DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of ALASKA JED WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, V. BYRON MALLOTT, in His Official Capac

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of ALASKA JED WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, V. BYRON MALLOTT, in His Official Capac IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA JED WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG BYRON MALLOTT, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska, Defendant. ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court at Docket 8 is Plaintiff Jed Whittaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment and at Docket 15 is Defendant Byron Mallott’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion, which was filed before Defendant was served with the Complaint. Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion at Docket 19. No reply was filed.1 Also before the Court, at Docket 17, is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant opposed this motion to strike at Docket 19. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court’s decision. BACKGROUND This case concerns the constitutionality of Alaska’s ballot access requirements as codified at Alaska Statute (AS) 15.25.160. Plaintiff Jed Whittaker was a candidate for United States Senator for Alaska in 2016; he was not affiliated with a “political party” as that term is defined by Alaska law.2 To have his name printed on the official ballot, Mr. 1 Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority at Docket 25 and Docket 26. 2 See AS 15.80.010(27) (defining a “political party” as one whose candidate obtained three percent of the vote in the immediately preceding general election for governor, U.S. Senator, or Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 23 Whittaker was required to submit a petition “signed by qualified voters of the state equal in number to at least one percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the preceding general election.”3 For the 2016 election, a petition was valid if it contained at least 2,854 signatures.4 Mr. Whittaker’s petition contained only 2,081 signatures; the division of elections accordingly rejected his petition in August 2016.5 Mr. Whittaker subsequently filed as a “write-in” candidate for the senate seat pursuant to AS 15.25.105.6 Mr. Whittaker filed his Complaint in September 2016 naming Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott as Defendant, in his official capacity. Mr. Whittaker sought an injunction ordering the Alaska Division of Elections to include his name on the ballot and enjoining enforcement of AS 15.25.160. Mr. Whittaker did not dispute that he did not meet the statutory requirements to appear on the ballot. Instead, he contended that those requirements impermissibly infringed on his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.7 Because Mr. Whittaker sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis,8 the Court reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On October 5, 2016, the Court found that U.S. Representative). 3 AS 15.25.160. 4 Docket 4-1 (Aug. 20, 2016 ltr. from Josie Bahnke, Director, Div. of Elections to Jed Whittaker). 5 Docket 4-1. 6 See Docket 15 at 3 n.4. The Court takes judicial notice of this fact pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 7 See Docket 4 (Pl.’s Supplemental Documents) at 2. 8 See Docket 3. Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG, Whittaker v. Mallott Order re Motions for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 23 Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 23 Mr. Whittaker’s Complaint stated a plausible claim for relief and could proceed.9 But in the Court’s initial screening order, the Court denied Mr. Whittaker’s motion for expedited consideration because it did not relate to any specific motion.10 There were 706 write-in votes cast in the November 2016 senate election, but Mr. Whittaker was not elected.11 DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s claim arises under the U.S. Constitution. II. Standard for Summary Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) directs a court to “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact lies with the moving party.12 The parties appear not to dispute any material fact in this case; the only question is which party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in light of those undisputed facts. 9 See Docket 7 (Screening Order) at 4. 10 Docket 7 at 4. 11 See State of Alaska General Election Official Results, November 8, 2016, available at http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/16GENR/data/results.pdf (updated Nov. 30, 2016). Defendant indicates there were only 545 write-in votes, see also Docket 15 at 4 n.8, and this discrepancy is unexplained. It may be that only 545 votes had been tabulated at the time of Defendant’s motion, which was filed shortly after the election. 12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG, Whittaker v. Mallott Order re Motions for Summary Judgment Page 3 of 23 Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 23 III. Mr. Whittaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment As discussed above, a motion for summary judgment will be granted if the movant shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”13 Mr. Whittaker’s motion makes no such showing; he claims entitlement to judgment in his favor based on Defendant’s alleged failure to timely answer or defend the Complaint.14 Thus, though titled a motion for summary judgment, Mr. Whittaker’s motion is better characterized as a motion for a default judgment pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). Mr. Whittaker is not entitled to a default judgment. The Court issued its screening order on October 5, 2016; Mr. Whittaker moved for summary judgment the next day.15 But Defendant was not served until October 26, 2016.16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a), Defendant then had 24 days to file a responsive pleading.17 Defendant filed the motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2016, well within the prescribed time limit.18 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 14 See Docket 8 at 1 (“Plaintiff has received no response at all from Defendant . Therefore, Plaintiff prays this Federal District Court grant this Motion for Summary Judgment . .”). 15 See Docket 7 (Screening Order); Docket 8 (P.’s Mot. for Summ. J.). 16 See Docket 11 (Clerk’s Notice of Service) at 1; Docket 12; Docket 13. 17 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing 21 days); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (providing an additional 3 days when service is, as here, by mail). 18 See Docket 15. Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG, Whittaker v. Mallott Order re Motions for Summary Judgment Page 4 of 23 Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 23 Because Defendant has not “failed to plead or otherwise defend,” Mr. Whittaker is not entitled to either an entry of default or an entry of default judgment. The Court will therefore deny Mr. Whittaker’s motion for summary judgment at Docket 8. IV. Motion to Strike Defendant did not file a responsive pleading in this case, but instead moved immediately for summary judgment.19 Mr. Whittaker moves to strike this motion on the grounds that Defendant must first answer the Complaint.20 Defendant responds that “a defendant is not required to file a formal answer to a complaint prior to moving for summary judgment,”21 and that he filed a motion for summary judgment instead of a motion to dismiss because the Court had already concluded that Mr. Whittaker’s Complaint stated a plausible claim.22 Defendant points to a decision from the District Court for the District of Columbia that notes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) permits a party to move for summary judgment “at any time.”23 That court also noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permit a defendant to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 in lieu of filing an 19 See Docket 15. 20 Docket 17 at 1. Mr. Whittaker also maintains that Defendant’s motion should have been filed as a cross-motion for summary judgment, not a motion for summary judgment. As explained above, Mr. Whittaker’s motion is better characterized as a motion for default judgment, not one for summary judgment. And, in any event, the misnaming of a motion is not a basis for denying the relief sought by it. 21 Docket 18 at 2. 22 Docket 18 at 2 (citing Order at Docket 7). 23 See Docket 18 at 2 (citing Jones v. Dep’t of Justice, 601 F. Supp. 2d 297, 302 (D.D.C. 2009)). Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG, Whittaker v. Mallott Order re Motions for Summary Judgment Page 5 of 23 Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 23 answer.24 Thus, the court concluded that the filing a motion for summary judgment before answering is not different, in substance, from “filing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) accompanied by matters outside the pleadings, which is then converted by operation of Rule 12(d) to one under Rule 56.”25 This is consistent with Ninth Circuit law.26 “[T]he filing of an answer is not a prerequisite to the filing of a motion for summary judgment.”27 The proper course in this case, then, is to treat Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as a motion converted under Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(d), particularly as both parties have referenced documents outside the pleadings, which the Court has considered.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court for the District of Arizona
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) THE ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN ) PARTY AND MICHAEL KIELSKY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) MICHELE REAGAN, ) Civil Action No. ___________ ) Defendant. ) ) INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party (“AZLP”) and its Chairman Michael Kielsky (together, “the Libertarians”) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to vindicate rights guaranteed to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Libertarians specifically challenge the constitutionality of two provisions of Arizona law, A.R.S. §§ 16-321 and 16-322, which establish the requirements that political parties must meet to place their candidates on Arizona’s primary election ballot. These provisions formerly enabled candidates to appear on the primary ballot by submitting nomination petitions with a number of signatures defined as a percentage of their party’s qualified registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction. In 2015, however, the provisions were amended, such that they now define the signature requirements as a percentage of all “qualified signers” in the relevant jurisdiction – a pool defined to include independent and unaffiliated voters. As applied to the Libertarians – though not to the major parties – this drastically increased the number of signatures required. In general, the new requirements for the Libertarians are at least 20 times greater than the old ones, depending on the office, and in many cases much greater. Sections 16-321 and 16-322, as amended, violate the Libertarians’ First Amendment rights on several grounds. First, they impose unconstitutionally severe signature requirements under the settled precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, they violate the Libertarians’ freedom of association, because they compel AZLP, as a practical matter, to rely on non-members for purposes of nominating its own partisan candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY; No. 13-16254 ARIZONA GREEN PARTY; JAMES MARCH; KENT SOLBERG; STEVE DC No. LACKEY, 4:11 cv-0856 Plaintiffs-Appellants, CKJ v. ORDER AND MICHELE REAGAN, Secretary of AMENDED State, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 29, 2015—University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Arizona Filed April 24, 2015 Amended August 7, 2015 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge McKeown 2 ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY V. REAGAN SUMMARY* Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by the Arizona Green Party, the Arizona Libertarian Party, and three of their members alleging that Arizona’s voter registration form violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted a law requiring the voter registration form distributed by the Arizona Secretary of State to list the two largest parties (as measured by number of registered voters) on the form, as well as provide a blank line for “other party preferences.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-152(A)(5). Prior to the 2011 amendment, Arizona law required only that voter registration forms include a blank space for the registrant’s party preference. The panel first determined that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence that the revised registration form actually discourages or prevents voters from registering with minor parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Page Photo
    2010 Candidate Statement Pamphlet General Election Table of Contents Letter from the Commission 2 General Election Date 3 Disclaimer 3 Why is the Pamphlet Printed in Spanish? 3 Voting Information/ Secretary of State’s Office 4 Help America Vote Act of 2002 4 Alternative Formats 4 Candidate Debate Information 4 What is my Legislative District? 5 How do I Receive an Early Ballot or Sample Ballot? 5 Citizens Clean Elections Act 6 Citizens Clean Elections Commission 7 Citizens Clean Elections Fund 7 Tax Credits 8 Contact the Commission 8 Citizens Clean Elections Commissioners 8 Citizens Clean Elections Staff 9 Candidate Statements 10 Sun Sounds of Arizona 98 Become a Poll Worker 99 Voter Identification Requirements 100 1 2010 Candidate Statement Pamphlet General Election Letter from the Commission Dear Arizona Voters: Thank you for becoming involved in the political process in Arizona. By voting in the upcoming General Election, you will be electing candidates for all of the statewide offices as well as 90 legislative seats consisting of 30 Senators and 60 Representatives. The Candidate Statements Pamphlet is a nonpartisan, plain-language handbook published by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, an independent state agency, to give you information about state elections. The Commission’s mission is to fairly, faithfully and fully implement and administer Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, which is a campaign finance reform measure initiated by Arizona citizens and passed by voters in 1998. The Act creates a campaign financing system that provides full public funding to qualified state and legislative office candidates who agree to abide by the Citizens Clean Elections Act and Commission regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • N:\Civil Rights\Equal Protection
    Case 4:11-cv-00856-CKJ Document 25 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 15 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 11 ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, et) al., ) 12 ) Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 11-856-TUC-CKJ 13 ) vs. ) ORDER 14 ) KEN BENNETT, Secretary of State, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) by 18 Secretary of State Ken Bennet (“the Secretary” or “Defendant”) and the Motion for Summary 19 Judgment (Doc. 17) filed by Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party Incorporated, Arizona Green 20 Party, James March, Kent Solbert, Steve Lackey (“Plaintiffs”). Responses and replies have 21 been filed. The parties presented oral argument to the Court on December 3, 2012. 22 23 Factual Background 24 In 2011, the Arizona Legislature amended the statute regarding the form used for the 25 registration of electors. At the time of the amendment, the statute stated the form “shall 26 contain . [t]he registrant’s party preference.” A.R.S. § 16-152(A)(5) (2004). The amended 27 statute now provides that the form shall contain: 28 Case 4:11-cv-00856-CKJ Document 25 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 15 1 5. The registrant's party preference. The two largest political parties that are entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall be listed on the form in the order 2 determined by calculating which party has the highest number of registered voters at the close of registration for the most recent general election for governor, then the 3 second highest.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Information Directory of Elected Government
    VOTER INFORMATION AND DIRECTORY OF ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS Central Yavapai County September, 2020 Published by The League of Women Voters of Central Yavapai County P.O. Box 11538 Prescott, AZ 86304 [email protected] www.lwvcyc.org 1 THE LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS The League is a nonpartisan political organization that: o encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, o works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, o and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The League does not support or oppose any political candidate or party. Membership is open to any citizen, male or female, 18 years or older. Join us in the League! Please report inaccurate or updated information to Jan Manolis [email protected] Contacting your officeholder: It is recommended that you call, fax, or e-mail. Snail mail to national officeholders may be delayed due to security checks. Websites usually have “contact” buttons for emails. Emails must provide your name and address. Senators will respond only to contacts from their own constituents. If planning to attend a Board Meeting, please call ahead to confirm time and place. 2 UNITED STATES U.S. Representative th EXECUTIVES 4 Congressional District Paul Gosar (R) Term expires January 2021 President Donald J. Trump (R) Vice-President Mike Pence Washington Office: 4-year term expires January 2021 2057 Rayburn HOB The White House Washington, D.C. 20515 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (202) 225-2315 Washington, D.C. 20500 Website: www.gosar.house.gov Phone: (202) 456-1111 Fax (202) 456-2461 Prescott Office: Website: www.whitehouse.gov/contact 120 N.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Ballot Access Petition Process the Arizona Green Party Was Founded in May 1990. We Have Previously Achieved Ballot Status 7
    2020 Ballot Access Petition Process The Arizona Green Party was founded in May 1990. We have previously achieved ballot status 7 times in our party history: 1992, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2016 & 2018. We have more than 6,400 registered Greens statewide, and have active county chapters in Maricopa and Pima County. In order to retain ballot status for the 2020 General Election the Arizona Green Party will need to apply as a new political party. This process is one that has been successful in the past and we believe that we will be successful again. Below is a quick start guide to collecting signatures for this petition drive. 1. Print the Petition for Party Recognition Form. 2. Make sure to use the correct date of the Primary: August 4, 2020. And make sure the General Election date is November 3, 2020. 3. Fill in the county in Arizona where the petition signers are registered voters. Only one county per sheet, so it is vital to ask petition signers which county they currently are registered to vote in. (For example: if you are collecting signatures in Mohave County, and a registered voter wants to sign who lives in Coconino County then you will need to have them sign on a sheet with Coconino County listed at the top of the page.) 4. Keep clipboards handy for multiple counties. Each registered voter must sign the petition with his/her county of registration listed on the top of the petition form. 5. Before turning in the petition form, validate the signatures by attending the election office for your county.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Registration, Please Call Your County Recorder’S Office
    PUBLICITY PAMPHLET Issued by Janice K. Brewer Arizona Secretary of State Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review www.azsos.gov 1-877-THE VOTE General Election NOVEMBER 7, 2006 For a Spanish version of this publicity pamphlet call toll-free 1-877-THE VOTE (1-877-843-8683) Para una versión en español de este folleto informativo, llame gratis al 1-877-THE VOTE (1-877-843-8683). General Election Arizona November 7, 2006 2006 Ballot Propositions 3EKH/J?B?JO?BB 97D=?L;OEKJ>;FEM;HJELEJ; A driver’s license isn’t the only thing that helps you vote. Just show two valid forms of identification, such as: • Current utility bill • Current bank or credit union statement • Arizona vehicle registration • Current telephone or cellular phone bill EH79ECFB;J;B?IJ L?I?J7PIEI =ELEH97BB ." 0). 2 Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer Arizona General Election 2006 Ballot Propositions November 7, 2006 Dear Arizona Voters: Welcome to the 2006 General Election Publicity Pamphlet. The Publicity Pamphlet is one of the most important tools that Arizonans use in deciding how to vote. This pamphlet is divided into three parts: (1) general information about voting; (2) information about each proposition, including the actual language of the measure, a description of the measure, and arguments for and against the measure; and (3) the 2006 Judicial Performance Review on the justices/judges that will appear on the ballot. The following are some important dates to remember: • Registration Deadline: October 9, 2006 at midnight. For information about your voter registration, please call your county recorder’s office.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State Republican Party V. State
    Case 2:05-cv-00927-JCC Document 273 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 69 The Honorable John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al., No. CV 05-0927JCC Plaintiffs WASHINGTON DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF WASHINGTON STATE, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,, Defendant Intervenors, WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE, Defendant Intervenors. EXPERT DECLARATION OF RICHARD WINGER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO WASHINGTON STATE AND STATE GRANGE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 2:05-cv-00927-JCC Document 273 Filed 09/13/10 Page 2 of 69 1. My name is Richard Winger. I am the publisher and editor of Ballot Access News, a 25-year-old print publication. I have been the publisher and editor of Ballot Access News since the publication was founded in 1985. 2. I am a member of the editorial board of the Election Law Journal. I have previously been accepted as an expert on election law in federal courts in nine states, including California. Through the Ballot Access News, I am responsible for the publication and analysis of statistics and legal information regarding ballot access, voter and candidate access issues, and election litigation throughout the United States. 3, I am the published author of articles in the Journal of Election Law, the Fordham Urban Law Review, and other publications. Since 1985 he has published Ballot Access News, a monthly newsletter covering developments in ballot access law and among the minor parties generally. 4. I graduated from University California at Berkeley with a Bachelors’ degree in Political Science.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
    Appellate Case: 18-3133 Document: 010110091267 Date Filed: 11/29/2018 Page: 1 NOS. 18-3133, -3134 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit STEVEN WAYNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, – v. – KRIS W. KOBACH, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, Defendant-Appellant. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CODY KEENER; ALDER CROMWELL, Plaintiffs, – and – PARKER BEDNASEK, Plaintiff-Appellee, – v. – KRIS W. KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS, KANSAS CITY, CIVIL DOCKET NOS. 2:16-CV-02105-JAR AND 2:15-CV-09300-JAR (HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE) BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) DALE HO MARK P. JOHNSON R. ORION DANJUMA CURTIS E. WOODS SOPHIA LIN LAKIN SAMANTHA WENGER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION DENTONS US LLP FOUNDATION 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor Kansas City, Missouri 64111 New York, New York 10004 (816) 460-2400 (212) 549-2500 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Bednasek Plaintiff Counsel for Fish Plaintiffs (For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover) Appellate Case: 18-3133 Document: 010110091267 Date Filed: 11/29/2018 Page: 2 . NEIL A. STEINER LINO S. LIPINSKY DE ORLOV REBECCA KAHAN WALDMAN DENTONS US LLP DECHERT LLP 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 1095 Avenue of the Americas Denver, Colorado 80202 New York, New York 10036 (303) 634-4000 (212) 698-3500 [email protected] [email protected] – and – [email protected] MARK T.
    [Show full text]
  • County Election Directors
    S A MESSAGE TO ARIZONA VOTERS 3 3 33 ation sos.gov egistered www.azsos.gov www.azsos.gov www.azsos.gov General ElectionGeneralon ElectionGeneralon General ElectionGeneralon ElectionGeneralon . For information. For about October 4 October 4 October 4 October 4 General Election~ November 2,2010 does and arguments for and against the . t. to receivea the to ballot in mail,request or to that use. s s office. A list of contact information for each . Arizona be. conductingwill a he ballot (pages 110-135). ar on the ballot, includingthe actual language of the registered to vote: registered to vote: registered to vote: ns November 2. State and local elections will be registered to vote: rizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, to rizonaCommissionJudicial onPerformance Review, articipate in this importantElection. iving overseas, you can find important voting inform or visit the Secretary of State’s – Website www.az . This is the period when early ballots are mailed to r Ken Bennett Ken Arizona Secretary of State Sincerely, Sincerely, . Polling places are open from 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. Issued theby Arizona Secretary ofOffice State’s A Message to Arizona Voters November 2 November 2 November 2 November 2 October October 7 7 - - October October 22 22 October October 7 7 - - October October 22 22 2010 General Election Publicity Pamphlet 2010 , and I hope this pamphletis a helpful your tool for measure followed by a description of what the measure measure filed membersby of the public (pages 17-109) assist you in reviewing the judges whowill be on t your registration, please call your County Recorder’ CountyRecorder can be found on page 12.
    [Show full text]
  • English Language.” for Arizona, the Language of the Applicable Minority Group Is Spanish
    103012_01_CCEC_16_Primary_VoterEducationGuideCover_General_ENG_FNL.pdf 1 7/5/16 6:17 PM VOTER EDUCATION GUIDE PRIMARYPRIMARY ELELECTIONECTION AugustAugust 30, 2016 CITIZENSCITIZENS CLEANCLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSIONCOMMISSION StatewideStatewide && LegislativeLegislative Candidate Statement PamphletPamphlet Legislative Districtazcleanelections.gov 11 | azcleanelections.gov Paid for Paid by for the by theCitizens Citizens Clean Clean Elections Elections Fund Fund Dear Arizona Voter: Your household is receiving this Voter Education Guide for the August 30, 2016 Primary Election because you or another resident is registered to vote. Our democracy relies on your participation. Thank you for registering to vote. This Guide is designed to help you take the next step and learn about the voting process and the candidates so you can cast an informed ballot on Election Day. In this guide, you will find information on: Candidates running for the Arizona Corporation Commission (Page 11) Candidates running for the State Legislature from your district (Page 14) How to vote (Page 3) How to obtain an early ballot (Page 4) How to contact your county officials (Page 9) This Voter Education Guide is published by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission in order to provide non-partisan information about state elections. The Commission is an independent state agency made up of individuals who have sworn to faithfully administer the Clean Elections Act. The Act was passed by voters in 1998 and provides for a voter education program and campaign finance laws that promote participation and fight corruption in politics. Voting is one way we can all participate in the political process and ultimately strengthen our democracy. Important decisions are made on every ballot and every vote counts.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Party Enjoys Record Growth & Success in 2000, from Local
    1 Vol. 5, Issue 1 • Winter/Spring 2001 GreenPages is a publication of the Association of State Green Parties Green Party enjoys record growth & success in 2000, from local elections to the presidency 2000 WAS A YEAR of spectacular part of the nation’s political lexicon. And Much more than in 1996, Greens electoral reform. Everything from voting growth for the Green Party in the United among the nation’s young, Greens are also worked together nationally on a machines to voting systems is now on States. increasingly a preferred choice. common electoral project, building the table for consideration, including Greens ran more candidates, re- In addition to electoral growth, increased cohesiveness and professional- Green goals of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) ceived more votes, elected more people, the Green Party grew organizationally ism in their grassroots structure. This and proportional representation. registered more Green voters, and in 2000, enjoying an enormous leap in proved to be an invaluable, maturing ex- In sum, the Greens’ mixed achieved ballot status in more states skills, experience and contacts. This perience for the growing movement. strategy - of an emphasis on municipal than ever before. came from within, as internal leadership On the presidential level, the races, combined with selected state and The Green Party’s growth was has developed. It also came from Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke campaign federal races, along with pursuing also about more than just numbers. without, as new talent - attracted by the helped make history – not only by proportional representation and IRV – is Public consciousness about the Greens party’s values, growth and potential – accelerating the growth of the Green succeeding.
    [Show full text]