DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition for Writ of Certiorari from Kansas and Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States KRIS W. KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State; MICHELE REAGAN, Arizona Secretary of State; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Mark Brnovich Kris W. Kobach Attorney General Secretary of State John R. Lopez IV Counsel of Record Solicitor General Kansas Secretary of State’s Office Paula S. Bickett 120 S.W. 10th Avenue Chief Counsel, Civil Appeals Topeka, Kansas 66612 Arizona Attorney General’s Office (785) 296-4564 1275 West Washington Street [email protected] Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-3333 Jeffrey A. Chanay Chief Deputy Attorney General Dwight Carswell Assistant Solicitor General Kansas Attorney General’s Office 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Counsel for Petitioners Topeka, KS 66612 (785) 296-2215 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The court of appeals held that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) did not abuse its discretion in denying Arizona’s and Kansas’s requests that the EAC modify the federal mail voter registration form (“Federal Form”) to include their state law requirements that registration applicants provide evidence of citizenship in the state-specific instructions that accompany the Federal Form. The questions presented are the following: 1. Whether Article I, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require the EAC to defer to the States’ determination that provision of documentary evidence of citizenship is necessary to enforce the States’ voter qualifications. 2. Whether Article I, Section 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permit a dual voter rolls system in which some voters who are qualified to vote for federal office holders are not also qualified to vote for those “in the most numerous branch of the state legislature.” ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are the State of Kansas, the State of Arizona, the Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, and the Arizona Secretary of State,1 and were the plaintiffs-appellees in the court below. Respondents, the United States Election Assistance Commission and the acting Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the United States Election Assistance Commission Alice Miller, were defendants-appellants in the court below. Respondents, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Arizona Advocacy Network; League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona; Steve Gallardo; Project Vote, Inc.; League of Women Voters of the United States; League of Women Voters of Arizona; League of Women Voters of Kansas; Valle del Sol; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; Common Cause; Chicanos por La Causa, Inc.; Debra Lopez, were defendant intervenors-appellants in the court below. 1 Michele Reagan is the current Arizona Secretary of State and is substituted for Ken Bennett, the former Arizona Secretary of State, under Supreme Court Rule 35.3. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ............ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. vi OPINIONS BELOW ......................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................ 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................... 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................. 8 1. The NVRA and the EAC ................. 8 2. Arizona’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement......................... 10 3. Kansas’s Evidence-of-Citizenship Requirement......................... 11 4. The EAC and District Court Decisions .... 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ....... 17 I. The Tenth Circuit Opinion Conflicts with ITCA Because It Gives the Federal Government, Not the States, the Authority to Enforce Voter Qualifications........................... 17 A. The Tenth Circuit Incorrectly Found that the States’ Qualification Clause Authority Does Not Trump Congress’s Elections Clause Authority............................ 19 iv B. The Tenth Circuit Opinion Conflicts with ITCA by Giving the EAC the Authority to Determine What Information Is “Necessary” for a State to Enforce Its Voter Qualifications........................ 22 II. This Case Presents an Issue of Great National Importance Because the Voter Qualifications for Congressional Elections Now Differ from the Voter Qualifications for State Legislative Elections, in Violation of Article I, Section 2............................... 31 CONCLUSION ............................ 36 APPENDIX Appendix A Opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (November 7, 2014) ...........App. 1 Appendix BMemorandum and Order in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (March 19, 2014) ............App. 32 Appendix C Memorandum of Decision from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (January 17, 2014) ...........App. 71 Appendix DOrder Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (December 29, 2014) ........App. 131 v Appendix E Relevant Statutes 52 U.S.C. § 20501 ...........App. 133 52 U.S.C. § 20504 ...........App. 134 52 U.S.C. § 20505 ...........App. 137 52 U.S.C. § 20508 ...........App. 139 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ................... 18, 19 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013) ................ passim Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Dep’t, 476 U.S. 573 (1986) ...................... 21 Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934) ...................... 35 Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525 (2000) ..................... 35 Cohens v. Virgina, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ....................... 20 Dep’t of Revenue v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U.S. 332 (1994) ...................... 25 Dunn v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Morton Cnty., 194 P.2d 924 (Kan. 1948) .................. 32 Gonzalez v. Ariz., 435 F.Supp.2d 997 (D. Ariz. 2006) ....... 10, 11 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ........................ 20 Oregon v. Mitchell, 460 U.S. 112 (1970) ...................... 19 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) ........................ 10 vii Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) .................... 35 Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) ...................... 20 U.S. v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) ................... 20, 21 U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) ...................... 20 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES U.S. Const. Article I, § 2, cl. 1............. passim U.S. Const. Article I, § 4, cl. 1............... 2, 20 U.S. Const. amend. XVII................. passim 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) ........................... 13 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) .......................... 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg to 1973gg-10 .............. 8 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 to 15545 ................... 8 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501 to 20511 .............. passim 52 U.S.C. § 20501 ........................... 8 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3) ...................... 26 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(4) ...................... 26 52 U.S.C. § 20503 .......................... 31 52 U.S.C. § 20504 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(1) ...................... 24 viii 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(2)(B)(ii) ................. 24 52 U.S.C. § 20505 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20505(a)(2) ...................... 24 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a) ........................ 10 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) ....................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b) ...................... 9, 24 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1) ............. 22, 23, 24, 29 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901 to 21145 ................... 8 52 U.S.C. § 20923 ........................... 9 52 U.S.C. § 20928 .......................... 10 52 U.S.C. § 20929 ....................... 10, 24 Ala. Code § 31-13-28........................ 34 A.R.S. § 16-166(F) ...................... passim A.R.S. § 16-121(A) .......................... 32 A.R.S. § 16-1016 ........................... 30 A.R.S. § 16-182 ............................ 30 Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-21(g)................... 14 Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-216(g)(1) ................ 34 K.S.A. § 25-2309(l) ...................... passim K.S.A. § 25-2411(d) ......................... 30 K.S.A. § 25-2416 ........................... 30 ix REGULATIONS 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(a) ......................... 9 11 C.F.R. § 9428.3(b) ........................ 25 11 C.F.R. § 9428.4(b)(1) ...................... 25 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6 ........................... 9 11 C.F.R. § 9428.6(c) ........................ 26 OTHER AUTHORITIES The Federalist No. 52 (J. Madison) ...... 28, 32, 34 The Federalist No. 59 (A. Hamilton) ........... 34 The Federalist No. 60 (A. Hamilton) ........... 19 National Mail Voter Registration Form Public Comments available at http://www.regulations. gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp =25;po=0;dct=PS;D= EAC-2013-0004) ......................... 13 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners, the State of Kansas, State of Arizona, Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, and Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, respectfully petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The order denying rehearing is not reported and reproduced in the appendix (“App.”) hereto at App. 131. The opinion of the Tenth Circuit is reported at 772 F.3d 1183 and reproduced in the appendix hereto at App. 1- 31. The opinion of the District Court for the District
Recommended publications
  • Insider's Guidetoazpolitics

    Insider's Guidetoazpolitics

    olitics e to AZ P Insider’s Guid Political lists ARIZONA NEWS SERVICE ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES • Arizona Capitol Reports FEATURING PROFILES of Arizona’s legislative & congressional districts, consultants & public policy advocates Statistical Trends The chicken Or the egg? WE’RE EXPERTS AT GETTING POLICY MAKERS TO SEE YOUR SIDE OF THE ISSUE. R&R Partners has a proven track record of using the combined power of lobbying, public relations and advertising experience to change both minds and policy. The political environment is dynamic and it takes a comprehensive approach to reach the right audience at the right time. With more than 50 years of combined experience, we’ve been helping our clients win, regardless of the political landscape. Find out what we can do for you. Call Jim Norton at 602-263-0086 or visit us at www.rrpartners.com. JIM NORTON JEFF GRAY KELSEY LUNDY STUART LUTHER 101 N. FIRST AVE., STE. 2900 Government & Deputy Director Deputy Director Government & Phoenix, AZ 85003 Public Affairs of Client Services of Client Public Affairs Director Development Associate CONTENTS Politics e to AZ ARIZONA NEWS SERVICE Insider’s Guid Political lists STAFF CONTACTS 04 ARIZONA NEWS SERVICE BEATING THE POLITICAL LEGISLATIVE Administration ODDS CONSULTANTS, DISTRICT Vice President & Publisher: ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES • Arizona Capitol Reports Ginger L. Lamb Arizonans show PUBLIC POLICY PROFILES Business Manager: FEATURING PROFILES of Arizona’s legislative & congressional districts, consultants & public policy advocates they have ‘the juice’ ADVOCATES,
  • Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County Cv 2020

    Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County Cv 2020

    Clerk of the Superior Court *** Filed *** SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2020-016840 02/25/2021 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. THOMASON N. Johnson Deputy MARICOPA COUNTY, et al. STEPHEN W TULLY v. KAREN FANN, et al. THOMAS J. BASILE JAMES E BARTON II JOHN A DORAN THOMAS PURCELL LIDDY JOSEPH EUGENE LA RUE JOSEPH J BRANCO EMILY M CRAIGER KORY A LANGHOFER JACQUELINE MENDEZ SOTO GREGREY G JERNIGAN COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC JUDGE THOMASON MINUTE ENTRY East Court Building – Courtroom 713 9:03 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 22, 2021, President Fann and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Petersen’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed February 22, 2021, and Democratic Senators’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 22, 2021 via Court Connect. All appearances are virtual and are as follows: Docket Code 901 Form V000A Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2020-016840 02/25/2021 Counsel, Stephen W. Tully, John A. Doran, Thomas P. Liddy, Joseph J. Branco, Joseph E. LaRue, and Emily Craiger are present on behalf of Plaintiffs/Defendants- in-Counterclaim Maricopa County; Clint Hickman, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; and Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, Bill Gates, and Steve Gallardo, in their official capacities as Members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who are not present. Counsel, Thomas Basile and Kory Langhofer are present on behalf of Defendants/Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaim Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, who is present, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Eddie Farnsworth, who is not present.
  • 2006 Voters Guide

    2006 Voters Guide

    Election Season 2006 The Catholic Sun ◆ Page 1 2006 Voters Guide Arizona Catholic Conference Diocese of Gallup ◆ Diocese of Phoenix ◆ Diocese of Tucson he Arizona Catholic Conference (ACC) is the public policy arm Tof the Diocese of Phoenix, the Diocese of Tucson, and the Diocese of Gallup. We have produced this 2006 ACC Voters Guide as an important educational tool to provide unbiased information on the upcoming elections. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service requirements legislative district. Each legislative district includes for churches and nonprofit organizations, this doc- one State Senator and two State Representatives. ument does not endorse candidates or indicate our To find the legislative district you live in, please visit support or opposition to the questions. The Voters www.azcatholicconference.org. Guide, however, is an excellent source of informa- While the 2006 Voters Guide will reach hundreds tion on the candidates’ positions on current issues. of thousands of people, you are encouraged to Included in this guide are races covering the U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress, Arizona Governor, reproduce this material and distribute it in your Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, churches. Please take time to review this guide and Corporation Commission, State Senate and State remember to visit www.azcatholicconference.org to House. It is important to remember that members sign up for legislative alerts and to keep up on the of the State Senate and State House are elected by latest information. This 2006 Voters Guide was produced by the Arizona Catholic Conference and The Catholic Sun, newspaper of the Diocese of Phoenix. www.azcatholicconference.org Page 2 ◆ The Catholic Sun votersguide Election Season 2006 n June, candidates running I for office were presented with a series of 12 statements and Arizona Catholic Conference 2006 Voters Guide asked to identify whether or not they Supported or Opposed them.
  • 2011 Legislative Summary

    2011 Legislative Summary

    th 50 Legislature, First Regular Session Arizona Department of Transportation Legislative Summaries 2011 Contents Members of the 50th Legislature……………………………………………….3 SORTED BY Bill Number Transportation-Related Legislative Summaries - Passed…..…………….……….7 Transportation-Related Legislation - Vetoed………………………………………. 21 *Information for Legislative Summaries was gathered from Legislation On Line Arizona (LOLA), Legislative Research Staff Bill Summaries, and bill language. **Official copies of all 2011 Chapter Laws and complete files of action for public review (for both the Regular and Special Sessions) are available on-line at www.azleg.gov - 1 - Government Relations 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Janice K. Brewer Kevin Biesty Governor Government June 7, 2011 Relations Director John S. Halikowski Director John Halikowski, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue, MD 100A Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Director Halikowski: Attached is the final summary of transportation-related legislation considered during the First Regular Session of the 50th Legislature. The First Regular Legislative Session ended on April 20, 2011 lasting 100 days. During the session, 1,496 bills, resolutions, and memorials were introduced, of which 393 were enacted and 29 were vetoed. This document and Final Summaries from previous years can be found online at http://www.azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/Government_Relations/reports.asp. Full legislative chapter text, fact sheets and other legislative information and links can be
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    (1 of 432) Case:Case 18-15845,1:19-cv-01071-LY 01/27/2020, Document ID: 11574519, 41-1 FiledDktEntry: 01/29/20 123-1, Page Page 1 1 of of 432 239 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL No. 18-15845 COMMITTEE; DSCC, AKA Democratic Senatorial Campaign D.C. No. Committee; THE ARIZONA 2:16-cv-01065- DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DLR Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona; MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Arizona Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees, THE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY; BILL GATES, Councilman; SUZANNE KLAPP, Councilwoman; DEBBIE LESKO, Sen.; TONY RIVERO, Rep., Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding (2 of 432) Case:Case 18-15845,1:19-cv-01071-LY 01/27/2020, Document ID: 11574519, 41-1 FiledDktEntry: 01/29/20 123-1, Page Page 2 2 of of 432 239 2 DNC V. HOBBS Argued and Submitted En Banc March 27, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed January 27, 2020 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, William A. Fletcher, Marsha S. Berzon*, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Mary H. Murguia, Paul J. Watford, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher; Concurrence by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain; Dissent by Judge Bybee * Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Graber. Judge Berzon has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and watched the recording of oral argument held on March 27, 2019.
  • Arizona 2018 General Election Publicity Pamphlet

    Arizona 2018 General Election Publicity Pamphlet

    ARIZONA 2018 GENERAL ELECTION PUBLICITY PAMPHLET NOVEMBER 6, 2018 NOVEMBER 6, 2018 GENERAL ELECTION TABLE OF Contents General Voting Information A Message to Voters from Secretary of State Michele Reagan .................................................................................. 4 Voter Registration Information .................................................................................................................................. 5 Online Voter Services ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Vote by Mail and In Person Early Voting ................................................................................................................... 6 Military and Overseas Voters ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Voter Accessibility ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Alternative Pamphlet Formats.................................................................................................................................... 7 Polling Place/Vote Center Information ...................................................................................................................... 8 ID at the Polls – Bring It! ........................................................................................................................................
  • Citizens Clean Elections Commission 2004 Statewide and Legislative Candidate Statements

    Citizens Clean Elections Commission 2004 Statewide and Legislative Candidate Statements

    Citizens Clean Elections Commission 2004 Statewide and Legislative Candidate Statements Primary Election “Take Pride In Arizona... And Vote!” Citizens Clean Elections Commission Voter Education Guide Paid for by the Citizens Elections Fund Table of Contents Letter from the Chair of the Commission 2 Election & Voting Information 3 Early Voting 3 Notices 3 Alternate Formats 3 Cover Design 3 Toll Free Sun Sounds Number 4 Kids Voting Arizona 5 Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act 6 The Citizens Clean Elections Commission 6 Citizens Clean Elections Commissioners 7 Citizens Clean Elections Commission Staff 7 Citizens Clean Elections Fund 8 Tax Credits 8 Candidate Debates 8 Description of Offices 9 Corporation Commission 9 Legislature 9 What Is My Legislative District? 9 Key to Using the Candidate Statements Pamphlet 10 Candidate Statements 10 Candidate Statement Pamphlet Primary Election Letter from the Chair of the Commission Dear Arizona Voters: The year 2004 is a major election year in Arizona. By voting in the Primary and General Elections this fall, you will be electing candidates for 4 statewide offices as Corporation Commissioners and 90 legislative seats. For the 90 legislative offices, you will be electing 30 Senators and 60 Representatives. This Candidate Statement 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 new 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.
  • Request for Evidence

    Request for Evidence

    KORY LANGHOFER Managing Attorney November 11, 2019 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors c/o Allister Adele, Maricopa County Attorney 301 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 [email protected] Re: Suspension of Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen – Request for Documents and Testimony Ms. Adel: We write by way of follow-up to our letter of November 7, 2019 in which we requested on behalf of Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen the evidentiary hearing afforded by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-664(C) in connection with the Board of Supervisors’ putative suspension of Mr. Petersen from his constitutionally elected office. As you know, Section 11-664(C) entitles Mr. Petersen to present evidence and witnesses on his behalf. The effective vindication of this right, however, must necessarily entail means to compel the disclosure of documents and the production of witnesses, particularly when such sources of evidence are under the control of the Board and/or the County Attorney’s Office. To this end, we have set forth below documents and witnesses that must be made available to Mr. Petersen pursuant to the following provisions: 1. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-664(C), which guarantees Mr. Petersen’s right to present evidence in his defense at the upcoming hearing; 2. the Arizona Public Records Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121, et seq., which guarantees the public’s right to review records concerning the (mis)conduct of public officers; and 3. Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 which, as discussed below, entitles Mr. Petersen to access the records of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
  • Full Page Photo

    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.
  • FY 2016 Citizen Budget Brief

    FY 2016 Citizen Budget Brief

    -Budget Brief - CITIZENS’ BUDGET BRIEF 2016 INTRODUCTION Welcome! Welcome to the third annual Citizens’ Budget Brief! This document is one of the ways to continue the conversation on the Maricopa County budget and how to best spend our tax dollars in fiscal year (FY) 2016. The word “OUR” indicates the collective responsibility and opportunity we all have in improving our community, Maricopa County. We believe that increased transparency fosters informed and engaged citizens. This budget brief provides an overview of the organization of the County, the budget process and the revenues and expenditures for FY 2016. Thank you for engaging in this partnership of shared governance! 2016 Budget For the FY 2016 Budget, Chairman Chucri and his fellow supervisors placed an emphasis on addressing public safety concerns and focusing on mandated services, while maximizing operational efficiency and allocating resources to continue to deliver “Best in Class” service. FY 2016 Budget Annual Budget Process The annual budget provides a roadmap for how the County will address policy, financial and operational decisions in delivering services to citizens. The budget serves as an internal and external communications device outlining organizational priorities and the resources allocated to deliver County services. Page|2 CITIZENS’ BUDGET BRIEF 2016 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Board of Supervisors Maricopa County is a subdivision of the Arizona State government. The Board of Supervisors is the governing body for the County. Each member represents one of the five districts, which are divided geographically and by population to include a mix of urban and rural constituencies. Supervisors are elected to four- year terms and are not term-limited.
  • 2018 Senate Congressional Primary Election Candidates

    2018 Senate Congressional Primary Election Candidates

    2018 Senate Congressional Primary Election Candidates Demographics District Office Candidates1 Party (County) Deedra Aboud DEM Kyrsten Sinema* DEM Angela Green# GRN Adam Kokesh# LBT N/A Statewide Senate Joe Arpaio REP Nicholas Glenn# REP William Gonzales# REP Martha McSally* REP Kelli Ward REP Tom O'Halleran* DEM Coconino, Navajo, Apache, Zhani Doko# LBT Graham, Greenlee, Pinal, District 1 U.S. House Wendy Rogers REP Pima, Yavapai, Gila, Maricopa, Mohave Tiffany Shedd REP Steve Smith REP Matt Heinz DEM Billy Kovacs DEM Ann Kirkpatrick^ DEM Maria Matiella DEM Barbara Sherry DEM District 2 Cochise, Pima U.S. House Yahya Yuksel DEM Bruce Wheeler DEM Lea Marquez Peterson REP Brandon Martin REP Daniel Romero Morales REP Casey Welch REP Raul Grijalva* DEM Joshua Garcia# DEM Santa Cruz, Pima, Maricopa, District 3 U.S. House Sergio Arellano REP Yuma, Pinal Nicolas Peirson REP Edna San Miguel REP David Brill DEM Delina Disanto DEM La Paz, Mohave, Yavapai, District 4 U.S. House # DEM Pinal, Yuma, Maricopa, Gila Ana Maria Perez Haryaksha Gregor Knauer GRN Paul Gosar* REP 1 AZ Secretary of State: 2018 Primary Election: https://apps.arizona.vote/electioninfo/elections/2018-primary- election/federal/1347/3/0, * Current Member ^Former Member #Write In 1 2018 Senate Congressional Primary Election Candidates Demographics District Office Candidates1 Party (County) Joan Greene DEM District 5 Maricopa U.S. House Jose Torres DEM Andy Biggs* REP Anita Malik DEM Garrick McFadden DEM District 6 Maricopa U.S. House Heather Ross DEM David Schweikert* REP Ruben Gallego* DEM District 7 Maricopa U.S. House Catherine Miranda DEM Gary Swing# GRN Hiral Tipirneni DEM District 8 Maricopa U.S.
  • Is the GOP's Tea Party Over?

    Is the GOP's Tea Party Over?

    Is the GOP’s Tea 10 Party Over? By Alan Greenblatt distribute ver three terms in the Arizona Legislature, J. D. Mesnard has seen lots ofor controversial legislation pass into law with scarcely any notice. He has also watched as bills that Oappeared mild or harmless have blown up, bringing the state embar- rassing media attention. It’s the latter scenario that Mesnard is seeking to avoid in his new role as speaker of the House. Arizona has repeatedly drawn negative press during debates over matters such as illegal immi- grationpost, and gay rights. Like other Arizona Republicans, Mesnard believes the national media routinely distort the intent and practical effects of social conservative bills. Nevertheless, he recognizes that having bills portrayed as harsh or intolerant has done no favors for the state. At the moment, he believes, social conflict is too hot to handle. “There has been a conscious effort to keep us out of these divisive, controversial issues,” Mesnard says. “We want to have tax copy,cuts and deregulation and make that the narrative about Arizona.” To put it simply, one very red state is cutting back on the red meat. In Arizona, as in other Republican-dominated states, there have been prolonged battles in recent years that pitted establishment-ori- ented Republicans—those aligned with the chamber of commerce not and large corporations—against GOP legislators backed by the Tea Party and championing hard-line social issues. In Arizona, that bat- tle is over for now. The establishment has won. “The legislature has been more careful about the bills being introduced,” says Glenn Do Hamer, president of the state Chamber of Commerce.