ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 514 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 (602) 258-8850 Daniel J. Adelman (01 1368) Danny@aclpi.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cl IRES Adah.? IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA LOUIS HOFFMAN, a quali?ed elector; Case Noand AMY CHAN, a quali?ed elector, Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT OR vs. DECLARATORY AND PRELIMINARY MICHELE REAGAN, in her of?cial INJUNCTION capacity as Arizona Secretary of State; STATE OF ARIZONA, Expedited Challenge Pursuant to A.R.S. Defendants. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action seeks a Declaratory Judgment that House Concurrent Resolution 2007, enacted by the Fifty~third Legislature, Second Regular Session 2018 2007?) is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject provisions of the Arizona Constitution Article 4, pt. 2 13. 2. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing HCR 2007 on the ballot. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Louis Hoffman is a resident of Mar-icopa County, Arizona, and is a quali?ed Arizona elector. He was the principal drafter of the Clean Elections Act, served for six years as a Commissioner of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (?Clean Elections Commission? or ?the Commission?), and was a Chair of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Mr. Hoffman is the current Chairman of the Board of Arizonans for Clean Elections. Mr. Hoffman is a registered Democrat. 4. Plaintiff Amy Chan is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, and is a qualified Arizona elector. Ms. Chan is a current Commissioner of the Clean Elections Commission but brings this case solely in her individual capacity. She is a former State Elections Director for the State of Arizona. The Secretary of State serves as the chief election of?cer in the state of Arizona, which includes oversight of campaign ?nance for statewide and legislative candidates, verifying initiatives and referenda for the ballot, and ceitifying the official results of each election. The Elections Director is the Secretary of State?s chief deputy in those areas. Ms. Chan is a registered Republican. 5. Defendant Michele Reagan is the current Secretary of State and is named in this action in her official capacity. 6. Defendant State of Arizona is a body politic. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This action arises under state law and the Arizona Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 12?123, and 12?1831. 8. Venue is proper in Maricopa County pursuant to A.R.S. 12?401 and STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is a non?partisan commission created by voters that educates voters, provides campaign funding, and enforces campaign ?nance rules and laws. The Commission was founded after the 1998 election when voters passed the Citizens Clean Citizens Election Act (A.R.S. Title 16, Chapter 6, Article 2) (?Clean Elections Act?) to root out corruption and promote con?dence in our political process. 10. An essential aspect of the Clean Elections Commission is its independence. The Commission is non?partisan and is not subject to the control of any partisan group or elected of?cial. The Clean Elections Act vested rule- making authority with the Commission and explicitly exempted its rule?making authority from the Governor?s Regulatory Review Council The Supreme Court of Arizona has recognized the independence of the Commission. See etgu' Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers, 196 Ariz. 516, P.3d 706 (2000) (The members of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission ?are not subject to gubernatorial supervision or control. They are not part of the executive team. They are not subordinates of the Governor or any other official who may have 4 I) appointed them. Indeed the statute requires that they act quite independently of elected of?cials. . . . 11. The citizens who drafted the Clean Elections Act intended the Commission to be independent of GRRC in part because the Commission would be regulating politicians, including the governor, and its drafters knew that it must retain independent rule-making authority if it was to remain independent and nonpartisan. members are political appointees of the governor with input from other politicians. It would severely undermine the Commission?s independence to subject its rule?making to GRRC. 12. On January 18, 2018, HCR 2007, a bill titled CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ENACTING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF A MEASURE RELATING TO THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS was first read in the Arizona State House of Representatives. As amended, HCR 2007 was passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate on February 21, 2018. HCR 2007 was ?rst read by the Senate on February 26, 2018, and passed by the Senate, as amended, on May 3, 2018, by a vote of 17 to 12. HCR 2007 was passed by the House and transmitted to the Secretary of State on May 4, 2018. 13. HCR 2007 combines two unrelated subjects, in Violation of the single-subject provision of the Arizona Constitution. The title mentions neither subject. First, HCR 2007 amends A.R.S. 16-948 by prohibiting certain payments from a participating candidate?s campaign account. Speci?cally, it 4 prohibits making direct or indirect contributions to a political party or to a private organization that is exempt under Section 50 of the Internal Revenue Code and that is eligible to engage in. activities to in?uence the outcome of a candidate election. 14. Second, HCR 2007 amends A.R.S. l6-956(C) to delete the Commission?s exemption from Title 41, chapter 6, article 3, thus subjecting Commission rules to GRRC oversight. HCR 2007 thus fundamentally changes the powers of the Commission by subordinating the independent and non?partisan Commission?s rules to the Governor-appointed, partisan GRRC review. 15. Plaintiffs were harmed when HCR 2007 combined the prohibition of certain types of contributions with wholly unrelated provisions subjecting the rule? making authority of the Commission to the partisan, politically appointed Governor?s Regulatory Review Council, in violation of the Arizona Constitution?s Single Subject Rule. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT l6. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations in this Veri?ed Complaint. 17. Article 4, pt. 2 ?l3 of the Arizona Constitution provides that: Every Act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title. 18. The purpose of this provision is to prevent surprise and surreptitious legislation by logrolling unrelated legislative goals in order to attract a majority. 19. Because HCR 2007 combines two unrelated subjects that were logrolled together, it embraces more than one subject, violates Article 4, pt. 2 ?13' of the Arizona Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional. 20. Additionally, the Title of the Concurrent Resolution states only that it is a ?measure relating to the Citizens Clean Elections Act? and provides no notice of the very different subjects contained in the bill. Thus, for this reason too, HCR 2007 violates Article 4, part 2, 13 of the Arizona Constitution. 21. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys? fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: a. Declare that HCR 2007 violates Article 4; pt. 2 ?13 of the Arizona Constitution; b. Grant further relief as the Court deems appropriate; 0. Grant Plaintiffs their attorneys? fees. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 22. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations in this Veri?ed Complaint. 23. Pursuant to A.R.S. 19?161, and for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs bring this timely challenge to the legal sufficiency of HCR 2007. 24. Because HCR 2007 is unconstitutional for the reasons set forth above, the Secretary of State should be enjoined from ceitifying and printing it on the of?cial ballot for the general election. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: a. C. Enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying HCR. 2007, and from placing HCR 2007 on the ballot for the general election; Grant further relief as the Court deems appropriate; Grant Plaintiffs their attomeys? fees. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of May, 2018. THE PUBLIC INTERE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW TN Biz/7?3) a %(de 514 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Danny@aclpi.org Attorneysfor Plainti?fs an VERIFICATION I, Louis Hoffman, state and sweat under penalty of perjury and as permitted by Rule 80(i), Ariz. R. Civ. as follows: I I am a plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Veri?ed Complaint, and, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the statements made in the Veri?ed Complaint are true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of May, 2018. Louis Hoffman It. (2 DC: . i R222: 80222., Ariz. R. (7.722.1an 2222202222: 1 am a 1.2222522222212122233 action. 1' have. 2'aad the: 11:2regoing; Veri?ed Complaint. and, to the heal of'nw knowledge. inihnmtion, and belief; the statements made. in the \2?ci?i??d Complaint are. Ink". and curred. I declare under penalty thai the ?'lwz'cgning is true. and correct. this {if Mayi1": 34! 143-. .- . - - 2 222-24 2. i, Chan, sinus and swear un?cr pma?iy and as pcnniucd by