Ethics complaints have been filed against former Gilbert Town Councilman, Jordan Ray, regarding his controversial effort to appear on the ballot and claims made as a candidate for Justice of the Peace. The complaints were filed by Ray’s opponent, attorney Ken Sampson.
Sampson, an attorney who has earned the support of Rep. Andy Biggs and Arizona House Majority Leader Warren Petersen, alleges that Ray, a close associate of outgoing Mayor Jenn Daniels, engaged in illegal activity to gain a position on the ballot and unethical activity to win voter support.
Ray announced his intention to resign from the low-paying ($21,00) Town Council position in January 2020 in response to the news of the retirement of Judge Steven Urie.
In Arizona, justices of the peace are not required to be attorneys and can earn up to $180,000 a year.
In his first complaint, Sampson alleges that “Mr. Ray incited tortuous interference with a contract,” and attempted “to conceal his identity while litigating against several other candidates.”
Specifically, Sampson says that Ray enticed petition gatherers “to breach their existing contract with me, and knowingly interfered with their ability to perform the contractual obligations I required, thus preventing my campaign from receiving the services promised. This makes Mr. Ray’s actions wholly illegal and dishonest, and not the proper conduct for a judicial candidate. These events can also be corroborated by comparing the dates and signatures of the nomination petitions between myself and Mr. Ray.”
According to Sampson, Ray concealed his identity in an effort to disqualify his fellow office seekers from the ballot. Sampson writes:
On 4/6/2020, complaints were filed in Maricopa Superior Court against three candidates for the same office Mr. Ray was seeking, (myself, Aaron Burroughs, and Loren Rohner) to challenge the validity of the nomination signatures qualifying for the ballot.
All complaints against the candidates were filed by Harrell Boyster through his attorney Shad Brown. The filings, almost identical in nature, contained a multitude of accusations which if proven accurate, would disqualify the candidates for office.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Ray was witnessed escorting and conversing with Mr. Brown (who also openly supports Mr. Ray’s campaign) in the Superior Courthouse, while assisting with the filing of Mr. Boyster’s signature challenges. Never at any time was Mr. Boyster present during the filing or litigation, and he only provided cryptic answers to a reporter’s questions in a column in the Gilbert Sun Times. It is further implied that Mr. Ray paid the filing costs and attorney’s fees for Mr. Boyster. Not only is this an attempt for Mr. Ray to secretly litigate, but also creates a conflict of interest between Mr. Boyster and his attorney.
Mr. Ray’s conduct during his campaign has been unethical, illegal, and potentially caused an attorney to violate the code of professional ethics. His conduct and character are totally out of line with the actions of a judicial officer and must be addressed by the ethics committee.
In his second complaint, Sampson doubles down on claims that Ray’s actions are out of line with the actions of a judicial officer. He alleges that Ray “violated a multitude of ethical rules outlined in the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (ACJC) and statutory rules established by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Sampson’s second complaint “focuses on three violations: 1. Mr. Ray’s deliberate designation as campaign treasurer in his own campaign, 2. Mr. Ray continues to hold a leadership position and holds office in a political organization and will appear twice on the Primary Ballot, and 3. Mr. Ray is misleading voters about his legal qualifications and is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.”
In his complaints, Sampson writes:
I respectfully submit a second complaint concerning Jordan Ray, a candidate for Justice of the Peace in the Highland Precinct who has violated a multitude of ethical rules outlined in the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (ACJC) and statutory rules established by the Arizona Supreme Court.
As mentioned previously, both Mr. Ray and I are candidates for the Highland Precinct Justice of the Peace. I filed a statement of interest on 9/10/2019 and Mr. Ray filed the same documentation on 9/30/2019. Additionally, Mr. Ray publicly announced that he was running for the vacant Highland position on or around 2/6/2019 and formally filed as a candidate for justice court on or around April 6, 2020, making him subject to the ethics guidelines in Canon 4. This complaint focuses on three violations: 1. Mr. Ray’s deliberate designation as campaign treasurer in his own campaign, 2. Mr. Ray continues to hold a leadership position and holds office in a political organization and will appear twice on the Primary Ballot, and 3. Mr. Ray is misleading voters about his legal qualifications and is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Specifically, his ethical conduct concerning rules 4.2 and 1.1 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.
Rule 4.2 (A)(1)&(2) requires that all judicial candidates shall “act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary” and “comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election campaign fund-raising laws and regulations.”
Rule 1.1 explicitly requires that “a judge shall comply with the law, including the Judicial Code of Conduct.” Although Canon 1 does not apply to judicial candidates, Mr. Ray’s apparent illegal activity during his campaign would apply retroactively if here were elected.
Both Mr. Ray and I are candidates for the Highland Precinct Justice of the Peace. I filed a statement of interest on 9/10/2019 and Mr. Ray filed the same documentation on 9/30/2019. Additionally, Mr. Ray publicly announced that he was running for the vacant Highland position on or around 2/6/2019, making him subject to the ethics guidelines in Canon 4.My complaint focuses on two events: 1. Mr. Ray’s deliberate and illegal campaign and contractual interference caused by enticing contracted signature gatherers to work on his campaign, and 2. Mr. Ray’s attempts to conceal his identity while litigating against several other candidates.
[VIEW COMPLAINT HERE AND HERE]
Attempts to reach the candidates were unsuccessful prior to our publishing deadline.