16 153(C). The affidavit requests “the general public be prohibited from accessing the eligible person’s identifying information” and must include “the reasons for reasonably believing that the person’s life or safety” is in danger. A.R.S. § 16 153(A),(B)(3). The presiding judge must review the request and determine whether the request should be granted.4 A.R.S. § 16-153(E). Once a judge issues an order to seal the Secured Registrant’s records, “[t]he information in the registration shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.”
Bolick’s husband recused himself from case. A panel consisting of Chief Justice Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Timmer, Justice Gould and Justice Montgomery, considered the case. They found:
The candidate did not strictly comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 16-311(A) in her nomination paper which requires the candidate to “sign and cause to be filed a nomination paper giving the person’s actual residence address or description of place of residence and post office address”. However, the Candidate substantially complied with the statutory nomination-paper requirement. The error was unlikely to have misled or confused voters about the Candidate’s ability to run as a resident of Legislative District 20.
The Candidate did not strictly comply with A.R.S. § 16-314(C) when stating in her nomination petitions sheets that she resides at 610 E. Bell Rd. 2-142 Phoenix AZ 85022, which is a UPS store. However, the Candidate substantially complied with the statutory nomination petition sheet requirement. The error was unlikely to have misled or confused voters about the Candidate’s ability to run as a resident of Legislative District 20.
With respect to the Candidate’s paper petition sheets, the Candidate did not strictly or substantially comply with A.R.S. § 16-315(B), which requires that a circulator include “Circulator’s actual residence address or, if no street address, a description of residence location.” The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a circulator can be contacted and questioned about the validity of gathered signatures. Providing a private mail box address does not fulfill this purpose.
However, with respect to the Candidate’s “E-Qual” petition sheets submitted pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-316, there is no statutory requirement that a candidate provide a statement of residential address. Therefore, there is no statutory authority to challenge or invalidate a candidate’s E-Qual petitions on these grounds.
The Candidate was required to submit a minimum of 455 signatures. After the County Recorder invalidated 75 of the Candidate’s signatures, she had 820 valid signatures. The invalidation of 290 signatures from the paper petition sheets circulated by the Candidate leaves her with 530 valid signatures, well above the statutory requirement.
The Attorney General’s brief noted that “the SOS has promulgated procedures requiring candidates submitting E-Qual petitions to sign a “Circulator Cover Sheet,” A.R.S. § 16-316 does not so require. Accordingly, there is no statutory basis to exclude signatures gathered through E-Qual based on the use of a post office address on the SOS’s Circulator Cover Sheet; therefore this brief does not address harmonization or substantial compliance with a non-existent statutory requirement.”
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has been accused of showing little care for those on the Secured Registrants’ list. In March, at least 78 registered voters had their protected, confidential information released by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.
RELATED ARTICLE: Confidential Voter Information Released To Political Parties Via Arizona Secretary Of State
[metaslider id=65385]