DOCSLIB.ORG

AFEC and APIA Motion to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AFEC and APIA Motion to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs 1 Timothy A. La Sota, SBN 020539 TIMOTHY A. LA SOTA, PLC 2 2198 East Camelback Road, Suite 305 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 515-2649 4 Email: [email protected] 5 Attorney for Amici Curiae Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Arizona Public 6 Integrity Alliance 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA 8 MARICOPA COUNTY 9 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., a federal No. CV2020-014248 political committee; Republican National 10 ARIZONA FREE Committee, a federal political party committee; and ENTERPRISE CLUB 11 the Arizona Republican Party, a political party AND ARIZONA PUBLIC committee, INTEGRITY 12 ALLIANCE’S AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN 13 Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS 14 v. (assigned to the Honorable 15 Daniel Kiley) Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as the 16 Secretary of State of Arizona; Adrian Fontes, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; 17 and Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, Bill Gates, Clint 18 Hickman, and Steve Gallardo, in their respective official capacities as members of the Maricopa 19 County Board of Supervisors, 20 Defendants. 21 Amici Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Arizona Public Integrity Alliance submit 22 this brief in support of Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus relief. 23 The Amici state their interest in this matter, as well as why they believe their input is 24 useful to this Court, in their Motion to File the Amici Curiae brief. 25 26 27 28 1 1 ARGUMENT 2 I. The Court Should Reject the Secretary’s Attempt to Avoid the Procedures 3 Outlined in the Elections Procedures Manual for Adjudicating Overvotes. 4 A. The elections procedures stated in the Elections Procedures Manual are law in Arizona. 5 The Arizona legislature has delegated to the Secretary the authority to “prescribe 6 rules to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, 7 uniformity and efficiency on the procedures for . voting.” A.R.S. § 16-452(A). This is 8 done in consultation with each county board of supervisors or other county elections 9 10 official. Id. 11 The Secretary’s prescribed rules are compiled “in an official instructions and 12 procedures manual.” § 16-452(B). The procedures manual, i.e., the 2019 Elections 13 Procedures Manual, must be issued no “later than December 31 of each odd-numbered 14 year immediately preceding the general election” and must be approved by the governor 15 and the attorney general before it is issued. Id. Significantly, the Elections Procedures 16 Manual (“EPM”) “has the force of law” and “any violation of an EPM rule is punishable 17 as a class two misdemeanor.” Arizona Pub. Integrity All. v. Fontes, No. CV-20-0253- 18 AP/EL, 2020 WL 6495694, at *3 (Ariz. Nov. 5, 2020) (citing A.R.S. § 16-452(C)). 19 While the Secretary may view the procedures in the EPM as an obstacle to 20 convenience, the procedures are not merely advisory. They are the law. The Secretary 21 should be just as motivated as Plaintiffs to ensure the rules prescribed by her are enforced 22 as written. 23 24 B. The EPM unequivocally requires overvoted Election Day ballots be duplicated, and if voter intent can be determined, counted. 25 There can be no question the EPM requires that all ballots read by the tabulation 26 machine as an overvote (or blank or invalid) be adjudicated, and, so long as voter intent 27 28 2 1 can be determined—either by the unanimous agreement of the Ballot Duplication Board 2 or the Snag Board—duplicated and counted. To wit, the EPM expressly provides: 3 * “Over-voted ballots shall be sent to the Ballot Duplication Board (and 4 the Snag Board or officer in charge of elections for adjudication if needed), even if the voter correctly filled in the arrow or oval for other races on the 5 ballot. If voter intent can be determined, the ballot shall be duplicated and 6 counted.” EPM at 201–02 (emphasis added). 7 * “If a voter has consistently marked their ballot by circling the name of the candidates, or circling yes or no for issues, or placing an x, check mark, 8 punched hole, or other similar mark next to the voter’s choices, the 9 tabulation machine will read the ballot as blank or invalid. These blank ballots shall be sent to the Ballot Duplication Board.” EPM at 202 10 (emphasis added). 11 Importantly, the EPM does not recognize any circumstance in which its mandate 12 that overvoted or otherwise unreadable ballots cast be duplicated may be set aside. Nor 13 could it: A.R.S. § 16-621(A) requires that “[i]f any ballot . is damaged or defective so 14 that it cannot properly be counted by the automatic tabulating equipment, a true duplicate 15 copy shall be made of the damaged or defective ballot in the presence of witnesses and 16 substituted for the damaged or defective ballot.” (Emphasis added.) Any ballot means any 17 ballot, which means every ballot that is not readable by a tabulation machine must be 18 duplicated, and if voter intent can be determined, counted in every race. 19 20 C. The Secretary does not engage with the EPM’s requirements and 21 incorrectly argues there is no remedy for a violation of Arizona 22 election law. Of the parties in this litigation, the Secretary should be the primary voice 23 24 advocating for a complete and proper application of the procedures in the EPM. 25 However, the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss utterly ignores the EPM. Indeed, the 26 Secretary’s Motion does not so much as mention the EPM. Instead, the Secretary argues 27 that either Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was filed too late or that there is no redress available for a 28 violation of Arizona’s substantive election law short of a post-canvass election contest 3 1 and makes sweeping attacks on the motives of Plaintiffs.1 (See Sec’y’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2 8–11.) 3 But this simply isn’t true: just over four years ago, a division of this Court held 4 that where evidence adduced at a preliminary injunction hearing showed that poll 5 workers had routinely failed to inform voters who voted in the wrong precinct that their 6 provision ballot would not be counted that voters who cast such wrong-precinct 7 provisional ballots were entitled to have their votes counted before the canvass. Jones v. 8 Reagan, No. CV 2016-014708 (Ariz. Superior Ct., Maricopa Cnty., Sept. 9, 2016). A 9 copy of the court’s order in Jones is attached as Exhibit 1 to this brief. And the court 10 found there was redress available pre-canvass: the court entered an injunction requiring 11 12 the counting of certain wrong-precinct ballots and forbidding the Maricopa County Board 13 of Supervisors from canvassing the results or delivering those results to the Arizona 14 Secretary of State until these provisional ballots were counted. Id. 15 Whether the Court determines that a remedy similar to the remedy in Jones is 16 appropriate here, it is beyond question that such a remedy has been afforded to litigants 17 seeking to vindicate the statutory and constitutional requirements governing elections in 18 19 Arizona. The Secretary’s argument to the contrary ignores her own EPM and the recent 20 practice in this court. 21 22 23 24 1 Indeed, the Secretary appears to have prejudged Plaintiffs’ complaints through a 25 robust public relations campaign to assuage any and all objections. See, e.g., Mark 26 Phillips, Arizona Secretary of State: We Won’t Need to Recount Presidential Results, ABC15.com (Last Updated, Nov. 6, 2020, 8:21 P.M.), https://bit.ly/38y9tcM; Maritza 27 Dominguez, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs Responds to Claims of Voter Interference on Gaggle Podcast, AZCentral.com (Nov. 11, 2020, 6:00 A.M.), 28 https://bit.ly/32RY7Nl. 4 II. The Court Should Reject the Secretary’s Weaponization of A.R.S. § 12- 1 349(A) to Chill Meritorious Claims Raising Irregularities in the 2020 2 Election. 3 The Secretary concludes her motion to dismiss by requesting sanctions against 4 Plaintiffs—to include attorneys’ fees and costs—because she claims they lack 5 “substantial justification” to ask this Court to enforce the EPM as written. (See Sec’y’s 6 Mot. to Dismiss at 12–13.) While the Secretary acknowledges the green-button issue may 7 have indeed resulted in overvotes (see id. at 13 (noting “180 total ‘overvotes’ cast in the 8 presidential race on Election Day in Maricopa County” and a number of overvotes “in 9 every other partisan candidate race on Election Day”); see also Pls.’ Pre-Hr’g Mem. at 3 10 (stating Maricopa County represented “electronic tabulators registered a total of 11,676 11 putative ‘overvotes’ in Election Day ballots, approximately 950 of which affect partisan 12 candidate races”)), the Secretary nonetheless threatens Plaintiffs with sanctions for 13 raising disenfranchisement concerns, which easily could be remedied by application of 14 15 the procedures the Secretary herself prescribes in the EPM. 16 This court should not permit the State of Arizona’s top elections official’s use of 17 A.R.S. § 12-349(A) and other litigation tactics to attempt to chill legitimate complaints 18 about irregularities in an election. Suing the government is already a daunting task for 19 most civil claimants. Ask any civil-rights plaintiff whether the playing field is equal. The 20 government has the benefit of financial resources, subject-matter expertise, and a general 21 presumption of credibility and correctness. But this is not enough for the Secretary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulating Our Mischievous Factions: Presidential Nominations and the Law Andrew Pierce Goldstein & Phillips
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 78 | Issue 2 Article 4 1989 Regulating Our Mischievous Factions: Presidential Nominations and the Law Andrew Pierce Goldstein & Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Election Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Pierce, Andrew (1989) "Regulating Our Mischievous Factions: Presidential Nominations and the Law," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 78 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol78/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Regulating Our Mischievous Factions: Presidential Nominations and the Law By ANDREW PIERCE* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 312 I. BRIEF HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS ....... 314 II. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES INVOLVED IN CHALLENGES TO PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PROCEDURES .................................................... 316 A. Substantive Grounds for Challenging Party A ctions .................................................... 316 1. Constitutional Challenges ...................... 316 2. Statutory Challenges ............................. 318 3. Party Rules ......................................... 319 B. Procedural Issues ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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,
    [Show full text]
  • Party and Non-Party Political Committees Vol. II State and Local Party Detailed Tables
    FEC REPORTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 1989 - 1990 FINAL REPORT .. PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COKMITTEES VOL.II STATE AND LOCAL PARTY DETAILED TABLES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 OCTOBER 1991 I I I I I I I I FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Commissioners John w. McGarry, Chairman Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman Lee Ann Elliott, Thomas J. Josefiak Danny L. McDonald Scott E. Thomas Donnald K. Anderson, Ex Officio Clerk of the u.s. House of Representatives Walter J. Stewart Secretary of the Senate John C. Surina, Staff Director Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel Comments and inquiries about format should be addressed to the Reports Coordinator, Data System Development Division, who coordinated the production of this REPORT. Copies of 1989-1990 FINAL REPORT, PARTY AND NON-PARTY POLITICAL COMMITTEES, may be obtained b writing to the Public Records Office, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463. Prices are: VOL. I - $10.00, VOL. II - $10.00, VOL. III - $10.00, VOL IV - $10.00. Checks should be made payable to the Federal Election Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DESCRIPTION OF REPORT iv II. SUMMARY OF TABLES vi III. EXPLANATION OF COLUMNS viii IV. TABLES: SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY AND ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES, DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES A. SELECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY OF DEMOCRATIC STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND THEIR ASSISTANCE TO CANDIDATES BY OFFICE AND PARTY Alabama 1 Missouri 37 Colorado 7 New York 43 Idaho 13 Ohio 49 Kansas 19
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL., Petitioners, V
    Nos. 19-1257 & 19-1258 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARK BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents. ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF FOR PRIVATE PETITIONERS BRETT W. JOHNSON MICHAEL A. CARVIN COLIN P. AHLER Counsel of Record TRACY A. OLSON YAAKOV M. ROTH SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. ANTHONY J. DICK 400 E. Van Buren St. E. STEWART CROSLAND Suite 1900 STEPHEN J. KENNY Phoenix, AZ 85004 STEPHEN J. PETRANY JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 879-3939 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that “result[] in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Such a discriminatory “result” occurs if an election is not “equally open to participation” by racial minorities, giving them “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Id. § 10301(b). Arizona gives all citizens an equal opportunity to vote in person or by mail, and authorizes ballots to be turned in by a family member, household member, or caregiver. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona violated § 2 by (1) requiring in-person voters to cast ballots in their assigned precincts; and (2) prohibiting “ballot-harvesting,” i.e., third-party collection and return of ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014-I-04] Contact: Earl De Berge Research Director [email protected] Jim Haynes President/CEO [email protected]
    behavior research center’s Rocky Mountain Poll NEWS RELEASE [RMP 2014-I-04] Contact: Earl de Berge Research Director [email protected] Jim Haynes President/CEO [email protected] JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS SENATOR McCAIN STILL IN A SLUMP SENATOR FLAKE RATINGS IMPROVE Phoenix, Arizona, February13, 2014 Should U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) decide to run for re-election in 2016, he may face a tough struggle to convince voters to stay the course with him. Voter attitudes toward his performance in Washington remain sharply divided with 37 percent applauding his efforts but 33 percent giving him a thumbs down. What is more, the proportion rating his performance as “poor” rose to 33 percent in January from 26 percent this past summer. Another 23 percent classify his job performance as only “fair” which overall means that the combined percent who rate his performance as “fair” or “poor” stands at 56 percent. Perhaps more ominous to his chances for being re-nominated by his party for a sixth term, is the finding that the proportion of registered Republicans who rate his performance as “poor” rose to 38 percent in January from only 27 percent last summer. Simultaneously, the proportion of Republicans who gave him favorable job ratings fell to 34 percent from 38 percent last summer. Evidence that Senator McCain continues to cause some Republicans to scratch their heads was also seen recently when he was censored by the Arizona Republican Party for being “too associated with liberal Democrats.” The Senator responded to the censorship saying that he had a strong conservative voting record and that being censored by the party may only embolden him to seek a sixth term in 2016 when he turns 80.
    [Show full text]
  • BRNOVICH V. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1257. Argued March 2, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election- day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in per- son on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Digital Political Advertising Network
    PLATFORMS AND OUTSIDERS IN PARTY NETWORKS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE DIGITAL POLITICAL ADVERTISING NETWORK Bridget Barrett A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Chapel Hill 2020 Approved by: Daniel Kreiss Adam Saffer Adam Sheingate © 2020 Bridget Barrett ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Bridget Barrett: Platforms and Outsiders in Party Networks: The Evolution of the Digital Political Advertising Network (Under the direction of Daniel Kreiss) Scholars seldom examine the companies that campaigns hire to run digital advertising. This thesis presents the first network analysis of relationships between federal political committees (n = 2,077) and the companies they hired for electoral digital political advertising services (n = 1,034) across 13 years (2003–2016) and three election cycles (2008, 2012, and 2016). The network expanded from 333 nodes in 2008 to 2,202 nodes in 2016. In 2012 and 2016, Facebook and Google had the highest normalized betweenness centrality (.34 and .27 in 2012 and .55 and .24 in 2016 respectively). Given their positions in the network, Facebook and Google should be considered consequential members of party networks. Of advertising agencies hired in the 2016 electoral cycle, 23% had no declared political specialization and were hired disproportionately by non-incumbents. The thesis argues their motivations may not be as well-aligned with party goals as those of established political professionals. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................... V POLITICAL CONSULTING AND PARTY NETWORKS ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AZ GOP Precinct Committee Handbook
    Chairman’s Letter 2013 PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN Welcome to the 2013 AZGOP Precinct Committeeman Victory Handbook. VICTORY HANDBOOK As a fellow Republican Precinct Committeeman and a longtime conservative activist, I am excited to join with you in achieving our goal of Republican victories in Arizona in 2014. As a Precinct Committeeman, you are a neighborhood leader. This handbook will help provide you with the information you need when you are canvassing your neighborhood, registering new voters, talking to people about our Republican Party platform, and helping our candidates reach out to meet voters in your area. More resources are available by attending your legislative district or county party meetings, and I encourage you to visit our website at www.azgop.org to subscribe to our frequent news updates. The upcoming 2013 municipal elections and the 2014 election will be unlike any other: we have new leadership, we have new technology, and we have a great plan. We are not only harnessing our traditional grassroots efforts but we are now using the latest tools and technology in our efforts to grow our party and engage the electorate in support of our platform and our candidates. As you well know, our future is at stake. Our work through the Republican Party is one of the most visible and important ways to ensure our liberties are preserved and that our future will be one of opportunity and prosperity. This is our common goal. Not only must we aggressively defend the leadership positions currently held by Re- publicans at the state level, we have a chance to win elections in three of the most competitive congressional races in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • 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! ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notary Public Hobbs Nm
    Notary Public Hobbs Nm Sovereign Reece snow-blind no epacris shrine ungently after Morse veneers leftwardly, quite apheliotropic. Lemar remains notal: she alphabetized her Comtism raffle too prudishly? Eli often disbands irefully when slummy Ernst restructured collaterally and resonated her jewelers. View all Hobbs NM Notary Public Services and hike your notarizing needs done Search volume find a notary by finding all locations contact information notary. The New Mexico Department american Health operates several administrative offices around the state will oversee regional and statewide office operations. Go to anyone, governor doug ducey today and closing agents, click on hold that creates and more information gathered from cookies. All legal advice of important golf courses, nm notary public defender attorneys work. Frank has acquired the CEP Certification and designation. We recommend giving them as this when you can use my name of new mexico? Get access to support, networking, and discounts as an NNA member. Are you sparkle to get started? Plaintiff injured his right shoulder. How do so may be a notarization. Public meeting room with state issued photo id code link in counties where an nm notary public hobbs, ascend staffing or send. Please enter a justification for hobbs, nm notary public hobbs, nm notary hobbs we sell notary to anyone, as a nationally as it does a moments notice. Mobile License Application City of Hobbs. It system your responsibility to relieve with the Registration Office or schedule changes. One finishing position. Please enter additional details. The statute merely renders settlements and contracts of retainer voidable if done within the proscribed period.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY 3601 North 24M STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 (602) 967-7770 • Fta (602) 224-0932 • 1-8004444065 WWWAZGOPORG
    ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY 3601 North 24m STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 (602) 967-7770 • Fta (602) 224-0932 • 1-8004444065 WWWAZGOPORG O -n -ni '••r •i October 10,2006 5 £ Office of General Comuel __ r-V- Fodcnl Elect OTCommiwon 999 ESn^NW, Washington, DC 20463 ui To Whom It May Concern I wnte to you today in my capacity as dniimm of the Arizona Republican Party in reference to2USC 437g(aXl)regazdmgDemocnt Candidate for Ccmgrest Ellen Simon It is my belief that Mi Simon is in violation of several laws and regulations pertaining to campaign finance Most troubling is the apparent attempt by Ms Simon to deceive voters about me troe nature of her cciitnbitnons to her own campaign On Ma Simon's July 14 filing she stated mat die was using "personal funds" m the amount of $275,000 as a contnbubon to her campaign But men on August 11 amendment, she changed me contnbution from a personal contnbution to a personal loan Honvever,classifymgthecontnbutionasa personal loan was a misrepresentation of the facts The coiitnbution funds were from a lenduiguisttimofi and collaterahzed by persorial assets On September 1, Ms Sunon finally disclosed me terms of the loan from Wells Fargo Bank This makes it clear mat Ms Simon intentionally filed a false report to the FEC on July 14 Any reasonable person recognizes that writing a check fixmi one's personal bank account u a personal contribution, while allying for arid trien receiving a loan rrom a bank is quite different Yet Ms Smum filed a cornpletely false report with the FEC on July 14, a clear violation of
    [Show full text]