SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY Judith K. Lohr, No. CV2020-004868 Petitioner vs. ORDER TO APPEAR FOR TRIAL Shawnna Bolick et al., Respondents An election challenge has been ?led in this matter. Arizona law requires that the matter be heard on an accelerated basis. By statute, there is a strict deadline for completing the trial. IT IS ORDERED that all parties named in this action appear for trial before the following judge at the date, time and location indicated below: Judge: Scott McCov Courtroom: East Court Building, Courtroom 612 Date: April 29, 2020 Time: 2:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties named in this action must appear at a telephonic pre-trial hearing before the assigned judge, to be held on April 28, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. To appear at the telephonic hearing, you must call 602?506-9695 (or toll free to 1-855-506-9695) at the date and time set for the telephonic hearing. You will then be prompted to enter the participant collaboration code of 372510. Dated this 20th day of April, 2020. 74/5; Daniel J. Kiley 1 Judge of the Superior Court James E. Barton II (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road ns?uw CLERK Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588?6120 James @TheTorresF irrn. com Jacqueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plainti?? ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2020e004868 JUDITH K. LOHR, a quali?ed elector, Case No.2 2 Plaintiff) VERIFIED COMPLAINT V. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20?, KATIE HOBBS, in her of?cial capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF CLINT HICKMAN, Maricopa County Supervisor; JACK SELLERS, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE CHUCRI, Maricopa County Supervisor; BILL GATES, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE GALLARDO, Maricopa County Supervisor. Defendants. Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-351, Plaintiff Judith K. Lohr ?les this action challenging the nomination petitions and the nomination paper ?eld with the Arizona Secretary of APR 2 8 20le (Election Case/Candidate Challenge per A.R.S. 16?351) CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR Gill] MERINO RT State by Shawnna Bolick for the Republican Party?s nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. Plaintiff alleges: Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. Plaintiff is a quali?ed elector and registered voter, residing in Maricopa County, Arizona and Legislative District 20. 2. Defendant Shawnna Bolick seeks the Republican Party?s nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. 3. Defendant Katie Hobbs is the Secretary of State, and is named as a defendant in this action in her of?cial capacity pursuant to A.R.S. 4. Defendant Adrian Fontes is the Maricopa County Recorder, and is named as a defendant in this action in his of?cial capacity pursuant to A.R.S. 5. Defendant Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is named as a defendant in this action pursuant to A.R.S. because it is responsible for preparing ballots that would contain the challenged candidate?s name. 6. The Maricopa County Supervisors are Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, Bill Gates, and Steve Gallardo, all of Whom are named as defendants in this action in their of?cial capacities pursuant to A.R.S. The parties identi?ed in Paragraphs 4-6 are collectively referred to herein as the ?County Defendants.? 7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 16?35 1. 8. Venue is proper in this Court. General Allegations Ms. Bolick desires to become a candidate, and have her name printed on the official ballot representing the Republican Party as a candidate, for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20, in the primary election that will be held on August 4, 2020. 10. Ms. Bolick filed nominating petitions purporting to contain 895 signatures for the Republican Party?s nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. ll. Pursuant to A.R.S. the minimum number of valid signatures required for nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20 is 455. 12. 1f440 or more of the signatures submitted by Ms. Bolick are invalid, she is not properly nominated and may not appear on the ballot as a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. 13. In fact, all of Ms. Bolick?s signatures are invalid because she submitted a false nomination paper and declaration, as Well as a false Circulator Verification and, thereafter, is not eligible to be a Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20, in the primary to be held on August 4, 2020. 14. Arizona law requires that ?[a]ny person desiring to become a candidate at a primary election for a political party and to have the person?s name printed on the of?cial ballot shall be a quali?ed elector of such party and . . . shall Sign and cause to be filed a nomination paper giving the person?s actual residence address or description of place of residence and post of?ce address . A.R.S. l6?311(A) (emphasis added). 15. Further, A.R.S. 1681MB) requires that a person desiring to become a candidate must submit a declaration with the nomination paper. 16. A.R.S. l6?321(D) requires that circulator shall ?verify that each of the names on the petition? meet certain requirements and that circulators who are not residents of the state ?register as a circulator with the secretary of state.? 17. A.R.S. 16?315, and the form of petition prescribed by the Secretary, includes the following information for candidate petition circulators: Signature of Circulator, Typed or Printed Name of Circulator, Circulator?s Actual Residence Address, and City or Town and Zip Code. 18. The form of Circulator Cover Sheet prescribed by the Secretary for signatures obtained through the E-Qual System contains the same information for the Circulator?s Veri?cation. 19. On March 21 2020, Ms. Bolick ?led a nomination paper pursuant to ARS. 16?3 11 (the ?Nomination Paper?). A true and Correct copy of the Nomination Paper is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 20. Ms. Bolick also signed and ?led the following sworn statement with her Nomination Paper: declare, under penalty of periury, that the information in this Nomination Paper and Declaration of Quali?cation is true and correct, and that at the time of ?lingl am a resident of the district whichl propose to represent . . . and as to all other quali?cations, 1 will be quali?ed at the time of election to hold the office that 1 seek.? (the ?Declaration?) (emphasis added). 21. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick knowingly and intentionally submitted a false Nomination Paper and Declaration, thereby disqualifying her candidacy. 22. The Nomination Paper lists ?610 E. Bell Rd. 2-142 Phoenix AZ 85022? as Ms. Bolick?s residential address and lists no post of?ce address. The aforementioned address is the address of a UPS Store. 23. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick also knowingly and intentionally submitted an improper Circulator Veri?cation for petition sheets submitted through the Secretary of State?s E~Qual System. A true and correct copy of that Circulator Verification is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 24. A.R.S. requires that all circulators provide their ?actual residence address? as part of their Circulator Veri?cation. 25. Ms. Bolick did not provide that actual residence address in the Circulator Verification, but instead listed ?610 E. Bell Rd. 2-142? as her address. On information and belief, that address is an incomplete post of?ce address and not Ms. Bolick?s residential address. 26. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick knowingly and intentionally submitted a false Circulator Veri?cation with the petition sheets submitted through the Secretary of State?s E?Qual System, Violating the circulator certi?cation requirement of A.R.S. COUNT I (Invalid Nomination Paper and Declaration) 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the prior allegations in this Veri?ed Complaint. 28. person who does not ?le a timely nomination paper that complies with this section is not eligible to have the person?s name printed on the of?cial ballot for that of?Ce.? A.R.S. 29. At the time Ms. Bolick submitted the Nomination Paper, her ?actual residence address? was not the post of?ce box address stated on the Nomination Paper. Ms. Bolick failed to ??le a timely nomination paper that complies with? A.R.S. 16?3 1 1. 30. Because the Nomination Paper and Declaration do not comply with A.R.S. 16-311, Ms. Bolick is not eligible to have her name printed on the ballot as a candidate for the Republican Party?s nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. COUNT II (Invalid Nomination Petitions False Residence Address on Petition) 31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the prior allegations in this Veri?ed Complaint. 32. Pursuant to A.R.S. a candidate must submit nomination petitions in ?substantially? the form prescribed by, that statute, which requires that a candidate identify where they reside. See A.R.S. the undersigned, a quali?ed elector of the county of state of Arizona, and of (here name political division or district from which the nomination is sought) and a member of the party or a person who is registered as no party preference or independent as the party preference or who is registered with a political party that is not quali?ed for representation on the ballot, hereby nominate who resides at in the countyiof (emphasis added). 33. All of the nomination petitions submitted by Ms. Bolick state that she ?resides at? the post office box address listed on her Nomination Paper. 34. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick has not ?reside[d] at? the post office box address at any point during her circulation of nomination petitions. 35. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick?s petition forms contain false information regarding her residence address. 36. As a result, all of Ms. Bolick?s nomination petitions failed to comply or substantially comply with A.R.S. and are invalid. Ms. Bolick, therefore, is not eligible to have her name printed on the ballot as a candidate for the Republican Party?s nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. COUNT (Invalid Nomination Petitions False Circulator Certi?cation) 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the prior allegations in this Verified Complaint. 38. Pursuant to A.R.S. the circulator of a candidate nominating petition is required to provide their ?actual residence address.? information and belief, Ms. Bolick?s ?actual residence address? has not been the post office box address at any time during her circulation of nomination petitions. 40. On information and belief, all petitions circulated by Ms. Bolick list the post office box address as her ?actual residence address? in the circulator certi?cation, and are invalid because they contain an improper or false circulator certification, and/or do not substantially comply with A.R.S. 41. On information and belief, Ms. Bolick circulated the following nomination petitionsand 91, which contain 229 signatures. 42. Ms. Bolick also submitted 179 signatures through the Secretary of State?s E-Qual System, which similarly requires Mr. Bolick to identify her ?actual residence address? on all nomination petitions submitted through the Secretary of State?s EwQual System. 43. Because all nomination petitions circulated by Ms. Bolick and submitted through the Secretary of State?s EuQual System are invalid, all of the signatures associated With those petitions are invalid. COUNT IV (Insufficient Valid Signatures 4 Individual Signature Challenge) 44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the prior allegations in this Veri?ed Complaint. 45. Pursuant to A.R.S. Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, identi?es the petition number, line number, and basis for challenging each signature and/or petition sheet, where appropriate. 46. On information and belief, at least 109 of the petition signatures submitted by Ms. Bolick are invalid for one or more of the following reasons, which are also set forth in Exhibit C: a. The signer was not a registered voter in the electoral district of the of?ce Ms. Boliok is seeking at the time the individual signed the petition, in violation of A.R.S. hereinafter and on Exhibit referred to as ?Out of District? or b. The signer was not a registered voter as of the date the individual signed the petition, in violation of A.R.S. 16?32103), hereinafter and on Exhibit referred to as ?Not Registered? or 0. The signer has signed more than once on Ms. Bolick?s petitions and/or signed petitions for more than one candidate to be elected to the of?ce, in violation of A.R.S. hereinafter and on Exhibit referred to as ?Duplicate? or d. The signer provided an address that does not match their voter registration ?le, provided no date, an incomplete date, or a date before Ms. Bolick ?led her statement of interest with the Secretary of State, provided an incomplete address, or no signature, or the circulator failed to complete required information on the circulator af?davit, hereinafter and on Exhibit referred to as ?Statutory Reasons? or and e. The signer?s information is illegible, making the signature impossible to verify, hereinafter and on Exhibit referred to as or 9 47. The signatures alleged to be invalid herein and in Exhibit may be determined invalid by the County Recorder, named as a defendant in this action for reasons other than those speci?ed in Exhibit C, and such additional and alternative bases for invalidation are incorporated herein pursuant to A.R. S. 16?35 1. 48. As set forth above and in Exhibit C, at least 109 petition signatures submitted by Ms. Bolick are invalid. When those invalidated signatures are added to the 408 signatures associated with Ms. Bolick?s invalid circulator forms (as explained in Count HI above) Ms. Bolick is left with only 378 valid signatures, which is 77 signatures short of the number of valid signatures required for the Republican Party nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20. 49. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Bolick has failed to ?le a suf?cient number of valid signatures required to secure the Republican Party nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20, and therefore has failed to qualify for the primary election ballot. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: 1. That the Court issue ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law; 2. That based on its ?ndings of fact and conclusions of the law, the Court enter an order ?nding that Ms. Bolick has failed to file a nomination paper that complies with A.R.S. 16?3 11 or a suf?cient number of valid signatures required to secure the Republican Party nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; 10 That the Court issue an order enjoining the Secretary of State and the County Defendants from placing Ms. Bolick?s name on the ballot seeking the Republican Party nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20, and from allowing Ms. Bolick to run as a write-in candidate for said of?ce at said election; and 4. For attorneys? fees and costs incurred in this action and such other and further relief that the Court may deem proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of April, 2020. TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 1.3 ,1 . 1.1.. k1 2 51/111122?" mes E. Earton II 1? Attorney for Plainri? 11 VERIFICATION penalty of pte permitted. by Mummy; Lem, do state and swear under my and as as follows: mplaint and R. Civ. the foregoing Veri?ed Co 1am the plaintiffin this action. I have read f, the statements made therein are 11111 to the best of my knowledge, information and belie andoorrect. I declare under pen Executed this I i day of April, 2020. alty of perjury that the fOregoing is true and correct. EXHIBIT A STATE OF ARIZONA Legislative Candidate NOMINATION PAPER DECLARATION OF QUALIFICATION A.R.S. 16-311 You are hereby notified that l, the undersigned, am a candidate for the office of State Representative - District No. 20, seeking the nomination of the Republican Party, at the 2020 Primary Election to be held on Tuesday, August 4, 2020, and at the 2020 General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, should I be nominated. I will have been a citizen of the United States for 45 years before my election, will have been a citizen of Arizona for 45 years before my election, and I will be at least 25 years of age upon taking said office. have resided in Maricopa County for 19 years and in Legislative District No. 20 for 5 years before my election. Residential Address: 610 E. Bell Rd. 2?142 Phoenix AZ 85022 Post Office Address: None supplied. Name in the exact manner you wish it to appear on the ballot: Bolick Shawnna LAST NAME FIRST NAME I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this Nomination Paper and Declaration of Qualification is true and correct, and that at the time of filing I am a resident of the district which I propose to represent, that have no final, outstanding judgments against me of an aggregate of $1,000 or more that arose from failure to comply with or enforcement of campaign finance law, and as to all other qualifications, I will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office that I seek. Saturday, March 21, 2020 Shawnna Bolick EXH1B1T Circulator Cover Sheet Partisan Instructions for Circulator 1. By signing the Circulator Cover Sheet, and by utilizing the Secretary of State's E?Quai System, the Candidate agrees to act as the circulator for all petitions generated from the Secretary of State?s E?Quai System. 2. The Candidate is not required to sign each petition that was generated from the Secretary of State's E- Qual System. 3. The Candidate shall sign a Circulator Cover Sheet generated from the Secretary of State?s E-Qual System, which contains a Petiton lD on each petition generated, and submit it to the Secretary of State?s Of?ce at the time of ?ling the corresponding nomination petitions. 4. The Candidate acknowledges that petitions circulated outside of the Secretary of State's EuQual System must be signed by the circulator as prescribed by ARS. 16-321 (D) and must otherwise conform to the requirements of A.R.S. 16?314 and 16-315. Circulator Verification l, Shawnna Boiick, hereby verify that the following petitions, identi?ed by Petition lD 5665, were obtained through the Secretary of State?s E~Qual System, and that each ofthe names on the petition(s) was signed via the Secretary of State?s E-Quai System on the date indicated; that in my belief, because the signatures were gathered via the Secretary of State's E~Qual System, each signer was a quali?ed elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated. I further verify that each signer is a member of the party from which the candidate is seeking nomination, orthe signer ember of a political party that is not entitied to continued representation 0 a lo?, the signeri stared as independent or no party preferred. . Signature wo?t Shawnna Bolick Typed or Printed Name of Circuiator 610 E. Bell Rd. 2?142 Circulator's Actual Residence Address Phoenix AZ 85022 City or Town and Zip Code Arizona Secretary of State Petition ID: 5665 Circulator Cover Sheet Partisan Instructions for Circulator By signing the Circulator Cover Sheet, and by utilizing the Secretary of State?s E?Qual System, the Candidate agrees to act as the circuiator for all petitions generated from the Secretary of State's E?Quai System. 2. The Candidate is not required to sign each petition that was generated from the Secretary of State?s E- Quai System. 3. The Candidate shall sign a Circulator Cover Sheet generated from the Secretary of State's E?Quai System, which contains a Petiton iD on each petition generated, and submit it to the Secretary of State's Of?ce at the time of filing the corresponding nomination petitions. 4. The Candidate acknowledges that all petitions circulated outside of the Secretary of State's E?Qual System must be signed by the ctrcuiator as prescribed by A.R.S. 16?321 (D) and must otherwise conform to the requirements 164314 and 16-315. Circuiator Verification t, Shawnna Boiick, hereby verify that the following petitions, identi?ed by Petition lD 5927', were obtained through the Secretary of State's EuQuai System, and that each of the names on the petition(s) was signed via the Secretary of State's E?Qual System on the date indicated; that in my belief, because the signatures were gathered via the Secretary of State's E?Quai System, each signer was a quali?ed elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated. further verify that each signer is a member of the party from which the candidate is seeking nomination, orthe signer is a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the signe 's istered as independent or no party preferred. Shawnna Bolick Typed or Printed Name of Circulator 610 E. Bell Rd. 245 42 Circulator's Actual Residence Address Phoenix AZ 85022 City or Town and Zip Code Arizona Secretary of State Petition D: 5927 Circulator Cover Sheet Partisan Instructions for Circulator 1. By signing the Circulator Cover Sheet and by utilizing the Secretary of State' 3 E- Qual System the Candidate agrees to act as the circulatcr for at! petitions generated from the Secretary of State? 5 Qual System. 2. The Candidate Is not required to sign each petition that was generated from the Secretary of State's Eu Qual System. 3. The Candidate shall sign a Circulator Cover Sheet generated from the Secretary of State's E-Quai System, which contains a Petiton 1D on each petition generated, and submit it to the Secretary of State?s Of?ce atthe time of ?ling the corresponding nomination petitions. 4. The Candidate acknowledges that ail petitions circulated outside of the Secretary of State's E-Quai System must be signed by the circuiator as prescribed by A R. id 321 (D) and must otheIwise conform to the requirements ofA R. S. '16 314 and 16? 315. Circulator Verification i, Shawnna Bolick, hereby verify that the following petitions, identi?ed by Petition lD 6229, were obtained through the Secretary of State's E?Quai System, and that each of the names on the petition(s) was signed via the Secretary of State's E-Quai System on the date indicated; that in my belief, because the signatures were gathered via the Secretary of State?s E?Qual System, each signer was a quali?ed elector who resides at the address given as their residence on the date indicated. further verify that each signer is a member of the party from which the candidate is seeking nomination orthe signer is a member of a pcliticai party that" Is not entitled to continued representation on the orthe signer is registered as independent or no Q6 (7111,er ?2ng natbr??of Ci uiat" Shawnna Bciick Typed or Printed Name of Circulator 610 E. Bell Rd. 2-142 Circulator?s Actual Residence Address Phoenix AZ 85022 City or Town and Zip Code Arizona Secretary of State Petition it): 6229 EXHIBIT Page - Line 3 Reason Reason 5. 00003 2 NP 00004 6 NP 00009 1 NP 00010 5 NP 00013 4 NR 00013 6 OD 00016 7 00016 8 00016 10 NP 00017 6 D1 00017 9 00017 10 00019 1 NR 00019 6 NP 00019 7 NP 00019 8 NP 00020 6 00021 3 NP 00021 9 00022 3 D3 00023 6 NR 00023 9 00024 1 00024 3 00025 3 00025 5 NP 00025 8 00026 9 0D 00026 10 NP 00027 3 NP 00027 4 NP 00027 6 00027 10 NR 00028 2 00028 3 NR 00028 4 OD 00028 6 00028 7 00028 8 OD 00029 3 NP 00029 8 NR 00030 2 NR 00030 4 NR 1 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliek on March 7, 2020 (petition 00017, in. 5). 2 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on October 10, 2019 (petition 00020, In. 2). Page Line-57' ?Reason - ?Reason - 00032 3 NP 00032 10 00033 5 NP 00033 10 NR 00034 1 NR 00034 2 NR 00034 4 00034 5 NP 00034 6 NR 00034 9 NR 00035 1 NP 00035 2 00035 3 00035 5 00037 4 00038 3 00039 4 NP 00039 5 NP 00040 3 NR 00041 1 NR 00041 2 NR 00041 3 OD 00041 4 OD 00042 5 NR 00042 6 NP OD 00043 1 D5 00043 2 D4 00043 3 D5 00043 4 D6 00043 5 D7 00043 6 D8 00043 7 D9 00043 8 D10 00043 9 D11 00046 6 OD) 00048 4 NP (Democrat) 3 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on February 13, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 1). 4 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on February 13, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 2). 5 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on February 17, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 3). 6 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliek on February 17, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 4). 7 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on February 17, 2020 (petition 00042, 1n. 5). 8 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliek. on February 22, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 6). 9 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliek on February 22, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 7). 10 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliek on February 22, 2020 (petition 00042, In. 8). 11 Signed a petition for Ms. Boiiek on February 22, 2020 (petition 00042, 1n. 10). Page - . Line . Reason Reason 00049 2 00051 4 00052 2 00052 4 00052 6 NR 00052 7 NR 00053 5 00059 1 NR OD 00059 3 OD 00059 4 OD 00060 5 NP 00062 4 NP 00062 7 00065 5 00066 1 NR 00066 2 00067 1 NR 00067 2 NR 00069 9 NR 00073 3 NR 00073 9 00073 10 D14 00077 9 00086 3 OD 00086 4 NR 00087 6 NP 00088 3 NR 00089 3 00089 6 00091 1 NR 12 Signed a petition for Ms. Boliok on September 9, 2019 (petition 00023, in. 9). 13 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on February 10, 2020 (petition 00016, in. 2). 14 Signed a petition for Ms. Bolick on August 03, 2019 (petition 00025, In. 9). James E. Barton 11 (#023 888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 Ja1nes@TheTorresFirm.com acq ueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintz?? APR 20 2020 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT R. MERFNO DEPUTY CLERK ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT MARICOPA COUNTY JUDITH K. LOHR, a quali?ed elector, Plaintiff, V. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her of?cial capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his of?cial capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF CLINT HICKMAN, Maricopa County Supervisor; JACK SELLERS, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE CHUCRI, Maricopa County Supervisor; BILL GATES, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE GALLARDO, Maricopa County Supervisor. Defendants. The undersigned certi?es that the largest award sought by the complainant, including punitive damages but excluding interest, attorneys? fees, and costs, does exceed CV Case No.: CERTIFICATE OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION limits set by 3.10 for compulsory arbitration. This case is NOT subject to compulsory arbitration as provided in Rules 72 through 77 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of April, 2020. TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC Ja es E. Barton 11 ttomeyfor Plainti?? James E. Barton 11 (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 James@TheTorresFirm.com acqueline@TheTorresF irm.com Attorneys for Plainti?? QQRV . APR 2 0 2020 ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT MARICOPA COUNTY JUDITH K. LOHR, a quali?ed elector, Plaintiff, v. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her of?cial capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN ONTES, in his of?cial capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF CLINT HICKMAN, Maricopa County Supervisor; JACK SELLERS, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE CHUCRI, Maricopa County Supervisor; BILL GATES, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE GALLARDO, Maricopa County Supervisor. Defendants. Plaintiff Judith K. Lohr (?Plaintiff?), a registered Arizona voter in Legislative District 20, hereby applies for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction prohibiting the named CV2020-OU4868 Case No.: APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT (Election Case/Candidate Challenge per A.R.S. 16-351) '8 CLERKOF THE SUPERIOR R. DEPUTY CLERK State and County Defendants from including Shawrma Bolick (?Defendant?) from appearing on the 2020 Primary Election Ballot. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT As is provided in the Veri?ed Complaint ?led in this case, Defendant ?led what is purported to be 895 signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State on or before April 6, 2020, to support her placement on the August 4, 2020, primary election ballot for Arizona?s LD 20. Arizona Secretary of State, 2020 Primary Election, available at (follow ?2020 Primary Election Candidates? hyperlink, then follow ?Legislative? hyperlink, then follow ?Shawnna Bolick? hyperlink) (last visited April 19, 2020). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to ??le a timely nomination paper that complies with? Section 16-311 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and is therefore ?not eligible to have [her] name printed on the of?cial ballot.? A.R.S. 16-3 1 For that reason alone, the Court should permanently enjoin her name from appearing on the primary ballot. Furthermore, none of Defendant?s nomination petitions are in compliance with A.R.S. Thus, none of the signatures submitted by Defendant are valid, and this provides a second, independent basis for enjoining State and County Defendants ?om placing Defendant?s name on the 2020 primary election ballot. Furthermore, many of the signatures collected for her candidacy were collected by a circulator who failed to provide an actual residential address on the circulator veri?cation. This error accounts for a loss of 408 signatures, leaving only 487 valid signatures, when Defendant is required to ?le 455 valid signatures. See Arizona Secretary of State, Signature 2 Requirements for Legislative Candidates, available at (last visited April 19, 2020). An additional 109 signatures are challenged through the Veri?ed Complaint for various de?ciencies. Should the County Recorder?s Of?ce con?rm that only 33 of these signatures are invalid, this will serve as a third basis for enjoining the State and County Defendants from placing Defendant?s name on the 2020 primary election ballot. I. Disquali?cation for Failing to Provide Residence Address Defendant provided the following as her actual residential address on her nomination papers? Declaration of Quali?cation, each and every nomination petition?s Space for the candidate?s actual residential address, the Circulator Cover Sheet?s Circulator Veri?cation, and each in-person signatures sheet?s Circulator veri?cation that she personally circulated: 610 East Bell Road, 2-142. Phoenix, Arizona 85022. [Ver. Compl. EX. A, EX. B, 111] 29, 41, 42.] This location is a UPS store. See ?lm. The Defendant?s actual residential address is not a UPS store. Under A.R.S. a candidate for partisan primary elections ?shall sign and cause to be ?led a nomination paper giving the person?s actual residence address or description of place of residence and post of?ce address.? (Emphasis supplied.) The declaration, which is made under penalty of perjury, echoes this requirement for ?Residential Address.? [See e. g. ,Ver. Compl. Ex. The plain language of the statute and the form sworn to under penalty of perjury require a residential address. A post of?ce box is not a residential address. A. As applied to nomination papers 3 Mandatory requirements Certain requirements of statute are mandatory, and are either complied with or not. These requirements are not easily subjected to the substantial compliance standard. In 1936, the Supreme Court explained that ?[t]he general rule, and that which we have adopted in Arizona, is that statutory directions as to the time and manner of giving notice of an election are mandatory and will be upheld strictly in a direct action, such as this, instituted before an election.? Kerby v. Gri??in, 48 Ariz. 434, 452?63, 62 P.2d 1 131, 113 8?39 (1936) (ultimately holding failure to comply with law concerning initiative publicity neither strictly nor substantially complied with the law at issue). Similarly, the Arizona Court of Appeals noted that Where a particular statute and section of the constitution ?could not be more clear,? one could not violate the requirement and claim to have substantially complied with it. Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 430, 1] 17, 314 P.3d 100, 108 (App. 2013) (concerning circulator requirements for a local initiative). The requirement that a candidate provide an actual residential address on the nominating papers is such a mandatory requirement that is not subject to substantial compliance analysis. Defendant simply, and likely willfully, disregarded the requirement. 2. Substantial compliance Should the Court examine the Defendant?s choosing to not list a residential address under substantial compliance, the result is the same. Under this standard, the Court can only accept a deviation from a clear standard when there is no chance of confusion and no essential information missing. Cf Dedolph v. McDermott, 230 Ariz. 130, 133?34, 111] 18- 19, 281 P.3d 484, 487--88 (2012) (?Nothing suggests that McDermott?s listing her name as 4 Jean? in her nomination paper would cause electors signing her nomination petitions to be con?ised or misled about her identity?) Defendant?s use of a post of?ce box for her residential address is not a harmless deviation and did not substantially comply with the requirement of listing a residential address. Moreover, it is necessarily true that using a false residential address would be confusing to a voter who is interested in knowing the candidate?s actual residence address. The legislature speci?ed what type of address to provide?a residential address; thus, providing a different type of address does not substantially comply with the law. The Court considered this situation in Clark v. Mu?oz, when a candidate for constable included a picture of a constable badge on his nominating petitions in the space allotted for including a picture of the candidate. 235 Ariz. 201, 202, 111] 5-6, 330 P.3d 958, 959 (2014). Although such a picture was not explicitly forbidden, by designating the type of picture he one of the candidate, it was clear that the Legislature did not intend for another type of picture to be used. Under the same analysis, when the Legislature demands a residential address, providing a mailing address does not comply with the requirement. Also, the nomination papers do not provide information necessary to determine whether the nominee lived within LD 20, because one could live anywhere and have a post of?ce box within the district. Regardless of whether the candidate does live within the district, it ?would eviscerate the statutory requirement that all essential information be made available to the elector? to allow candidates to compensate for such omissions with extrinsic evidence presented after the fact. Kennedy 12. Lodge, 230 Ariz. 134, 137, 1] 15, 281 P.3d 488, 491 (2012) (leaving off judicial district from nominating petitions did not substantially 5 comply). Applying either standard to Defendant?s nomination papers, because Defendant did ?not ?le a timely nomination paper that complie[d] with [Section 16-311, she] is not eligible to have [her] name printed on the of?cial ballot.? A.R.S. 16-31 B. As applied to petition sheets The form of petition required by A.R.S. and the form provided by the Secretary of State, requires the supporters to ?hereby nominate who resides at in the county of . . . But the Defendant failed to enter the residence at which she resides on her petitions. Thus, those declaring their support for her had no way of knowing Where she resides, including whether she resides within LD 20. She did not substantially comply with the requirements of A.R.S. 16-314. Such a de?ciency on the face of the petition sheet is fatal and cannot be salvaged by appeal to ?substantial compliance.? In Marsh v. Haws, two of the three candidates for Justice of the Peace that Were challenged failed to identify the JP district for which they were running, and the Court found this likely to lead to con?ision and a fatal ?aw in their petitions. 111 Ariz. 139, 140, 526 P.2d 161, 162 (1974). This ?aw was fatal regardless of whether the signers themselves were inside or outside of the particular district. Likewise, a candidate for superior court failed to include the division of the court for which he was running, meaning that signers would not necessarily be aware that they were nominating a candidate for the of?ce he sought. Kennedy, 230 Ariz. at 136, 11-13, 281 P.3d at 490. The Court speci?cally held that omitting this information meant that ?Lodge?s 6 nominating petitions therefore do not substantially comply with statutory requirements.? Finally, even when a statute did ?not explicitly prohibit photogaphs of things other than the candidate (or other extraneous markings),? the Court concluded ?it [is] unlikely that the legislature would specify only one kind of photograph if it meant to authorize photographs more generally.? Clark, 235 Ariz. at 202, 1111 5-6, 330 P.3d at 959. Meaning that including a different kind of picture on the petition sheets was not a mere technical error. The same is true of Defendant?s failure to provide the actual address at which she resides. All of her petition sheets are invalid, and the State and County Defendants must be enjoined from including her name on the ballot. II. False Statement Invalidate Nomination Papers and Candidate Petitions Defendant ?declare[d], under penalty of perjury, that the information provided on [her] Nomination Paper and Declaration is true and correct.? [Ver. Comp]. Ex. On that document, she indicated that her residential address was 610 East Bell Road, 2-142, Phoenix, Arizona, 85022. As provided above, this is the address of a UPS store. Notably, Defendant did not line out the word ?residential? and replace it with ?mailing.? Nor did Defendant indicate clearly that the street number and street name was a post of?ce box. Nor did Defendant enter ?protected address? or some other indication that she was deliberately withholding her residential address from the public. It should also be noted that while A.R.S. 16-153 allows for certain individuals to qualify as secured voters who have a protected address, that statute applies only in the very narrow context of voter registration. It does not extend the protections of a secured voter to individuals wanting to run for state of?ce. While the legislature may choose to extend that 7 protection, it has not yet done so. As the Court has explained, ?it must be recognized that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate for and to hold of?ce are separate matters, and the State may require that a citizen meet more strict requirements to hold of?ce than he does to vote for those of?ces.? See Triano v. Massion, 109 Ariz. 506, 508, 513 P.2d 935, 937 (1973). The Court cannot rewrite the statute and extend it to trump A.R.S. 16~311?s requirement of identifying a proper residential address. Defendant represented to the Secretary of State and every voter she asked to support her candidacy that her residential address was 601 East Bell Road. It is not. Arizona Courts recognize that signatures collected under false pretenses must be rejected. In Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, the court noted that ?[c]ases in several jurisdictions support the proposition that fraud by the circulator voids the petitions associated with the See 138 Ariz. 453, 455 (1984). The Court went on to hold that allowing ?the circulation of petitions by minors and other unquali?ed persons and certi?cation of the petitions by persons other than the actual circulators without any sanction other than the inconvenience of showing that the signatures were in fact authentic would render the circulation requirement meaningless and possibly lead to additional falsehood and ?aud by others.? Id. at 456. Importantly, in Brousseau, the Court did not rely on speci?c statutory authorization of striking the signatures, nor did the Court require a demonstration that the signatures gathered were invalid. The integrity of the election system demanded disqualifying signatures through a deception. The Brousseau rule provides an independent basis to reject both the nomination papers and every nomination petition, and therefore to enjoin the State and County Defendants from putting Defendant?s name on the 2020 primary election ballot. 8 Invalid Signatures and Signature Sheets A. Signature Sheets with Invalid Circulator Veri?cation As alleged in the Veri?ed Complaint, 408 signatures were gathered with the Defendant as the circulator. In each instance, she provided the post of?ce box as her residential address. This makes the circulator?s veri?cation invalid and the signatures veri?ed by it must be rejected. As for the circulator?s veri?cation, the post of?ce box address does not substantially comply with A.R.S. 16-3 requirement to enter actual residence address.? The mailing address does not satisfy the purpose of entering the circulator?s residence, in part because it shields from both state of?cials and the public whether the circulator is from outuof?state. Under A.R.S. circulators who are out-of-state residents must register with the Secretary. Permitting the entry of a mailing address opens a clear path to evade registration requirements. Simply rent a post of?ce box and use that on petitions so that the out~of-state circulator?s failure to register goes undetected. B. Invalid Individual Signatures Pursuant to A.R.S. Exhibit of the Veri?ed Complaint identi?es the petition number, line number, and basis for challenging each signature and/or petition sheet, for an additional 109 signatures. Should the review of the County Recorder af?rm at least 33 signatures are invalid, when coupled with the circulator veri?cation de?ciency, provides an independent basis for enjoining Defendant?s placement on the 2020 primary election ballot. Conclusion Plaintiff urges this Court to grant its Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. DONE this 20th day of April, 2020. TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC j. if :17 7 es E. Barton II Attorney for Plainti? 10 James E. Barton 11 (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 James @TheTorresFirmcom Jacqueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT MARICOPA COUNTY JUDITH K. LOHR, a quali?ed elector, Case No.: ORDER V, GRANTING APPLICATION FOR PERMENANT AND SHAWNNA et 811: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS Defendant. The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff?s Veri?ed Complaint, Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, and with good cause appearing, the Court makes the following ?ndings of fact: That Candidate Shawnna Bolick submitted 895 signatures in support of her nomination to be included on the August 4, 2020, primary ballot; That Plaintiff has demonstrated that all signatures were invalid and; As a result, Candidate submitted fewer than the 455 signatures required by A.R.S. 16-622; FURTHERMORE, the Court holds as a matter of law that: Candidate Shawnna Bolick is not quali?ed for the primary ballot; IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall not print the 2020 Primary Election Ballot with Shanna Bolick listed as a candidate for Legislative District 20. James E. Barton 11 (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 a1nes@TheTorresFirm.com acquelineGDTheTorresFir1n.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff JUDITH K. LOHR, a quali?ed elector, Plaintiff, V. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her of?cial capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF CLINT HICKMAN, Maricopa County Supervisor; JACK SELLERS, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE CHUCRI, Maricopa County Supervisor; BILL GATES, Maricopa County Supervisor; STEVE GALLARDO, Maricopa County Supervisor. Defendants. ORE GINAL ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT MARICOPA COUNTY Case No.: SUMMONS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO: SHA NA BOLICK 610 E. Bell Road 2?142 Phoenix, Arizona 85022 I lawsuit has been ?led against you. A copy of the lawsuit and other court papers are served on you with this ?Summons?. . If you do not want a judgment or order taken against you without your input, you must ?le an ?Answer? or a ?Response? in writing with the court, and pay the ?ling fee?Answer? or ?Response? the other party may be given the relief requested in his/her Petition or Complaint. To ?le your ?Answer? or ?Response? take, or send, the ?Answer? or ?Response? to the Of?ce of the Clerk of the Superior Court, 201 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2205 or Of?ce of the Clerk of the Superior Court, 183 80 North 40th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85032 OR Of?ce of the Clerk of Superior Court, 222 East Javelina Drive, Mesa, Arizona 85210-6201 or Of?ce of the Clerk of Superior Court, 14264 West Tierra Buena Lane, Surprise, Arizona, 85374. Mail a copy of your ?Response? or ?Answer? to the other party at the address listed on the top of this Summons. . If this ?Summons? and the other court papers were served on you by a registered process server or the Sheriff, within the State of Arizona, your ?Response? or ?Answer? must be ?led within TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS from the date you were served, not counting the day you were served. If this ?Summons? and the other papers were served on you by a registered process server or the Sheriff outside the State of Arizona, your Response must be ?led within THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date you were served, not counting the day you were served. Service by a registered process server or the Sheriff is complete when made. Service by Publication is complete thirty (30) days after the date of the ?rst publicationcopy of the court papers ?led in this case from the Petitioner at the address listed at the top of the preceding page, from the Clerk of the Superior Court's Customer Service Center at: 601 West Jackson, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, or 18380 North 40th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85032 222 East avelina Drive, Mesa, Arizona 85210 14264 West Tierra Buena Lane, Surprise, Arizona, 85374. . Requests for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities must be made to the division assigned to the case by the party needing accommodation or his/her counsel at least three (3) judicial days in advance of a scheduled proceeding. . Requests for an interpreter for persons with limited English pro?ciency must be made to the division assigned to the case by the party needing the interpreter and/or translator or his/her counsel at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of a scheduled court proceeding 2 SIGNED AND SEALED this date: By:_ {D/epgy VCIerk APR 2? 0 2020 JEFF FINE, CLERK OF COURT