ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JUDITH K. LOHR, a qualified elector, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-004868 v. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; 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/Appellees. STATEMENT IDENTIFYING APPEAL AS EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTER James E. Barton II (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 James@TheTorresFirm.com Jacqueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant {00496131.1 } Pursuant to Rule 10, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., Plaintiff/Appellant Judith K. Lohr hereby designates this appeal as an Expedited Election Matter. The names and contact information of counsel for the parties involved in the appeal are as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Judith K. Lohr: James E. Barton II Jacqueline Mendez Soto Torres Law Group, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 james@thetorresfirm.com jacqueline@thetorresfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Shawnna Bolick: Kory Langhofer Statecraft 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Kory@StatecraftLaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Katie Hobbs: Kara Karlson Attorney General’s Office 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Kara.Karlson@azag.gov Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Recorder and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors: Joseph La Rue Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov {00496131.1 } -2- A copy of Plaintiff/Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the order from which the appeal is being taken is attached as Exhibit B. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of May, 2020. THE TORRES LAW GROUP By /s/ James E. Barton II James E. Barton II Jacqueline Mendez Soto Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant {00496131.1 } -3- Exhibit A Exhibit A Clerk of the Superior Court *** Electronically Filed *** M. Saldana, Deputy 5/4/2020 11:53:00 AM Filing ID 11625896 1 James E. Barton II (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 James@TheTorresFirm.com Jacqueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 3 5 6 7 ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT 8 MARICOPA COUNTY 9 10 JUDITH K. LOHR, a qualified elector, Case No.: CV2020-004868 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; 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. NOTICE OF APPEAL (Hon. Scott McCoy) Defendants. 21 22 23 {00496129.1 } Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-351(A) and Rule 10, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., Plaintiff Judith K. Lohr hereby appeals from the Court’s Minute Entry Order entered on April 30, 2020. 1 1 DONE this 4th day of May, 2020. 2 TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 3 _/s/ James E. Barton II_________ James E. Barton II Attorney for Plaintiff 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 8 I hereby certify that on May 4, 2020, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the TurboCourt System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of 9 Electronic Filing to the following TurboCourt registrants: 10 11 12 13 14 Hon. Scott McCoy Joni LaCaria Joni.Lacaria@JBAZMC.Maricopa.Gov Kory Langhofer Statecraft 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Kory@StatecraftLaw.com Attorneys for Shawnna Bolick 17 Kara Karlson Arizona Attorney General’s Office 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Kara.Karlson@azag.gov Attorney for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs 18 Joseph La Rue 15 16 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 19 20 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov Attorney for Maricopa County Defendants 21 22 23 {00496129.1 } 2 Exhibit Exhibit Clerk of the Superior Court *** Filed *** SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 CLERK OF THE COURT T. DeRaddo Deputy HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY JUDITH K. LOHR JAMES E BARTON II v. SHAWNNA BOLICK THOMAS J. BASILE KYLE ROBERT CUMMINGS JOSEPH EDWARD LA RUE KORY A LANGHOFER JUDGE MCCOY COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING 1. Plaintiff Judith K. Lohr is a qualified elector within Legislative District 20. Stipulated Facts, ¶ 1. 2. Defendant Shawnna Bolick resides within the area covered by U.S. Postal Zip Code 85022. Id., ¶ 2. 3. Ms. Bolick listed the address 610 E. Bell Road, #2-142, Phoenix, AZ 85022 on her nomination papers as her residence address. Id., ¶ 3, Exh. A. 4. Ms. Bolick listed the address 610 E. Bell Road, #2-142, Phoenix, AZ 85022 on her nomination petitions as the address at which she resides for the 2020 election. Id., ¶ 4, Exh. B. {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 5. Ms. Bolick listed the address 610 E. Bell Road, #2-142, Phoenix, AZ 85022 on the circulator verification as her actual residence address when verifying her E-Qual signatures. Id., ¶ 5, Exh. C. 6. Ms. Bolick used the address 610 E. Bell Road, #2-142, Phoenix, AZ 85022 in 2018 on her nomination papers, petitions, and circulator verifications without legal challenge. Id., ¶ 6. 7. On February 21, 2017, the Honorable Janet E. Barton entered an Order to Restrict Public Access to Address and Telephone Numbers in Specified Public Records. Id., ¶ 7, Exh. D. 8. The address 610 E. Bell Road, #2-142, Phoenix, AZ 85022 is the address of a UPS Store. Id., ¶ 8. 9. The address of the UPS Store is contained within Legislative District 20. Id., ¶ 9. 10. Ms. Bolick’s residence is in the same state, county, legislative district, municipality, and zip code as the UPS Store. Id., ¶ 10. 11. Ms. Bolick is prepared to testify that she is, and at all times relevant has been, a resident and qualified elector of Legislative District 20, and Plaintiff does not allege otherwise. Id., ¶ 11. 12. Zip code 85022 includes portions of Legislative District 20 and Legislative District 28. Id., ¶ 13. In 2014, Ms. Bolick ran for office from Legislative District 28. Id., ¶ 13. 14. This court has jurisdiction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 16-351. 15. Persons running for office must file nomination papers, which by statute shall “giv[e] the person’s actual residence address or description of place of residence and post office address.” A.R.S. § 16-311(A) (emphasis added). 16. Nominating petitions “shall” include the address of the person being nominated. A.R.S. § 16-314(C) (requiring nominating petitions be “in substantially the following form: I, the undersigned, a qualified elector of [the political party and relevant political division or {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 district] hereby nominate ___________ who resides at _____________”) (emphasis added). 17. Ms. Bolick signed a number of petitions as the circulator. Arizona law requires persons circulating petitions include certain information, including their “actual residence address.” A.R.S. § 16-315(B). 18. Thus, Ms. Bolick’s nomination papers, petitions and circulator verifications did not strictly comply with three separate statutory provisions, respectively: A.R.S. §§ A.R.S. § 16-311(A), -314(C) and -315(B). 19. Arizona courts, however, “’do not remove candidates from the ballot for mere technical departures’ from the statutorily required forms.” Dedolph v. McDermott, 230 Ariz. 130, 131 ¶ 3, 281 P.3d 484, 485 (2012), quoting Bee v. Day, 218 Ariz. 505, 507, ¶¶ 9-10, 189 P.3d 1078, 1080 (2008). 20. Instead, courts “assess whether nominating papers substantially comply with the statutory requirements.” Dedolph, 230 Ariz. at 131, ¶ 3, 281 P.3d at 485 (citing Bee) (reversing trial court’s order striking from ballot candidate who incorrectly identified her surname in nomination paper as “Cheuvront-McDermott” rather than “McDermott”). 21. Applying the rule more than sixty years ago, the Arizona Supreme Court reasoned that “the paramount right to propose a nominee is of such gravity as to outweigh purely technical departures from nominating form.” Adams v. Bolin, 77 Ariz. 316, 322, 271 P.2d 472, 475–76 (1954). 22. “The essence of the nominating procedure is that qualified persons sign the petitions; the exact form of the sheet on which they sign is relatively unimportant.” Adams, 77 Ariz. at 321, 271 P.2d at 475. 23. Accordingly, the Arizona Supreme Court has instructed trial courts to “focus[] on whether the omission of information could confuse or mislead electors signing the petition.” Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 102, ¶ 42,139 P.3d 612, 620 (2006) (citation omitted) (holding that petitions specifying the year, but not specific date, of primary election were not confusing because “there was only one primary that year for” the relevant legislative office). {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 24. In very similar circumstances, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that a candidate substantially complied with statutory requirements. There, the candidate listed a UPS facility address instead of the physical address of his residence. The Court stated: Appellee Saban did not strictly comply . . . by listing a United Parcel Service facility address in the blank following the phrase ‘resides at’ on his nomination petition sheets. But by providing accurate information as to the city, county, state and zip code matching those of his actual physical residence, his petition sheets were unlikely to cause confusion or to mislead electors . . ..” Baker v. Saban, No. CV-16-0140-AP/EL, Ariz. Supr. Ct., Decision Order dated June 29, 2016. See Response to Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction., Appendix 1. 25. Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Baker, arguing that the candidate there, unlike Ms. Bolick: a. provided his physical address on his nomination paper declaring his candidacy, and b. provided a zip code on petitions “wholly contained in . . . the relevant voting district.” The zip code Ms. Bolick provided “crosses two Legislative Districts, 20 and 28” postulated as something “likely to lead to voter confusion” given that Ms. Bolick ran for office in Legislative District 28” in 2014. Reply in Support of Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, at 3, 5. See also, id., Exh. 1 (copy of nomination form in Baker). The Court finds these distinctions unpersuasive. 26. Nor is the Court persuaded that this case differs from Baker or other election cases because Ms. Bolick assertedly “concealed the truth” (Reply at 2) or “was intentionally deceptive.” Id. at 3. First, a member of Ms. Bolick’s family in 2017 took legal measures to protect the family’s physical address from disclosure in certain public records. See Stipulated Facts, ¶ 7, Exh. D (Judge Barton’s order). That order does not exempt Ms. Bolick from the election laws at issue here, but security is a legitimate concern for public officials. Second, given that Ms. Bolick undisputedly lives in the district in which she seeks office and is otherwise qualified to hold that office, no material deception or concealment has occurred. Form V000A {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Page 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 27. With all statutes, it is: “the intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must control.” Jenkins v. Hale, 218 Ariz. 561, 564, ¶ 19, 190 P.3d 175, 178 (2008) (internal quotation omitted). 28. The purpose of the nomination process at bar is to “[weed] out the cranks, the publicity seekers, the frivolous candidates who have no intention of going through with the campaign [from the] bona-fide office seeker[s] [who] have a reasonable number of supporters.” Adams, 77 Ariz. at 320, 271 P.2d at 475. 29. Striking from the ballot Ms. Bolick, “a bona-fide office seeker . . . with a reasonable number of supporters” does not, in the court’s estimation, serve that purpose. 30. Because voters are unlikely to have been confused or misled by the technical errors at issue, Ms. Bolick has substantially complied with applicable elections laws. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED granting Ms. Bolick’s oral motion for judgment as a matter of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s cross motion for judgment as a matter of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the complaint with prejudice. 54(c). No matters remain pending in this case. This is a final judgment under Ariz. R. Civ. P. / s / M. Scott McCoy M. SCOTT MCCOY JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV2020004868 04/30/2020 The parties are notified that, under A.R.S. § 16-351(A), any notice of appeal must be filed within five calendar days after the superior court’s decision in a challenge to the nomination of a candidate. See Bohart v. Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 143 P.3d 1021 (2006). An appeal that is belatedly prosecuted, such as one filed on the last day of the statutory deadline, may be dismissed on grounds of laches even if timely filed. See McClung v. Bennett, 225 Ariz. 154, 235 P.3d 1037 (2010). Special procedural rules govern expedited appeals in election cases. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 10 {00495725.1 } Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 6 ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JUDITH K. LOHR, a qualified elector, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-004868 v. SHAWNNA BOLICK, a Republican Primary Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 20; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of State; ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity as the Maricopa County Recorder; and MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; 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/Appellees. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE James E. Barton II (#023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (#022597) TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC 2239 West Baseline Road Tempe, Arizona 85283 (480) 588-6120 James@TheTorresFirm.com Jacqueline@TheTorresFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant {00496154.1 } I hereby certify that on the 1st day of May, 2020, Plaintiff/Appellant’s STATEMENT IDENTIFYING APPEAL AS EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTER and REQUEST FOR INITIAL TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTER were efiled, and copies of the same served, via email, on the following: Lisa Perry Banen Arizona Supreme Court Chief Staff Attorney lbanen@courts.az.gov Kory Langhofer Statecraft 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Kory@StatecraftLaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Shawnna Bolick Kara Karlson Attorney General’s Office 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Kara.Karlson@azag.gov Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Secretary of State Katie Hobbs Joseph La Rue Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Recorder and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors {00496154.1 } -2- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of May, 2020. THE TORRES LAW GROUP By /s/ James E. Barton II James E. Barton II Jacqueline Mendez Soto Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant {00496154.1 } -3-