1

2
3
4
5
6
7

Roopali H. Desai (024295)

Andrew S. Gordon (003660)
D. Andrew Gaona (028414)
COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
T: (602) 381-5478
F: (602) 224-6020
rdesai@cblawyers.com
agordon@cblawyers.com
agaona@cblawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

10

MARICOPA COUNTY

11
12
13

DENNIS SHANE HITZEMAN, a qualified

elector; ARIZONA RESTAURANT AND
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, d/b/a
ARIZONA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,
a non-profit Arizona corporation,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16

MICHELE REAGAN, in her official capacity

as Arizona Secretary of State; ARIZONANS
FOR FAIR WAGES AND HEALTHY
FAMILIES SUPPORTING I-24-2016, an
Arizona political committee,

17
18
19

Defendants.

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV2016-009704
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (WITH
NOTICE)
(Expedited election challenge pursuant to
A.R.S. 19-118(D))
(Expedited consideration requested)
(Assigned to Hon. J. Rogers)

21

Based on recently obtained information from Defendant Secretary of State that she

22

intends to issue a receipt of eligible signatures for verification and perhaps also select a random

23

sample of signatures to send to the counties for certification on July 22, 2016 almost two

24

weeks before the statutory deadline to do so and almost one week before the scheduled return

25

hearing in this case Plaintiffs respectfully seek emergency relief from the Court in the form

26

of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin her from issuing a receipt until the time that

{00238720.2 }

Plaintiffs can at least make their initial appearance before the Court in this matter and have an

opportunity to obtain relief. 1, 2

Following is a timeline of relevant events and deadlines:

July 7, 2016 Defendant Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Supporting I-24-2016 (the Committee) waited until the last day legally allowed
to file initiative petitions and then filed more than 22,000 petitions containing
approximately 270,000 signatures with the Secretary of State.

July 11, 2016 Secretary of State took four days to make available copies of
petitions and then finally did so through numerous file share links, which
required hours of manual downloading.

July 14, 2016 Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint pursuant to A.R.S. 19118(D) seeking to enjoin Secretary of State from counting petitions/signatures.

July 22, 2016 Proposed date that Secretary of State will issue a receipt of
eligible signatures for verification and possible selection of random sample.

July 28, 2016 Return hearing ordered by Judge Rogers.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs learned about the Secretary of States plans after this case was already assigned to
Judge Joshua Rogers. Judge Rogers chambers is closed for one week due to vacations.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are providing a copy of this motion to Judge Gerlach, who is handling
emergency matters for Judge Rogers in his absence, for his decision on just this motion to
maintain the current status quo until the scheduled return hearing.

Undersigned counsel conferred with the Attorney Generals Office (AGO), which is
representing the Secretary of State in this matter, and requested that the Secretary of State
agree to wait until after an initial appearance in this matter to issue the receipt of eligible
signatures for verification. The AGO declined, but indicated that the Secretary of State may be
willing to wait: (1) if the initiative proponents and at least Maricopa and Pima counties agreed
that it would not prejudice them; or (2) if Plaintiffs obtained a court order. While we
understand the counties desire to have more time to do their work, they are not entitled to the
extra time under law and, therefore, they would not be prejudiced. The legislature has set out a
schedule that is workable with the various election deadlines. Plaintiffs should not be forced to
have to negotiate with non-party counties to get the time the statutes already allow for.
Further, given the already short timeframes in play, Plaintiffs did not want to delay raising this
issue with the Court.

{00238720.2 }

August 4, 2016 Statutory deadline for Secretary of State to issue a receipt of

eligible signatures for verification and selection of random sample pursuant to
A.R.S. 19-121.01(A). 3

August 25, 2016 Deadline for county recorders to issue a certification of valid
signatures pursuant to A.R.S. 19-121.02(A). 4

August 30, 2016 Deadline for Secretary of State to issue a final disposition of
valid signatures and determination of qualification of the ballot measure for the
ballot. 5

2
3
4
5
6

Plaintiffs understand the Secretary of States desire to move the statutory process along

7
8

for reviewing and certifying petition signatures in light of the various election deadlines that

she and other election officials are facing with the upcoming primary and general elections.

10

However, in a circumstance such as this one where Plaintiffs filed a timely lawsuit and are

11

specifically seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from including in its count of eligible

12

signatures for verification the petitions and signatures challenged in the lawsuit, the Secretary

13

of State should not rush to issue a receipt to the detriment of Plaintiffs. That is especially true

14

where, as here, Plaintiffs were unable to file a lawsuit sooner because it did not receive copies

15

of the petitions until days before the statutory deadline for filing an action. Arizona law

16

requires an action challenging the lawful registration of circulators within five business days

17

after petitions are filed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State used two of the five

18

days (and an intervening weekend) before providing copies of the petitions. Upon receiving

19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The statute provides that the Secretary of State has 20 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue its receipt of eligible signatures for verification and select a
random sample. Thus, if the Secretary of State takes the full amount of time allowed under the
statute, the deadline is August 4, 2016.

The statute provides that the county recorders have 15 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue their certifications of valid signatures. Thus, if the Secretary
of State selects and transmits a random sample earlier than August 4, 2016, the deadline for the
county recorder certifications is earlier than August 25, 2016.

The statute provides that the Secretary of State has 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and other legal holidays to issue its final disposition. Thus, the deadline is contingent on when
the county recorders issue their certifications of valid signatures.

{00238720.2 }

and reviewing the petitions, Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as soon as possible and within the

statutory deadlines.
One day after filing this action, counsel for the Secretary of State notified undersigned

3
4

counsel that the Secretary of State intends to issue a receipt of eligible signatures for

verification and, if warranted, select a random sample in approximately one week, on or

around July 22, 2016. If the Secretary of State issues her receipt on or around July 22, it will

severely prejudice Plaintiffs. In particular, the statute under which Plaintiffs have brought their

claims provides that, [t]he removal or disqualification of any one or more circulators does not

invalidate the random sample of signatures made pursuant to section 19-121.01, and the

10

secretary of state shall not be required to conduct any additional random sampling of

11

signatures. A.R.S. 19-118(E). While unclear how this provision will affect the ultimate

12

relief Plaintiffs are seeking in this lawsuit, it is clear that if the Secretary of State issues a

13

receipt of eligible signatures for verification and a random sample before Plaintiffs can obtain

14

the disqualification of sheets they are seeking, the Secretary of State is not required to conduct

15

an additional random sample. Thus, an order enjoining the Secretary of State is necessary to

16

maintain the status quo and prevent severe prejudice to Plaintiffs who brought their action as

17

soon as possible and within the statutory timeframe for doing so.
Moreover, there is no urgency for the Secretary of State to issue the receipt for eligible

18
19

signatures for verification as early as July 22 and Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to

20

make an initial appearance in Court first on July 28. The lack of urgency is supported by the

21

statutory timeframes, which are intended to give elections officials enough time to conduct

22

their review and certification of petition signatures in advance of printing ballots for an

23

election. While these officials may want additional time before the printing deadlines, their

24

desire for more time should not compromise Plaintiffs legal right to challenge initiative

25

petitions and signatures. Indeed, it should not be permitted in this case where, after using two

26

{00238720.2 }

of Plaintiffs five days to file this action, the Secretary of State now wants to shave nine

business days off the back end, thus prejudicing Plaintiffs further.

To be clear, Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order

to extend the deadlines set forth in statute. In fact, Plaintiffs are not even asking this Court to

issue an order requiring the Secretary of State to take the full time allowed under law, which is

August 4. Rather, we are simply asking that the Court enjoin the Secretary of State from

issuing a receipt of eligible signatures for verification (and selecting a random sample if one is

deemed necessary) until Plaintiffs have an opportunity to appear at the currently scheduled

return hearing with Judge Rogers on July 28, 2016 at 8:45 am.
This Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (With Notice) is supported by the

10
11

attached Certification of Counsel.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed

12
13

order, filed herewith, to maintain the status quo by enjoining the Secretary of State from

14

issuing a receipt of eligible signatures for verification and selecting a random sample prior to

15

the statutory deadline of August 4, 2016 or, at a minimum, until after the return hearing on

16

July 28, 2016.

17
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2016.

18
19

COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC

20

22

By /s/ Roopali H. Desai

Roopali H. Desai
Andrew S. Gordon
D. Andrew Gaona

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21

24
25
26

{00238720.2 }

ORIGINAL filed July 18, 2016.

COPY emailed and mailed

July 18, 2016, to:

3
4

The Honorable Douglas Gerlach

c/o padugananr@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

James E. Barton
Torres Law Group PLLC
2239 West Baseline Road
Tempe, Arizona 85283-1095
james@thetorresfirm.com
James Driscoll-MacEachron
Attorney Generals Office
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926
James.Driscoll-MacEachron@azag.gov

13
14

/s/ Sheri McAlister

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

{00238720.2 }

Exhibit A

Exhibit A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Roopali H. Desai (024295)

Andrew S. Gordon (003660)
D. Andrew Gaona (028414)
COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
T: (602) 381-5478
F: (602) 224-6020
rdesai@cblawyers.com
agordon@cblawyers.com
agaona@cblawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

10

MARICOPA COUNTY

11

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

21

Pursuant to Rule 65(d), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for Plaintiffs hereby

12
13

DENNIS SHANE HITZEMAN, a qualified

elector; ARIZONA RESTAURANT AND
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, d/b/a
ARIZONA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,
a non-profit Arizona corporation,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16

MICHELE REAGAN, in her official capacity

as Arizona Secretary of State; ARIZONANS
FOR FAIR WAGES AND HEALTHY
FAMILIES SUPPORTING I-24-2016, an
Arizona political committee,

17
18
19

Defendants.

No. CV2016-009704
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
(Election Case)
(Expedited consideration requested)

(Assigned to Hon. J. Rogers)

22

certifies that efforts have been made to notify Defendants of Plaintiffs intention to seek a

23

temporary restraining order in this matter.

Counsel for Plaintiffs provided notice of their request for a Temporary Restraining

24
25

Order to counsel for both Defendants via email at 12:53 p.m. on July 17, 2016 (attached hereto

26

as Ex. 1) and sent a copy of the Motion to counsel for both Defendants via email prior to filing

{00238827.1 }

it on July 18, 2016 (attached hereto as Ex. 2). Undersigned counsel also provided notice to

counsel for Defendants of their intent to appear in Court on this Motion upon its filing on the

morning of July 18, 2016 (attached hereto as Ex. 3).

4
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2016.

COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC

6
7

By /s/ Roopali H. Desai

Roopali H. Desai
Andrew S. Gordon
D. Andrew Gaona

8
9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

{00238827.1 }