COPY

JUL 1 I2018
1 Brett W. Johnson (#021527)
Jennifer Hadley Catero (#018380) c'{TD#$H¡h3ÊR'(
2
Colin P. Ahler (#023879) æpwctenx
3 Matthew A. Goldstein (#022171)
Andrew Sniegowski (#03 1664)
4 Lindsay Short (#034125)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
5
400 E. Van Buren Avenue
6 Suite 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
7 Telephone: (602) 382-6000
8 Facsimile: (602) 382-607 0
bwjohnson@swlaw.com
9 jcatero@swlaw.com
cahler@swlaw.com
l0 mgoldstein@swlaw.com
11 asniegowski@swlaw.com
a
o lshort@swlaw.com
I t2
.9_

O ÊQ
13.
Attorneysþr Plaintffi
Ë ¡dg
4 Éôo
o >@q T4
IN TI-IE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
,¿ 15
(,
J
þ,f' IN AND FORTHE COUNTY OF MAzuCOPA
É o9 16
U) iõ
0
'l!

i t7
o VINCE LEACH, an individual and
aualified elector; GLENN HAMER, an No
18
ihdividual and qûalified elector; JUSTINE cv201B-009919
19 ROBLES, an inilividual and qualified
elector; JOHN KAVANACFI an tA4ividual
2A and quâlified elector; JENN DANIELS, an
individual and qualifìed elector; JACKIE
2L MECK, an individual and qualified elector; VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
ASHLEY RAGAN, an indívidual and SPECIAL ACTION AND
7) qualified elector; and JOFIN GILES, an INJUNCTM, DECLARATORY,
iirdividual and qualified elector, AND MANDAMUS RELIEF
23 (Entitled to Immediate Trial Under
Plaintifß,
24 A.R.S. $S 19-118(D), le- 122(c))
v
25
MICHELE REAGAN, in her official
26 capacity as Arizona Secretary of State;
APACHE COI.TNTY BOARD OF
27
SUPERVISORS; MEMBERS OF THE
28 APACHE COLTNTY BOARD OF
 1 SUPERVISORS, in their official
capacities; EDISON J. WALTNEKA, in his
2
official capacity as Apache County
J Recorder; COCHISE COLI-NTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS; MEMBERS OF
4 T}IE COCHISE COUNTY BOARD OF
5 SUPERVISORS, in their offïcial
capacities; DAVID W. STEVENS, in his
6 offrcial capacity as Cochise County
Recorder; COCONINO COLINTY
7
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
8 MEMBERS OF THE COCONINO
COI"INTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
9 in their official capacities; PATTY
10
HANSEN, in her official caPacitY as
Coconino CountY Recorder; CILA
11 COLTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
a
ç MEMBERS OF THE GILA COLTNTY
12
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in their
l.{
0) ca 13 official capacities; SADIE JO
d 5.J
l< €!! BINGHAM' in her ofÍicial capacity as
= ll cðo t4 Gila County Recorder; GRAHAM
,¿ ì oç 9R
40-1È 15,
COLTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
q) MEMBERS OF THE GRAHAM
Uq
U) c-
T6 COTINTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
in their official capacities; WENDY
T7
o JOHN, in her official capacity as Graham
18 County Recorder; GREENLEE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
t9 MEMBERS OF THE GREENLEE
20
COI.INTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
in their official capacities; BERTA
2t MANUZ, in her offïcial caPacitY as
Greenlee CountY Recorder; LAP AZ
22
COLTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
23 MEMBERS OF THE LAPAZ COLTNTY
BOARD OÞ' SUPERVISORS, in their
24 offlrcial capacities; SHELLY BAKER, in
her official capacity as La Paz County
25
Recorder; MARICOPA COLTNTY
26 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
MEMBERS OF THE MARICOPA
27
COLINTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
28 in their offrcial ADRIAN
 1 FONTES, in his official capacity as
Maricopa County Recorder; MOHAVE
2
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
J MEMBERS OF THE MOHAVE
COIJNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
4 in their official capacities; KzuSTI
5 BLAIR, in her offîcial capacity as Mohave
County Recorder; NAVAJO COUNTY
6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
MEMBERS OF THE NAVAJO
7
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
I in their offrcial capacities; DORIS
CLARK, in her offioial capacity as Navajo
9 County Recorder; PIMA COI"INTY
l0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
MEMBERS OF THE PINÍA COIINTY
l1 BOAITD OF SUPERVISORS, in their
o
a
I official capacities; F. ANN RODRIGUEZ'
12
¿ in her official capacity as Pima County
gt sE
13 Recotder; PINAL COLTNTY BOARD OF
iiàà II V>øq
!,i 5RB
SUPERVISORS; MEMBERS OF THE
'- 48"iÉ:. t4 PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF
<t "¡foç93
lzits 15 SUPERVISORS, in their official
=Ëllf 3;
!,¡' capacities; VIRGINIA ROSS, in her
(nt Ee
16 official capacity as Pinal CounfY
.i Recorder; SANTA CRUZ COI"INTY
t7
o BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
18 MEMI}ERS OF THE SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY BOARD OF ST'PERVISORS,
T9 in their official capacities; SUZANNE
20
SAINZ, in her official capacity as Santa
Cruz County Recorder; YAVAPAI
2T COLTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
MEMBERS OF THE YAVAPAI
22
COLINTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
23 in their ofticial capacities;LESLIE M.
HOFFMAN, in her official caPacitY as
24 Yavapai County Recorder; YUMA
COLTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
25
MEMBERS OF THE YLIMA COLINTY
26 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in their
official capacities; ROBYN
27
STALLWORTH POUQUET'IE, in her
28 official as Yuma
 I Recorder,
2
Defendants,
J
and
4
CLEAN ENERGY FOR A FIEALTHY
5 ARIZONA, an Arizona political action
6 committee, .

7 Real Party in Interest.

8
plaintifß bring this action for a writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive
9
relief pursuant.to A.R.S. $$ l9-1lS(D) and l9-122(C), and hereby allege as follows:
10
P,RELIMINAßY SIôITEMEI{T
1t
a
: 12
1. This is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a constitutional amendment
.; ooClean
(!.)l
initiative measure called Energy for a Healthy Atizona Amendment" (the
cö r3
, I 5ô.'
oolnitiativeo). The application for this Initiative was fìled on February 20, 2018, and was
5 lHiiE I4
ioç9* assigned serial number C-04-2018 by Defendant Arizona Secretary of State (the
c4)
"¿ I ÈYiq;
15
i< ¡ 4;ìË
- I "c.! ,,secretary of State"). An accurate copy of the Initiative Petition is attached as Exhibit A.
8l
c./) |
,ij
ÉÈ
16
.!
t7
2. The Initiative's stated purpose is to "requfue electrícity providers to generate
o
at least 50% of their annual sales of electricity from renewable energy sources." Ex. Aat?
t8
(emphasis added). However, this is false because the actual Initiative requirements would
I9
only apply to specífic utility companies under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation
20
Commission.
2l
), 3. Similarly, this Initiative goes much further by utilizing complex industry
language to hide the fact that residential houses and business complexes would need to
¿J
add specific electric dístributíor? resources at significant cost. Specifically, the Initiative's
24
complex framework would require that distributed renewable energy sources comprise at
25
least lTYo of "utilities' annual retail sales of electricity by 2030 ." Id. at l.
26

27
4. The Arizona Legislature has directed that "fc]onstitutional and statutory
requircments for statewide initiative measufes must be strictly construed and persons
28
 1 using the initiative process must strictly cornply with those constitutional and statutory
2 requirements." A.R.S. $ l9- 102.01(A).
a
J 5. The Initiative Petition should be enjoined from being placed on the ballot
4 for the November 2018 general election in the State of Arizona because it does not have
5 enough Arizonaqualified electors' signatures to qualify for such placement and also does
6 not strictly comply with the applicable provisions of the Arizona Constitution and Atizona

7 Revised Statutes.

I 6. First, the Initiative Petition was circulated and submitted by Real Party in
I Interest Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona (the "Committee"), an entity that failed to

l0 properly register as a political committee with the Secretary of State at the time it filed the

ll Initiative Petition application. ,See Statement of Organization, attached as Exhibit B. The

9
l2 Comnrittee failed to properly register in at least three ways:
.:

õt
tr I
iB
!"J
13 a, Upon information and beliet the Committee's initial statement of
S I r",¡ãgg organization referenced a limited liability company that had not yet been
'r' 4t¡ri; t4
b¿ I :l>øe

ø iSefi 15 formed under Arizona law;

l5Ëì-"
=HI 3E b. The Committee's statement of organization completely failed to make
u)t EÊ
16
'Ë

l7 any mention of the California entity that is the actual sponsor of the
o
l8 Initiative;and
i9 c. The Committee is not properly named because its real sponsor is not part

20 of the name of the Committee' 1d.

2l 7. Second, the Committee improperly conditioned the employment of

22 circulators on the number of signatures they obtained, in violation of A.R.S. $ 19-

23 1tS.¡l(A). Due to this violation, all of the signatures obtained in support of the Petition
24 are invalid and should be disqualified. See Indep. Inst. v. Gessler,936 F. Supp'2d1256,

25 l15g (D. Colo. 2013) (recognizing the incentive for fraud created by petition signature
26 quotas).

27 8. Third, the Initiative Petition lacks the minimum number of 225,963 valid
28 signatures required for the Secretary of State to certify the Initiative to the statewide

a
 I election ballot. At most, the Committee obtain ed 106,441 valid signatures. A spreadsheet
is
2 identiffing all the defective signatures and the ground(s) for their legal insuffrciency
more
J attached as Exhibit Cr to this Verified Complaint.2 Specifrcally, and as discussed

4 fully in this Verified Complaint, the Initiative Petition has been supported by defective
5 petition signature sheets that:
6 a. were circulated by persons not authorized to circulate petitions under
7 Arizona law, including persons who were required to but did not properly

8 register as a circulator with the Secretary of State and persons who were

9 not qualifîed to register to vote in Arizona;

10 b. contain inaccurate or absent disclosures regarding the circulator's paid or

11 volunteer status, incomplete or modified circulator affidavits, knowingly

Q
çg
lz false circulator affïdavits, absent or defîcient notarizations, and/or
't
inconsistent circulator signatures;
Hl qi 13

s ti¡ã*8 l4 c. were incomplete or inaccurate at the tirne of signature, including sheets

tr lËii;q
f oeRg
q¿t
"1
I àr_tã 15 that contained an incorrect or incomplete, or absent Initiative serial
5l]!'¡'
tI
(nt .38
16 numbero or sheets that included more than 15 signatures per page;
åt
.Ë
I
t7 d. include signatures that were collected before the Initiative was assigned

18 its serial number;

19 e. include signatures from electors who: (1) were not registered voters at the

20 time the petition sheet was signed; (2) were not registered voters in the
2I county specifred in the declaration on the petition sheet; or (3) signed an

22 Initiative petition sheet on more than one occasion;

23

24
t
The Secretary of State's Inítiatíve and Referendum Guide is attached as Exhibit D, and
25 the Maricopa County Recorder's Referendum and Initíatìve Petition l/eriJication
procedures is attached as Exhibit E. Thè objections detailed in Exhibit C were identified
26
through expert analysis conducted in accordance with the guidance in these documents.
27
ti.uJun¿ correct copies of the petition signature sheets are on file as a public record with
"io pt.r.*e judicial efficiency, they are not provided with
the Arizona Secretary of State.
28
this Complaint.

-3 -
 I f. include signature lines that, upon information and belief, are fraudulent

2 because: (1) consecutively numbered, or nearly consecutively numbered,

J addresses written in similar handwritin g; (2) signature lines with out-of-

4 sequence dates (e.g., the last signature line on the petition sheet has the

5 earliest date for signature on the sheet, etc.); (3) signature lines dated after

6 the circulator affrdavit rvas signed and notarized; (a) signatures that do

7 not match the voter's signature in the voter registration record; and/or (5)

8 signatures that bear a strong resemblance to other signatures or are

9 . otherwise fraudulent on the same or other petition sheets; or

l0 g. fail to fully, legibly, and properly disclose one or more of (1) the signed

11 ancl printed versions of each signer's name, (2) the signer's full
tI
t2 residential address, or (3) the complete and accurate date of signing.
'3

õl
tr I
.'Ë
5..,
13 g. Fourth, the Initiative Petition is substantively defective and was circulated
Ë I n?å' T4 among electors under false pretenses. Specifically, and as discussed more fully in this
ts¡ liË;ig
i ô@
ø îËqri
^^
15 Verified Complaint:
f,!i'
II
=Èlöj
ôì ÉE
and the Initiativc summary that the
U)I EO
t6 a. The official title of the Initiative
'¡I
L7 Committee provided to electors were incomplete and materially
18 misleading, such that they created a substantial danger of fraud,

r9 confusion, and unfairness, in violation of ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, pt. 1, $

20 l(9) and the Arizona Bilt Draftíng Manual, 2017-20i,8.3 The Initiative's
2l title and the Initiative summary are included on the Initiative Petition,
22 attached as Exhibit A;

23 b. The text of the Initiative contains a misleading drafting error regarding

24 when the Initiative would take effect if approved by the voters, in

25 violation of ARIZ. CONST. art' IV, pt. 1, $ (5);

26

27
3
Av at https / I www .azleg. gov lalisPDFs/c ouncill 20 17'
a i Ia b Ie :

28
20 I 8-bill-draft ing-manual.Pdf

4
 1 c. The Initiative violates the Separate Amendment Rule by incorporating
2 multiple constitutional amendments into one initiative measure, in
J violation of ARIZ. CONST. aft. XXI, $ 1.

4 10. Because this Verifîed Complaint challenges the lawful registration of

5 circulators, petition signatures, and the sufficiency of an initiative petition, Plaintifß are

6 entitled to an immediate trial under A.R.S. $$ 19-1tS(D) and l9- 122(A), (C).

7 PARTIES

8 l l. Plaintifß Vince Leach and John Kavanagh are qualified electors and
9 taxpayers in the State of Arizona. Plaintiff Leach is an elected member of the Arizona

10 House of Representatives and member of the House Energy, Environment and Natural

1t Resources Committee. Plaintiff Kavanagh is an elected member of the Arizona State

o
a
l2 Senate. Plaintitß Leach and Kavanagh believe the "Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona"
þ
() AQ
t3 campaign has engaged in deceptive signature-gathering practices, including flooding the
É ;.J
@9
Ti
E ..9
FS3
T4 Arizona Secretary of State's Offïce with inactive ciroulator registrants in order to make it
oq 3S
,¿ Èr:c!
< ..; :Ë
¿
15 more difficult to ascertain the legality of individual circulators. Plaintiff Leach is the
q)
!-t
É
U)
OO
EÀ
L6 drafter and main proponent of several Arizonaelection statutes in Title 19, including strict
o
î in the Arizona initiative process and the regulation of paid
17 compliance appticabte
18 circulators, which was meant to prevent precisely the unprecedented level of fraud evident

t9 in this case. Plaintiffs Leach and Kavanagh bring this action in their personal capacities
20 only.

2T 12.Plaintiff Glenn Hamer is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of

22 Arizona. He is also the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Atizona Chamber of
23 Commerce and Industry. Plaintiff Hamer is concerned that the Initiative's title and
24 summary mislead Arizona voters and intentionally obscure the dire economic

25 consequences that will result if this proposal is enacted, including increased energy costs,

26 lost jobs and the forecasted closure of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Statíon. Plaintiff

2',1 Hamer is bringing this action in his personal capacity only.

28 13. Plaintiff Ashley Ragan is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of

-5-
 I Arizona. She is also the 'I'reasurer of the ballot committee Arizonans for Affordable
.|
L Electricity. Plaintiff Ragan believes the "Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona" ballot
I
J committee is improperly filed in order to mislead voters about the out-of-state source of
4 99 percent of its funding: NextGen Climate Action. Plaintiff Ragan files suit in her

5 personal capacity only.

6 14. Plaintiff Justine Robles is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of
7 Arizona. Plaintiff Robles lives within the Salt River Project ("SRP"¡ service area. She

8 believes the title and summary of the Initiative are deliberately misleading, as they
9 indicate the renewable energy provisions will apply to all 'oelectricity providers" in the
10 State of Arizona. SRP, the stateos second largest utility is exempt from the Initiative.
11 Plaintiff Robles believes many voters may support the Initiative falsely believing it will
e
a
I 12 apply broadly and equally across the state.
f,
t¡
a)
H
il
5"1
13 15, Plaintiff Jenn Daniels is a qualifred elector and taxpayer in the State of
o]l
!{ ãR3
v>óÕ
E,"9 t4 Arizona. She is also the Mayor of Gilbert, where she served on the Town Council since
j oç ÊR
,¿ >Y5rt l5 20A9. Mayor Daniels objects to the "Clean Energy" campaign's blatant and deliberate
s Ë.ìE
o
Ê
(n
cJt
t6 attempts to undermine Arizona's election process and mislead voters. Specifically, it has
.I
17 come to light that a significant number of submitted signatures were forged, fabricated, or
o
18 collected by ineligible petition circulators. Mayor Daniels is concerned about the
19 precedent it would set for future ballot initiative campaigns by allowing petition fraud on

20 this scale to go unchallenged. Plaintiff Daniels is suing in her personal capacity only.

2T 16. Plaintiff Jackie Meck is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of
aa
./- ¿- Arizona. He is the Mayor of Buckeye, where he has served the city in various elective

23 roles since 1968. As a lifelong public servant and elected offrcial of 50 years, Mayor
24 Meck is concerned with the ooClean Energy" campaign's violations of state larv.

25 Specifically, A.R.S. $ 19-l 14 prohibits convicted felons who have not had their rights

26 restored from circulating initiative petitions. Plaintiff Meck is concerned that multiple

27 individuals registered as petition circulators for the Committee were convicted felons,
28 ineligible to vote and therefore banned by law from performing these duties. Plaintiff

-6-
 I Meck is suing in his personal capacity only.
) 17. Plaintiff John Giles is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of
J Arizona. He is also a licensed attorney and the Mayor of the City of Mesa. Mayor Giles is
4 concerned with the language of the Initiative, which intentionally omits key information

5 in order to mislead voters about what they are signing and supporting. For example, the

6 official title and summary of the Initiative state that its purpose is to amend the Arizona
7 Constitution to 'orequire electricity providers to generate at least 5 0o/o oî their ànnual sales

I of electricity flom renewable energy sources." What it does not make clear is that SRP
9 (Arizona's second largest utility, and the power provider serving Mesa residents) is

10 exempted from the energy mandate. By intentionally omitting or masking signifrcant

l1 details, the Initiative deceives voters and undermines the democratic process. Plaintiff
a
o
I T2 Giles is suing in his personal capacity only.
';
¡{
a)
É
CQ
3..¡
13 18. Defendant Michele Reagan is the Arizona Secretary of State, a public

..9 l4 officer of this State, and is named as a defendant in this action solely in her offrcial
,4 lr Ðcñ

15 capacity. The Secretary of State is the public officcr responsible for placing initiatives on
y.t
q)
É
U) I' ()Þ
c
l6 the ballot and for the conduct of statewide elections, including elections on, and the
';
T7 canvassing of votes for, statewide ballot measures. ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, pt, 1, $ l(9)-
o
18 (1 l).
19 19. The Apache County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

20 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Apache County is responsible

2t for verifying signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots
22 that would contain the Initiative. The Apache County Supervisors are Dr. Joe Shirley, Jr',

23 Alton Joe Shepherd, and Travis Simshauser.

24 2A. Edison J. Wauneka is the duly elected Apache County Recorder and is

25 named as a defendant in this action solely in his official capacity'

26 21. The Cochise County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

27 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Cochise County is responsible

28 for verifing signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots

-7 -
 I that rvould contain the Initiative. The Cochise County Supervisors are Patrick Call, Ann

2 English, and Peggy Judd.

a
J 22. David W. Stevens is the duly elected Cochise County Recorder and is
4 named as a defendant in this action solely in his official capacity.

5 23. The Coconino County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as
6 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Coconino County is responsible

7 for verif,ing signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots
I that would contain the Initiative. The Coconino County Supervisors are Art BabbotL,Liz

9 Archulet4 Matt Ryan, Jim Parks, and Lena Fowler.

10 24. Patty Hansen is the duly elected Coconino County Recorder and is named as

ii a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

a
e
ê
.z
T2 25. The Gila County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as
ld i!!
c)
;
l3 deftndants in this action solely in their official capacities. Gila County is responsible for
É, ^,'
*
I'
ct+ q
>øo
o

¿N
T4 verifying signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots that
J9
,¿ 15 would contain the Initiative. The Gila County Supervisors aro Tommie Martin, Tim R.
(.)
É UC
U) l= Et 1,6 Humphrey, and Woody Cline.
'i
t7 26. Sadie Jo Bingharn is the duly elected Gila Counfy Recorder and is named as

l8 a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

t9 27. The Graham County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

20 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Graham County is responsible

2I for veriffing signatures from the Initiative Petition signature sheets and preparing ballots
22 that would contain the Initiative, The Graham County Supervisors are Paul David, Jim
23 Palrner, and Danny Smith.

24 28. V/endy John is the duly elected Graham County Recorder and is named as a

25 defenclant in this action solely in her official capacity.

26 29. The Greenlee County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

27 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Greenlee County is responsible

28 for veri$ing signatures from the Initiative Petition signature sheets and preparing ballots

-8-
 I that would contain the Initiative. The Greenlee County Supervisors are David Gomez,
2 Ron S. Campbell, and Richard Lunt.

3 30. Berta Manuz is the duly elected Greenlee County Recorder and is named as

4 a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

5 31. The La Paz County Board of Supervisors and its mernbers are named as

6 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. La Paz County is responsible

7 for verirying signatures from the Initiative Petition signature sheets and preparing ballots
I that would contain the Initiative. The LaPaz County Supervisors are D.L. Wilson, Duce

9 Minor, and Holly Irwin.

t0 32, Shelly Baker is the duly electe dLaPazCounty Recorder and is named as a

11 defenclant in this action solely in her official capacity.

o
g
.s
t2 33. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as
,
defendants in this action solely in their offrcial capacities. Maricopa County is responsible
Ël
nl !ñ
49
13

for veriffing signatures from the Initiative Petition signature sheets and prepæing ballots
Ë lËiig t4
ioE 93
^1
<,, I zïrs l5 that would contain the Initiative. The Maricopa County Supervisors are Steve Chucri, Bíll
ã l r!.i-
Ël
utt
3t 16 Gates, l)enny Barney, Clint Hickman, and Steve Gallardo.
Eu
È

ç
t7 34. Adrian Fontes is the duly elected Maricopa County Recorder and is named
ô
l8 as a d$fendant in this action solely in his official capacity.

19 35. The Mohave County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

2A defenclants in this action solely in their official capacities. Mohave County is responsible

2t for veriffing signatures from the Initiative Petition signature sheets and preparing ballots
)) that would contain the Initiative. The Mohave County Supervisors are Gary Watson,
23 Hildy Angius, Buster Johnson, Jean Bishop, and Lois V/akimoto.
24 i¡6. Kristi Blair is the duly elected Mohave County Recorder and is named as a
25 defen<lant in this action solely in her official capaoity.
26 37. The Navajo County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

27 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Navajo County is responsible

28 for veriffing signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and.preparing ballots

-9-
 1 that would contain the Initiative. The Navajo County Supervisors are Lee Jack, Sr., Jesse

2 Thompson, Jason E. Whiting, Steve Williams, and Dawnafe Whitesinger.

J 38. Doris Clark is the duly elected Navajo County Recorder and is named as a
4 def'endant in this action solely. in her official capacity.
5 39. The Pima County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as
6 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Pima County is responsible for

7 veriffing signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots that

8 would contain the Initiative. The Pima County Superuisors are Ally Miller, Ramón
9 Yaladez, Sharon Bronson, Steve Christy, and Richard Elías.

10 40. F. Ann Rodriguez is the duly elected Pima County Recorder and is named as

l1 a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

c
ç
I
,z
12 41. The Pinal County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

t{
C) Ée
:ôr
13 defenclants in this action solely in their official capacities. Pinal County is responsible fbr
E
É ,9
ó1
<áo
E', l4 verifying signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots that
,¿ i ra "9
art
Oo 99
Ëviq! 15 would contain the Initiative. The Pinal County Supervisors are Pete Rios, Mike Goodman,
< úìts
(u
d OO
16 Steve Miller, Anthony Smith, and Todd House.
U) o
.!

o
t7 , 42. Virginia Ross is the duly elected Pinal County Recorder and is named as a

18 defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

19 43. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervi$ors and its members are named as

20 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. Santa Cruz County is

2l responsible for verifying signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and

22 preparing ballots that would contain the Initiative. The Santa Cruz County Supervisors are

23 Manuel Ruiz, Rudy Molera, and Bruce Bracker.

24 44. Suzanne Sainz is the duly elected Santa Cruz County Recorder and is named

25 as a defendant in this action solely in her official capacify.

26
. 45. The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

27 defenclants in this action solely in their offrcial capacities. Yavapai County is responsible

28 for veriffing signatures from the Initiative petition signature sheets and preparing ballots

-10-
 I that would contain the Initiative. The Yavapai County Supervisors are Rowle P. Simmons,

2 Thomas Thurman, Randy Garrison, Craig L. Brown, and Jack R' Srnith.

3 46. Leslie M. Hoffman is the duly elected Yavapai County Recorder and is

4 named as a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

5 47. The Yuma County Board of Supervisors and its members are named as

6 defendants in this action solely in their official capacities. The Yuma County Supervisors

1 are Martin Porchas, Russell McCloud, Darren Simmons, Marco A. Reyes, and'Lynne
I Pancrazi.

9 48. Robyn Stallworth Pouquette is the duly elected Yuma County Recorder and
10 is named as a defendant in this action solely in her official capacity.

11 49. Upon information and beliet the Real Party in Interest, the Commiftee, is an
a

i T2 inappropriately registered political committee ostensibly operating under the laws of the
bl i¿
É,1 !l¡ 13 State of Arizona. The Committee purports to be the primary promoter and sponsor of the
# lsr?å. Initiative, although all administrative control, and the vast majority of financial and in-
> l giis
r ìoøcFi
T4
J ioegP
4) t >íi; l5 kind donations have been provided by, upon information and beliefl an unregistered
I <;ì3
-
-<l-y.t
EI ãE t6
CJ) I EË
political committee called NextGen Climate Action ("NextGen"), which is an entity
-;:
17 organized under the laws of the State of Çalifornia.
o
18 50. Upon information and beliet the actual sponsor of the Initiative, NextGen,
t9 were responsible for drafting and proposing the substantive language in the Initiative
20 Petition that was filed with the Secretary of State and circulated by petition to the public.

2t JURISDICTION. VENgE, AND STANDING

22 51. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, $ 14 of the Arizona
23 Constitution and A.R.S. $$ 12-123, 12-1801 et seq., 12-1831 et seq,, l9-ll8(D), and l9-
24 122(D).

25 52. Venue is proper in Maricopa County pursuant to A.R.S. $$ 12-401 and 19-

26 r22(D).
27 53. Pursuant to A.R.S. S l9-I22(C), "[a]ny person may contest the validity of an

28 initiative . . . [and] may seek to enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from

- 1l -
 I certifuing or printing the official ballot for the election that will include the proposed
2 initiative or referendum and to enjoin the certifrcation or printing of the ballot."
J Furthermore, pursuant to A.R.S. $ 19-ll8(D), any person may challenge the lawful
4 registration of circulators.

5 54. An actual and justiciable controversy exists with respect to the legal

6 sufficiency of the Initiative Petition. Without Court intervention, the Defendants stand to
7 violate under color of state law the rights of Plaintiffs under the Arizona Constitution and
I Arizona law, for which Plaintifß and the Arizona electorate will suffer immediate and
I irreparable idury, including fraud, and loss of rights. A judgment of this Court will
l0 redress this controversy.

11 GpNERAIT .{ITLEqATI ONS,

3
9
't
t2 L Overview of Ballot Initiative Process
hl
Ét
2¿
!iì l3 55. The ballot initiative process begins when a political committee submits a
i l.^É3
S I F¡ãR8
t4 statement of organization with the Secretary of State's offrce. A.R.S. $$ 16-906, 19-
tr¡+^^o€
¿Ëii^q
ø î;q:Ë 15 111(A), 19-114.
lf,!.i*
=Hl.Í!
u)t Ëu 16 56. Among other things, the statement of organization must state thç proposed
!
I7 name'of the political committee, which must include the sponsor's name or commonly
o
18 known nickname. A.R.S. $ 16-906(BX1Xb).

19 57. pursuant to A.R.S. $ 19-119,02, the Secretary of State has published the

20 Initíatíve and Referendum Guide (2018), which states (at page 3): "If the PAC is

2l sponsored by another organization, the PAC's name must include the sponsor's name or
)') commonly known nickname. For example, if
the PAC is established and funded by the
osierra Club' must
23 National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club, the terms 'NRA' or
24 appear in the PAC's title." See Ex. D.

25
' 5g. A o'sponsor means any person that establishes, administers or contributes
26 financial support to the administration of a political action committee or that has common
27 or overlapping membership or officers with that political action committee." A.R.S. $ 16-
28 e0r(47).

-t2-
 I 59, When a person or organization intends to propose a law or constitutional

2 amendment, before circulating an initiative petition, the person or organization must file
a
J with the Secretary of State an approved application form that includes, among other items,
4 the correct name of the organization proposing the initiative and the text of the initiative'

5 Upon the frling of an initiative application, the Secretary of State will provide a serial
6 number to identiô/ the initiative. A.R.S. $ 19-111(A).

7 60. The committee should not submit its initiative application without a valid
I statement of organizatíon. See A.R.S. $ 19-111(A).

9 6I. Proponents then gather signatures on petition signature sheets, which must

l0 strictly comply with signature sheet requirements, ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, pt. l, $ 1(9);
11 A.R.S $$ 19-10l(A)-(D), l9-102.01(A), and le-121(A).
a
I
4
t2 62. The petition signature sheets are gathered by petition circulators, Petition
l'l r i" l3 circulators who are not residents of Anzona or who are paid must register with the
xt !í
F I t'i'
.À
Secretary of State before circulating petitions. A.R.S. $ l9-l1S(A). Non-Arizona resident
I ti EÒÕ
L I i dño

ràÈ -14d
.1. Ëì:c L4 ÉÕr
ioe gg
<¡
^1
I ¿Íts 15 petition circulators must also be eligible to register to vote in Arizona if they were a
=ó!ËlIl:þ.ú-
Éc
öË resident of the state. A.R.S. $ l9-112(D).
u)t gÀ t6
I
.i
17 63. Convicted felons who have not had their civil rights restored are not eligible

18 to vote (see A.R.S. $ 16-101(AX5) and are therefore not eligible to register as petition
t9 circulators. A.R.S. $ 19-112(D).

20 64. As .a part of their registration application, circulators certi$ that they

2t o'submit to the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona regarding any cass or controversy

22 arising out of my activities while circulating petitions."

23 65. 'olf a registered circulator is properly served with a subpoena to provide

24 evidence in an action regarding circulation of petitions and fails to appear or produce
25 documents as provided for in the subpoena, all signatures collected by that circulator are

26 deemed invalid." A.R.S. $ 19- 1 l8(C).

27 66. Completed petition signature sheets are filed with the Secretary of State at

28 least fbur months before the next general election. ARIZ. CONST. art. [V, pt. l, $ l(a). In

-1"3-
 I this election cycle, completed petition signature sheets were required to be filed by July 5,

2 2018.

J 67. Next, the petition signature sheets are rsviewed by the Secretary of State,

4 who removes any that do not comply with signature sheet requirements. A.R.S' $ 19-

5 121.01(A). The Secretary of State then counts the signatures on all remaining petition
6 signature sheets that are eligible for verification. A.R.S. $ 19-121.01(AX6).

7 68. Under the constitutional initiative power, "fifteen per centúm [of the

I qualified electors] shall have the right to propose any amendment to the constitution."
9 ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, pt. 1, $ 1(2). Thus, to be included on the statewide ballot, an
10 initiative proposing a constitutional amendment must be supported by valid signatures of
1l 15 percent of the qualified electors. ,Id. The total numbet of qualifred electors is

9 t2 detegnined based on the total number of votes cast for all gubernatorial candidates in the
.!-

previous general election. See ARIZ. CONST. art.IV, pt. 1' $ 1'
Et i¡ 13

> l#;?s 14 69. In this election cycle, 225,963 signatures from qualified electors were
JioqgP
<l I z;-ts 15 required for a constitutional initiative to be placed on the ballot. ,See Seoretary of State,
=3ll:!.r' Recall
Øl
3E
gË T6 'olnitiative, Referendum And Signature Requirements," available at
!
c
I7 https / I
: azs os. gov/elections/initiative-referendum-and'recal I'
o
t8 70. If the total number of signatures eligible for verification exceeds the

19 constitutional minimum required to place the mçasure on the ballot, the Secretary of State
2A randornly selects five percent of the total signatures for verification by the county
2T recorders of each county. A.R.S. $ 19-121.01(B).

22 71. The county recorders evaluate these signatures to determine if any should be

23 invalidated. A.R.S. $ I 9-12 1.02(A).

24 72. The Secretary of State uses the certifications from the county recorders to

25 confrrm the total final number of valid signatures. A.R.S. $ 19-121.04(A)' If the final

26 number of valid signatures exceeds the minimum number of required signatures, the

27 Secretary of State must "notiû the governor that a sufficient number of signatures has

28 been filed and that the initiative or referendum shall be placed on the ballot in the manner

-14-
 I provided by law." A.R.S. $ 19-121.04(B).

2 ¡¡. The Committee Was Required To Strlctly Complv With Arizona Law.
5 i3. Pursuant to A.R.S. $ 19-102.01(A), "Constitutional and statutory
4 requirements for statewide initiative measures must be strictly construed alld persons
5 using the initiative process must strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory
6 requirements."

7 74. Prior to the passage of this statutory requirement, the Arizona Supreme
I Court had historically permitted mere substantial compliance. See, e.8.,14/. Devcor, Inc' v'

9 City of Scottsdale, I 68 A¡iz. 426, 428 ( 199 1). But this standard was not required by the

10 Constitution. Rather, the rules for carrying out the initiative process are left largely to the
1l Legislature. See, e.g., Adams v. Bolin,74 Ati2.269,283 (1952).
o
a
I
't
L2 75. The Legislature adopted the strict compliance standard to further and protect
L. . ø-.
o.)l iö
Êll,^.t
iÊj
13 the strong public policy of allowing the public to have fair and orderly access to the
.5
5 I ñ38 t4
.ú{
ballots.
F tËiig
ø i3€fl l5
lf i.;õ
76. By preventing abuses of the initiative process, the strict compliance standard
=ilåg 16 safeggards the people's constitutional right to legitimately engage in the initiative process.
U)I EÈ
I
ç
t7 See Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz.3, 6 (ï972).
o
18 IU. Thg Cgmmittee'S Faiture to Strictly or Substantially Ç-gmply Wlth the Ballot
t9 Initiative Req uírements

2A A. The Committee was not Pronerlv Reeistered as a Pglllip3l Çommitteç in

Arizongwhe4 it Sgbmitted thç. lnitiative Application
2T

22 77. Before the Initiative Petition application could be accepted by the Secretary

23 of State, the Committee was required to be properly formed and registered as a political
24 committee in Arizona by submitting a true and correct statement of organization with the

25 Secretary of State. A.R.S. $$ 16-906, l9-111(A), 19-114.

26 78. On February g, 2018, the Committee was fbrmed. In its statement of

27 organization, the Committee stated that its sponsoring organization was Clean Energy for

28 a Healthy Arizona, LLC ("CEHA LLC"). See Ex.B.

-15-
 I 79. However, upon information and belief, CEHA LLC was not a properly

2 organized entity within the.State of Arizona on February 9, 2018. ,See CEHA LLC

J Articles of Organization, attached as Exhibit F. Likewise, CEHA LLC was not a properly
4 organized entity when the Comrnittee fÏled the Initiative Petition application with the

5 Secretary of State on February 20,2018. See íd.

6 80. CEHA LLC submitted its articles of organization to the Corporation

7 Commission on or about February 27,2018, and those articles were only approved by the

8 Corporation Commission on March 22,2018. See íd.

9 81. Moreover, the Committee's internet domain name was purchased on

l0 January Ig, 2018, before either entity was formed and within days of the other two

tl domains for the other NextGen-backe d organizations. The domain registrant is not listed
a
a
9
t2 as CEHA, LLC or the Committee (as one would expect if the Committee was
t
br
tr I
"J¿
!r' t3 appropriately transparent), rather, they have concealed the actual registrant, which is listed
tslóç
.- I :i cóo
> l giis t4 as private and done by Domains by Proxy,LLC.
¡ ì oO cõ¡
Jfoe93
<r I ¿ils l5
:!.f' 82. . The Committee's campaign finance reports do not reflect any payment for
gl
= I .5!
the internet domain registration. In fact, there is no evidencE that CEHA, LLC has
u)t EË t6
,;I
t7 provided any monetary or in-kind political contributions to the Committee since February
o
18 9,2018.
T9 83. Upon information and beliet since its inception the vast majority of
20 financial and in-kind political contributions to the Committee (as well as all administrative
2l directions, decisions, and approval of vendors), and the fïnancial support to organize

22 Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, LLC, has been provided by NextGen Climate

23 Action.
24 84. The Committee failed to identify its correct sponsor, NextGen Climate
25 Action, when it submitted its statement of organization. The Committee also failed to
26 include in its proposed name of the political committee the correct name of its sponsor,
27 NextGen Climate Action, as required by A.R.S. $ 16-901(47) and 16-906(BXlXb),

28 Similarly, the initiative application form submitted by the Committee did not accurately

-16-
 I identify the correct sponsor of the Initiative, NextGen Climate Action.
2 g5. Upon information and belief, NextGen Climate Action effectively has

3 complete control over the Committee. For example, NextGen Climate Action provides the

4 Committee's financing, and is ultimately responsible for the payment of all of the

5 Committee's salaries and expenses. ,See generally Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins,

6 Co., 170 Ariz. 34, 38 (199 1).

7 86. In reality, CEHA LLC was nothing more than a shell organization that

I contributed nothing to the Committee and therefore was not a proper sponsor.

9 87. Because the Committee did not properly register with the Secretary of State

10 with an accurate statement of organization, but instead referenced a then non-existent

n sponsoring entity that was not the actual sponsor of the Initiative, the Committee should
a
I L2 not have applied for and the Secretary of Stats should not have accepted the Committee's
-;
¡il ¿3 13 Petition Initiative app lication
ál
Hló+
gFj

1n "3- t4
= I - nñó
ur I Ëiig
88. The strict compliance standard for initiative measures, as set forth in A.R.S.
"¿los9ts
c(J I ÈVIr¡
l5ìE 15 $ to the requirement that a political organization proposing a
19-102.01(A), extends
I
=3l ój
U)I Eq
16 constitutional amendment be properly formed and registered in the State of Arizona.
Because the Committee failed to strictly comply with the political committee formation
É
t7
18 requirements, and also failed to strictly comply with the initiative application requirement

t9 by including inaccurate information on its application concerning its sponsor, the Petition
20 Initiative should be rejected in its entirety and not allowed to be placed on the statewide
2t ballot in the November 2018 election. Indeed, because the Committee was not properly
22 formed or registered, it was never properly authorized to collect signatures in support of

23 the Initiative Petition. Therefore all of the purported signatures are void and should be
24 disqualihed as a matter of law. ,See A'R.S, $ 19-114.

25 B. The Committee Improperlv Conditioned Circulato{ Employment on a

26 Sienature Ouota. in Violation of Arizona Law

27 89. As stated above, the Initiative Petition must contain no fewer than 225,963
28 valid signatures of qualified electors to refer the Initiative to the ballot.

-17-
 I g0. A.R.S. $ lg-11S.01(A) states "a person shall not pay or receive rnoney or
a statewide
) any other thing of value based on the number of signatures collected on
3 initiative or referendum petition'"
4 gl. Upon inforrnation and belief, for this Initiative Petition, the Cornmittee
or their employment
5 required all circulators to obtain a set number of signatures per shift,
was terminated. This requirement applied to all I,652 registered circulators for the
6

7 Committee

I 92. Employment is a "thing of value" within the meaning of A.R.S. $ 19'

9 118.01.

93, Because the circulators for the Initiative Petition received a thing
of value
10
violated
1l (continued employment) based on the number of signatures they collected, this

1,2 A.R.S. $ l9-118.01(A).

l-r
c.) t3 94. Accordingly, all of the signatures collected by circulators in purported

ÊÉ il coo
t4 support of the Initiative Petition are invalid and should be disqualified
as a matter of law'
d-. ¿9
,¿ os l9
z:¿ã 15 C. The Init¡ative Petition Lacks a Sufficient Number-of Valid Sisnatures
(u " g.!
ç¿ for Referral tolhe,Ballot.
É o9 t6
U) o

t7 95. On July 5, 2018, despite being an improperly registered poiitical committee

ç
o
based on the amount of
18 and despite its improper giving of a thing to value to circulators

t9 signatures collected, the Committee filed the Initiative Petition

with the Secretary of State,

which purportedly containe d 48A,464 signatures on 50,065 petition signature

sheets.
20
On information and belief, the Secretary of State has not yet completed
her
2l 96.
those deemed
22 review under A.R.S. $ 19-121.01 of the submitted signatures to determine
23 eligible for random sampling and verification by the County Recorders'
24 g:., To determine signature validity, two separate experts, with experience,
review, reviewed
z5 knowledge, and training with regard to petition signature collection and

26 every petition sheet filed by the Committee

27 98. The experts' professionally trained teams engaged in three levels of

Secretary of State
28 signature and petition sheet review that complied with Arizona law,

-18-
 I guidance, and the methods used by the Secretary of State and county recorders.

2 gg. These reviews revealed that at least 374,046 of the Committee's signatures

J are invalid as a matter of law.

4 100. Because of the many defects in the Initiative Petition signature sheets,

5 including with the signatures themselves, the Committee has failed to obtain the requisite
6 ZZS,963 valid signatures from qualified electors to qualifu the Initiative for placement on

7 the November 2018. And because the Initiative did not receive at least 225,963 valid
I signatures, the Secretary of State cannot certiff that the Initiative should be placed on the

I November 2018 ballot. See A.R.S. $ 19-121'04(B).

l0 101. Based on a review of the Initiative Petition signature sheets and supported

l1 by affidavits of experts in the Arizona Secretary of State and Arizona counties petition
a
o
I l2 revierv process, and as detailed in the spreadsheet aftached as Exhibit C, at most, only
¿
Si r -.".
9l !fi 13 106,441of the signatures submitted by the Committee should be deemed valid.
trt å+
Ë I :¿?.3o
giiË t4 l0Z. There arc 27 specific defects ("Objections") with the petition signature
.>.lì &O cñr
Jioç33
qo
I àv-ls 15 sheets, as set forth below.
ãq lfIlÍ,
þ.r'
c I ()9 oBJECjTIONS
u) t IÉt. 16
.;
t7 Obiectio¡L1: Non-Resident and PaÍd Circulators Failed to Properly Register
u
18
with the secretary of state Before circulating Petitions.

t9 103. As stated above, Arizona law requires non-resident circulators and paid

20 circulators to register with the Secretary of State before circulating an initiative petition.
2t A.R.S. $ l9-118(A).
22 104. Upon submission of a circulator registration form, the Secretary of State

23 adds each paid and non-resident circulator to a spreadsheet or database ofpaid and non-

24 resident circulators.

25 105. Attached at Exhibit G is a list of the circulators who submitted a circulator

26 registration form to the Secretary of State to work as a circulator on behalf of the

27 Committee, and that are listed on the databases maintained by the Secretary of State as a

28 non-resident circulator, paid circulator, or both.

- 19-
 106. Upon information and beliel the Committee had at least 1,178 circulators
I
petitions.
2 who were not properly registered with the Secretary of State while circulating
a
J 107. Between February 21,2018, and July 5,2018, the Committee's contractor,

4 Fietd Works, LLC, registered 1,652 circulators.,seø Exhibit G, attached'

5 l0g. On July 5, 2018, the Committee sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of
See Letter
6 State purporting to revoke the registrations of nearly every registered circulator.

7 from J. Barton to E. Spencer, dated July 5, 2A18, attached as Exhibit FI.

8 109.The Committee's attempted deregistration has no impact on the duties of the

o'submit to the jurisdiction of the State of
9 circulator to comply with Arizona law and
Ãrizona regarding any case or controversy arising out of my activities while
circulating
r0

11 petitions."
a
I t2 ll0. Moreover, A.R.S. $ 19-11S(A) requires registered circulators to comply
i
with instructions published by the Secretary of State. According to page 3 (Section 2.3) of
tf, r tn,
9l
F I
!&
ã';
13
ñln"8,o
È I 1160
the Seoretary of Stateos Petítion Circulation Training Guíde,a a valid registration requires
tr tËìiF T4
ø i;ir; 15
t1^^Oæ

circulators to provide (among other things) a residential address, telephone number,

and
:!.¡'
=EtrlII o.Ê
tt
email address at the time of registration.
u)t zù t6
Upon information and belief, the circulators identified in Exhibit I failed to
.3

É
t7 II 1.
18 properly register because they failed to include a valid residential address on their

L9 circulator registration form

20 ll1. Upon information and belief, the circulators identified in Exhibit J failed to

2l properly register because they failed include on their registration form a valid address for

22 service of process in the State of Arizona

23 113. Upon information and belief, the circulators identified in Exhibit K failed to

24 properly register because they failed to include a valid email address on their circulator
25 registration form.

26

27 a
Avaílable at
ittpts:llazsos.gov/sites ldefaultlfiles/Petitiono/o20CirculatorYo20Traíning%o20Guide%20Ma
28 y%2001%202018.Pdf

-20 -
 1 Il4. Upon information and beliet the circulators identified in Exhibit L failed to

2 properly register because they did not properly individually certif, and sign the circulator
a
J registration form.

4 1 15. Upon information and belief, the circulators identified in Exhibit M failed to

5 properly register because their circulator registration form contained false statements

6 regarding their receipt and understanding of the Secretary of State's training materials.

7 116. Upon information and beliet the following circulators identified in Exhibit
I N failed to properly register because they failed to include a valid phone number on their

9 circulator registration form.

t0 ll7. Upon information and beliet at least 1,178 of the Committee's paid or out-
l1 of-state circulators identified in Exhibit G failed to properly register with the Secretary of
o
9 l2 State prior to circulating petitions.
'3

bl
r' t
ia
vfl 13 118. All of the signatures on the petition sheets circulated by the individuals
cil ;+
Ë l fll"8o
> l,giig t4 referenced in Exhibits I through N, are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of
r ì rÐ dN
,¡ ioe9*
</ I ¿i-ïs 15 law for failing to strictly comply with Arizona circulator registration requirements. ,fee
l:i-'o
TI
-l
(nt
8E
Eõ
16 A.R.S. $$ 19-l I 8(A), re-12r.01(AXlxh).
.¡
T7 gbiectiqn 2: Circulators Were Not Qualified to Register to Vote in Arizona.
o
18 119. To properly register as a circulator, a person must be qualified to register to

T9 vote in Arizona, if he or she were a resident of the State. A.R.S. $ 19-112(D); see Qlso,

20 A.R.S. g l9-lla(A); Arizona Secretary of State, Petítíon Circulatìon - Training Guide,

2L }l4:ay 2018, at2.

22 I20. To be qualified to register to vote in Arizona, an Arizona resident must,

23 among other things, not have been convicted of treason or a felony, unless his or her civil

24 rights have been restored. ,See A.R.S. $ 16-101(A).

25 IZI. Upon information and belief and as identified in Exhibit O, the Comrnittee

26 had 85 circulators who were not qualified to register to vote in the State because they had

27 prior felony convictions and have not had their civil rights restored register with the

2B Secretary of State and circulate petition signature sheets.

-2t -
 1 l2Z. This issue was reported to the Secretary of State multiple times during the

2 signature collection process. Upon information and belief, the Secretary of State

a
J nonetheless failed to disqualit/ the signatures collected by these ineligible circulators

4 pursuant to A.R.S. $ 19- 121.01(AX1Xh).

5 lZ3. Upon information and belief the Committee was well aware of this issue

6 and chose to nonetheless submit petition signature sheets that it knew contained invalid

7 signatures.

8 124. All of the signatures on these sheets circulated by the individuals identified

9 in Exhibit O are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law. ^See

A'R.S. $$ 19-

l0 11 8(A), t9-t21.01(AXlxh).
l1 Obiection 3: Inaccurate or Absent Disclosures Regarding the Circulator's
a¿

s
Paid or Volunteer Status.
,z
t2
õl ¿¿ i3 lZ5. Before circulating a petition sheet for signatures, every "circulator of an
Él grj
# II n?å- initiative petition shall state whether he is a paid circulator or volunteer by checking the
N>.:q t4
L 1É6O
Þt l.Troéõl
r
-¡ioqPR
c(J I >Yll 15 appropriate line on the petition formo' indicating whether he is a paid or volunteer
õt lf
-r
dI
úlË
E¿
õë circulator. A.R.S. $ l9-102(D).
CDI EË
T6
c
T7
126. For this Initiative, 918 signatures were gathered on petition signature sheets
o
18 thar díd not comply with A.R.S. $ 19-102(D) because the circulator failed to correctly

19 indicate their paid or volunteer status. These signatures are identified in Exhibit C.
127. o'signatures obtained on initiative petitions in violation of [A.R.S. $ 19-
20

2l 102(D)l are void and shall not be counted in determining the legal sufficiency of the

22 petition.', A.R.S. $ 19-102(E). Accordingly, all signatures on petition signature sheets that
fail to comply with A.R.S. $ l9-102(D) are invalid and should be disqualifred as a mattçr
23

24 of la\Ã'.

25 obiection 4: Incomplete or Modified circulator AffÏdavits.

26 128. Under the Arizona Constitution, all circulators are obligated to execute an

27 afhdavit on each petition sheet attesting to the validity of any collected signatures. ,See

28 ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, Pt. 1, $ 1(9).

-22-
 I 129. This requirement is also codified in A.R.S. $ 19-1 l2(C), which states that a
2 circulator "shall subscribe and swear before a notary public that each of the names on the
J sheet was signed and the name and address were printed by the elector and the circulator

4 on the date indicated." A.R.S. $ 19-l lz(C).

5 130. As part of the affidavit, the circulator must print his or her name, state the

6 Arizona county in which he or she is or would be qualified to register to vote, list his or

7 her residential address, and sign the affïdavit before a notary public. Søø A.R.S. $ 19-

8 112(D).

9 131. The affidavit must use the specifrc language set forth in A.R.S. $ l9-tl2(D)
10 and must be printed on the reverse side of each signature sheet. Under A.R.S. $ 19'112(F),

ll o'the
form of the affidavit shall not be modified."
ã t2 132, For this Initiative Petition, 27l8l0 total signatures were collected on petition
't
õl ¿Ë 13 signature sheets that did not include all the statutorily-required information flor the
t¡ | å..'
Ë I n?;' t4 affidavit, or on which the affidavit had been inappropriately modified. SeeEx. Ç.
ts iË;i5
./foegg
<J I z;ts 15
g.!''
133. Any petition "that oontains a partially completed affidavit . . . is invalid."
I f,
=
El|
ct)
33
E4
16 A.R.S. g 19-112(F). Similarly, any petition "that contains. . . an affidavit that has been
.;
t7 modified is invalid." A.R.S. $ l9-112G). The Secretary of State is thus required to
o
18 disqualiff any petition signature sheets containing a ciròulatorjs affidavit that has not been

L9 tully completed or signed or that has been modified. A.R.S. $19-121.01(AX1Xd).

20 134. Accordingly, all signatures on the petition signature sheets that include an

2l incomplete or modified affidavit should be invalidated as a matter of law.

22 Obiection 5: False Circulator AffidavÍts

23 135. By signing the requisite affidavit, a circulator attests that the individual who

24 signed the affidavit as the circulator is the same individual who circulated the petition

25 sheet and is the same individual who wrote the circulator's name and address in the

26 affidavit. A.R.s. $ i9-112(C).

27 136. All signatures on petition signatures sheet that contain a false affidavit are

28 void as a matter of law. Sete Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, I38 Ariz. 453, 455-56 (19Sa);

-23 -
 1 Parker v. City of Tucson,233 Ari2.422,438 (App. 2013)'
2 137. For this Petition, upon information and belief, at least 26,657 signatures

J were collected on petition signature sheets have circulator affidavits that contain false
4 information. For example, and as detailed in Exhibit C to this Verified Complaint, among
5' other deficiencies, for 3,650 signatures, of the circulator affidavit or the notarization is
6 dated earlier than the dates on which the electors signed the face of the petition sheet,

7 rendering the accompanying circulator affidavit regarding the electors false. See Ex. C at

I Objection 25.

9 138. All signatures on these petition signature sheets with knowingly false

10 affidavits are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law. ,See A.R.S. $$ 19-

11 1 12(F); r9-I2r.0l(AXlXd), (e).

o
I T2 Oliectioq 6: Absent or Deficient Notarizations
'ã

br
Él
2¿
gq 13 139. The affidavits completed by each circulator on each petition signature sheet
.É I ;f 4ôo
> must be notaúzedby a notary public. A.R.S. $ 19-112(C).
71b.,i2Y l4
I QSêE
¡ d^^ o@

ø iËëïË 15 140. For this Initiative Petition, a total of 74,227 signatures were colleoted on
=Ëll:!.{'
8E
u)t ã" 16 petition signature sheets that do not include a proper notarization. Specifically, and as
.Ë

t7 detailed in Exhibit C to this Verified Complaint:

o
18 a, several sheets were not notarized before a notary public.
19 b. Several of the petition signature sheets do not list the county in which the
20 affiant was s\ryorn and deposed, as required by A.R.s. $ 19-112(D).

2l c. Several of the petition signature sheets fail to include the notary signature

22 or notary seal, as required by A.R.S. $ 19-112(D)'

23 d. Several of the petition signature sheets fail to include the date the
24 affidavit was completed and notarized, as required by A'R.S. $ 19-
25 112(D).

26 l4l. Moreover, A.R.S. $ 41-321(8) prohibits a notary public from possessing

27 more than one notary seal.

28

-24-
 I 142. Upon information and belief and as identifìed in Exhibit P, the following

2 purported notaries notarized petition sheets with two different notary seals, indicating they

possess more than one seal, and/or did not actually sign as notaries because they
allowed

4 another individual to sign for them and utilize their notary seal:

5 a. Eduardo Salido

6 b. Jonathan Radke
7 c. Tanika Sherman
8 d. Andra Clarke
9 e. Michelle Tanner
10 f. TamaKott
ll 143. Because any petition 'othat contains a partially completed affrdavit . . . is
o
ç
9
t2 invalid,,, A.R.s, $ 19-112(F), and an affidavit is not complete without a proper

notaúzation, the Secretary of State is required to disqualify any petition signature sheets
Fi
0) co 13
r1 5$
oð
ñ cco
t4 that fail to include the requisite notarization or that contain a legally deficient notarization'
lu
:*
Jv s9P
,á 1i3 15 A.R,S. $$ le-112(D); 19-121.Ql(AXlXd)' (e).
y.4
q)
É
U)
(Jo
l= â t6 144. Therefore, all signatures on petition signature sheets with absent or defrcient
-!
t7 notarizations should be invalidated as a matter of law'
o
18 Obiection 7: Inconsistent Circulator Signatures'
19 l4S. As part of the notaÅzation process, a notary public is required to verifu the
20 identity of the signer, ensure the signer executes the document in the notary's presence'
and maintain a log documenting the evidence of the signer's identity provided to
the
2l
(5).
22 norary. ^see A.R.S. $$ 41-311(1), (5), (11),41-313(BX1),4l-319(AX4),

23 1.46. For this Initiative Petition, 20,935 total signatures, which were allegedly
24 collected by the same individual, contain notably different signatures on the

accompanying circulator affrdavits. The sheets that include this def'ect are identified
in
25

26 Exhibit C.
27 147. Given the clear discrepancies in the signature appearances, upon
28 infomration and beliee the circulator affidavits on one or mòre of these petition signature

-25 -
 I sheets was signed by an individual other than the circulator of the sheet'

2 l4g. If a circulator affidavit was signed by an individual other than the circulator,

the notaries public who notar ized the affidavits either knew the person executing
the
5

4 affidavit was not the alleged circulator or failed to appropriately veriff the signer's
5 identity, as required bY law.
6 I4g. All signatures on petition signature sheets that were circulated and/or

notarized by individuals who either participated in or had knowledge of the execution

of
7

circulator affidavits by an individual other than the petition circulator are invalid
and
I
shoulcl be disqualified as a mattw of law. See Brousseau, 138 Atí2. at 455'56
(petition
9

10 signature sheets that contain a false affidavit are legally void).

11 Obiections_8 4!rd 9: Petition Signature Sheets Lacked the Requisite Serial

I T2
Number orõoi"ined an Incorrect, Incomplete, or Misplaced Serial Number
'ã
t.,
k'
9l ãR l3 150. When an organization files an initiative petition with the Secretary of State,
lr I ;ê.¡
.d I Zl ÉÒo
official serial number is assigned to the petition. See A.R.S. $ 19-111(B)'
> lË;?3 t4
, +^-o@
an

ø i;i€! 15 151. Each petition signature sheet for.an initiative must list the official serial
=8llf .i!
!.r'
number assigned to the petition in the lower right-hand corner of each side of the
sheet.
u)t t6
E"
Ë
t7 A.R.S. $ 19-121(AX2). This serial number must match the "official" assigned serial
o
18 number.

T9 lSZ. Any signatures on a petition signature sheet "not bearing the correct petition
A.R.S.
20 serial number in the lower right-hand corner of each side" must be disqualifred. $

zl re-12r.01(A)( I )(c).
22 153. For this Initiative Petition, as shown in Exhibit C,857 total signatures were
collected on petition signature sheets that did not list the correct serial number,
C-04-
23

24 2018, in the lower right-hand corner of each side of the sheet.

25 154. All signatures collected on petition signature sheets that contain an absent,
disqualifred
incorrect, incomplete, or misplaced serial number are invalid and should be
as
26

27 amatter of law.,See A.R.S. $ 19-121.01(AXlXc)'

28

-26 -
 I Obiection 10: Signature Sheets Contain More than 15 Signatures Per Page
2 155. When evaluating filed petition signature sheets, "[n]ot more than fifteen
a
J signatures on one sheet shall be counted" A.R.S. $ l9-121(C). See a/so A.R.S. $ 19-
4 121.01(AX3Xd).

5 156. For this Initiative Petition, several petition signature sheets included more

6 than 15 signatures. These sheets are identified in Exhibit c.

7 lS7. In all, the Committee submitted2,456 signatures that exceed the allowable

I limit per petition signature sheet or signature line.

9 158. All signatures that exceed the l5-signature limit per page are invalid and

10 should be disqualified as a matter of law. see A.R.s. $ 19-121,01(AX3Xd).

11 Obieçtigr 11.: Signatures Collected before the Initiative Had a Serial Number
o
o
g
T2 159. Before an initiative petition can be validly signed by a qualified elector, the
.Ë

br
t{ I 5".'
2¿ i3 petition must be assigned a serial number by the Secretary of State. ^See
A.R.S. $ 19-
r-l I @t
.¡ I Ít côo
> l gii€
r le@Eôl
t4 tt ttu'ruo.
co f
oa93
,J
I aiïe 15 A.R.s. $ r9-102(B) expressly requires that "[e]ach petition sheet shall have
oll r!.{'
=trlo3lE printed on the top of the sheet the following: 'It is unlawful to sign this petition before it
u)t Ëè l6
.E

ç
17 has a serial number."
o
18 161. For this Initiative Petition, the Secretary of State issued serial number C'04-

r9 2018 to thc Committee on February 20,2018. However, L,024 signatures on the petition

2A signature sheets are dated beþre February 20,2018. SeeÊx' C'

2T 162, Because these signatures were collected before the Initiative Petition was

22 issued a serial number, the signatures are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter
of

23 law. See A.R.S. $$ 19- 102(B), I9'12t.01(A)(3)(c)'

24 ob¡ l 2:S igners Not Registered to Vote in Arizona.

25 163. A petition sheet may only be signed by a registered voter who is a qualified

26 elector, as def,rned by law. See Ex. D at 15 see a/so A.R'S. $$ 19-112(A), 19'

27 121.02(AXs).

28

-27 -
 1 164. For this Initiative Petition, lg5,33g of the signatures on the petition
2 signature sheets are from individuals who are not registered to vote in Arizona. These

J signatures are identified in Exhibit C.

4 165. Because these individuals that are not registered to vote in Ãrizona were not

5 lawfully allowed to sign the Initiative Petition, their signatures are invalid and should be

6 disqualified as a matter of law.

7 Ojiection 13: Signers Not Registered to Vote in the County SpecifÏed on the
8 Petition Signature Sheet.

I 166. Under A.R.S. $ 19-112(C), "[a]ll signatures of petitions on a signature sheet

l0 shall be those of qualified electors who are registered to vote in the same county."

l1 l6j. If signatures from electors from multiple counties appear on a single sheet,
a
I t2 the Secretary of State shall determine which county has the most signatures on the sheet,
.!
lr ,
i".
and only the valid signatures on the sheet from that.county shall be counted. A'R.S. $$
l9-
9l !s
Þl ;i
l3
.- I Il ¿ôó

>, lËi?i t4 tzt(c), I 9- 1 2 1.0 I (AX2Xb).

+^^ ôó
ø i;îÌ; 15 168. For this Initiative Petition, 7,760 signatures were collected from electors
=qÉ lfII oo^
!.r'
Í5
u)t ËÊ
t6 from multiple counties on a single signature sheet, as indicated by the addresses on the
I
17 signature lines. These sheets are identifred in Exhibit'C'
o
18 169. For these petition sheets, only the signatures from the county with the rnost

T9 signatures on the sheet. The remainder of the signatures on these sheets, which
20 collectively amount to 7,760 signatures, are invalid as a matter of law and should be
2l disqualifred. See A.R.S. $ 19-121(C).

22 Obiection 14: Duplicate Signatures

23 170. Individuals may only sign an initiative petition once, and any duplicate
24 signatures must be invalidated.,see A.R.S. $ 19-121'02(AX8)'

25 lT L For this Initiative Petition, 12,591 individuals signed petition signature

26 sheets more than once. See Ex. C.

27 l7Z. Only one signature per elector should be counted, and duplicate signatures
28 are invalid and should be disqualified as amatter of law. Se¿ A.R.S' $ t9-121.02(AX8).

-28 -
 1 ob on 15 : Missing,Iltegible, or Incomplete Signer Name

2 173. Every signer of an initiative petition "shall print his frrst and last names'o on
the designated line when signing a petition. A.R'S. $ l9-112(A).
a
3

4 174. For this Initiative Petition, 7,042 signature lines on the petition signature

5 sheets do not contain the fulI and accurate printed form of the elector's name, or the name
6 provided is illegible. ,See Ex. C.

7 l7S. The signatures lines that fail to comply with A.R,S. $ l9-l l2(A) are invalid

8 and should be disqualifîed as a matter of law. ^see

A.R.s. $ 19-112(A).

I Obiection 16: Missing or Incomplete Elector Signature

10 176. Every signer of an initiative petition must "sign his frrst and last names in

t1 the space provided . . ." A'R.S. $ 19-112(A).

o
I
't
l2 177 . The Secret ary of State must disqualify any signature line when the signature

=t I 13 of the qualified elector is missing. ,See A.R.S. $ 19-121.01(AX3Xa).

tr icl
,E I oiå- signature lines on the petition signature
> l gi?e
r
T4 178. For this Initiative Petition, 13,050
,., j oq gP
: Ed ¿ò¡

<J I àY.lg 15 sheets do not contain the elector's full signature. See Ex. C.
=Ëll:!.i'
uDt
3E
2r t6 l7g. These signatures lines that fail to comply with A.R.S. $ 19-l I2(A) are
:
I7 invalid as a matter of law and should be disqualified. See A.R.S' $$ 19'112(A), 19-
o
18 121.01(AX3Xa),

l9 Obiection 17: Signatures Do Not Match the Elector's Voter Registration

20 Record

2I 180. After petition signature sheets are certified by the Secretary of State, a
'Ihe county recorders are required to
22 sample is sent to the county recorders for validation.

23 compare signatures and handwriting on the petition signature sheet to the signature and

24 handrvriting in the petition signer's voter registration file. See A'R.S. $ 19-121.02(AX9).

25 If the two signatures do not match, the signature is invalid. Id.

26 l S1 . Multiple signature lines in this Initiative Petition are cor4pleted in the same

27 handwriting, indicating they were not completed by the signer.

28 lB2. Upon information and belief; these individuals' signatures purportedly

-29 -
 I appearing on the petition signature sheets do not match those in the voter registration
) record for the qualified elector who allegedly signed the petition: These signatures are

identified in Exhibit C.
4 lB3. These signature lines that do not match the voter registration record are

5 invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law. See A'R.S. $ 19-121.01(AX9)'

6 Objection 18: Pervasive Fraud
7 184. Every signer of an initiative petition must personally "sign his first and last

8 names in the space provided . . ." A.R.S. $ l9'l l2(A); see also A.R.S. $ 19-ll5(B) ("4

9 person who knowingly signs any name other than his own to a petition . . . is guilty of a

10 class I misdemeanor.")
1l 185. For this Initiative Petition, 3,436 signature lines contain hanclwriting that is
o
a
.a
t2 identical or nearly identical to other purported elector signatures on the same or other
petition signature sheets. These signatures are identified in Exhibit C. Upon information
l.¡
() éo 13
tr 4!
\-
= t4 and belief, these signatures lines were fraudulently signed by someone other than the
ír' , .9
,¿ oq 93 15 qualified elector who allegedly signed the petition signature sheet.
<,j:õ
''f;ll
!.5
o " ()oAc
â
(t) gÀ t6 186. All signatures signed by an individual other than the qualified elector listed
o
.s
17 on the signature line are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law. ,See A.R.S.
o
l8 $ $ le-112(A); 1e-115(B)'
t9 Obiection 19: Signature Lines Completed by Someone Other than fhe
Purported Signer
20

2t 187. A qualified elector signing a petition must personally write all the required

22 information on the petition signature sheet, including his or her first and last names,

23 residence address, signature, and date of signature. See A.R.S. $ 19'l l2(A).

24 l8B. The Secretary of State must disqualiS any signatures for which she

o.determines that the petition circulator has printed the elector's first and last names or
25

26 other information," in violation of Arizona law. A.R.S. $ l9-121.01(AX3XÐ.

27 189. For this Initiative Petition, 129,909 signature lines were, upon information

28 and belief at least partially completed by an individual other than the elector who

-30-
 1 purportedly signed the petition, based on the handwriting on the signature lines. These

2 signature lines are identified in Exhibit C. Upon information and belief, in multiple

)
a
instances, a petition circulator completed information on signature lines, such as the

4 printed name, address, or signature date that was required to be completed by the elector.

5 190. All signature lines that were not completely fîlled out by the qualified
6 elector are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law,,S¿e A.R.S' $$ l9-1 ï2(^),

7 te-tzr.Ol(AX3XÐ.
I Obiections ?O_and 21: Missing, Illegible, or fncomplete, or Invalid Residential
9 Addresses'

10 191. When signing a petition, the qualified elector must list his or her "residence

11 address, giving street name and number. . ." A'R.S. $ 19-112(A).

o
s
3
,ã
12 lg2. The address information provided by an elector on a petition signature sheet
9l 13 is usecl by the county recorder, after receiving the frled petition signature sheets from the
trl ;ï!ff
ã I n.8o
> lËtig t4 Secretary of State, to verify the individual's identity and confirm the individual is a
tfoç9S
<¡ I zY-ïs 15 qualified elector in the county of residence. See A.R.S. $ 19-121.02(A). If the address
:!.r'
=glI ¿1 is invalid. ,See A.R.S. $
U)I PÀ
16 provided is nonexistent or incomplete, the signature 19-
I
.;
T7 rzt.02(A)(4).
o
18 lg3, The Secretary of State is required to disqualit any signature line where "the

t9 residence address or the description of residence location is missing." A.R.S. $ 19-

20 f Zi.Of (nX3Xb).Similarly, if the residential address provided is nonexistent, the signature

2l is deemed invalid. See A,R.S. $ 19-121.02(AX4).

22 lg4. For this Initiative Petition, 44,177 signature lines on the petition signature
23 sheets do not contain the elector's full and accurate residence address. See Ex. C.

24 195. These signature lines that do not contain a complete and valid residential

25 address are invalid and should be disqualifred as a matter of law. ,See A.R.S. $$ 19-
26 1 12(A), 19 -121.0 I (AX3Xb).

27

28

-31-
 1 Obiections 22jrnd 23: Missing, lllegible, Incomplete or Out-of-Sequence
Signature Dates
z

5 196. When a qualified elector signs an initiative petition, he or she must write the

4 complete date on which the elector signed the petition. See ARIZ. CONST. art' IV, pt. lr $

5 i(9); A.R.S. $ 19-l 1,2(A),

6 lg7 . The Secretary of State is required to disqualiÛ any signature line where "the

7 date on which rhe petitioner signed is missing," A.R.s. $ 19-121.01(AX3X0).

8 l9B. For this Initiative Petition, 27,437 signature lines on the petition signature

9 sheets do not contain the elector's full and accurate date of signing the petition.

l0 Specifically, and as detailed in Exhibit C to this Verified Complaint:

ll a. In 9,073 signature lines, the 'odate" field does not contain a discernible
cc
I t2 date, or the date is illegible, or a full date is not provided. See Ex. C at
.t
l¡ r t-.,
9l !F l3 Objection 22.
ts I J'l
ñ1n"8- b. 18,364 signatures are dated out of sequence (e.g., the signature line is
> l giig l4
- I @@ cd

¿ i3Ëii 15 dated earlier than preceding signature lines on the same sheet, or later
=E lsiìõ
I EÉ
trlI 02 l6 than signatures on following lines on the same sheet). Because it is
CJ) EA
3
17 unlikely the electors signed in non-sequential order, these dates do not
É
o
18 accurately reflect the actual date the petition was signed and, thus, are

19 invalid. See Ex. C at Objection 23.

Ig9. These signatures lines that lack a complete, valid signature date are invalid
20

2l and should be disqualif,red as a matter of law. See ARIZ. CONST. art. IV, pt' 1, $ 1(9);

22 A.R.S. $$ 19-I tz(A), r9-t2t.a\Ax3xc).

23 Obiection 24: Signatures Dated Later than the Filing of the Petition Signature
Sheets.
24

25 200. Once an initiative petition is filed and the petition signature sheets are
2:6 submitted to the Secretary of State, no additionat petition signature sheets rnay be

27 accepted fbr filing.,See A.R.S. $ 19-121(B).

28
 1 201. The Committee filed the completed Initiative Petition and petition signature
2 sheets with the Secretary of State on July 5, 2018. However, 569 signatures on the
are identihed
3 Initiative petition list a date of execution after July 5, 2018. These signatures
4 on Exhibit C.

5 ZOa. Because no petition signature sheets could be filed after the completed
matter of
6 petition was filed with the Secretary of State, these signatures are invalid as a
law and should'be disqualified. see Azuz. coNST. art. IV, pt. 1, $ l(9); A,R.S.$$
19'
7

8 l l2(A), 19-l2l(B).
9 Obiectign 25: Signatures Dated after the Execution and Notarization of the
10
Petition Signature Sheet.

11 20i.. The Secrstary of State must disqualiff any petition signature sheets on
o
I T2 which
..tle signatures of the circulator or notary are dated earlier than the dates on which
å
(AX3Xc)'
¡]t ;Ë l3 rhe electors signed the face of the petition sheet." A.R.S' $$ 19-121.0l(AXlXÐ,
Éll gfj
-! II ;í^og
.r
L
5> M>øQ
éÔo
--dñô t4 ZA4. For this Initiative Petition, 3,650 signatures on the petition signature sheets
Z , .ie tui oó Ei
ø i;ii!
^^
15 are dated alter the date on which the circulator affidavit was exçcuted and
notarized.
l r!.É'
=a¿ I ÉÉ
Êl o:
CJ) I EO
l6 These signatures are identifred on Exhibit C'
.!
t7 . Z0S. These signatures lines that are dated after the affidavit are invalid and

(AX3Xo)'
18 should be disqualified as a matter of law. See A.R.S. $$ 19-121.OI(AXIXÐ,

t9 Obiection 26: County Not Designated on Petition Signature Sheet

20 206. The Secretary of State makes available sample initiative petition sheets that
2I srrictly comply with applicable law. s¿e A.R.S. $ 19-102.01(B).
t) 207. The provided sample, which carries the force of law, includes a box on the
23 front of the petition signature sheet to designate the Arizona county in which signatures
24 were collected. See Ex. D.

25 Z0g. This information is necessary to allow the secretary of state to determine

petition was
26 whether a particular signature was collected in the county in which the
27 circulated.

28

-55-
 I Z0g. For this Initiative Petition, 752 signatures were c,ollected on petition

2 signature sheets that faited to designate the counfy in which they were circulated'

3 Zl0. These petition sheets fail to strictly cornply with statutory requirements and
4 therefore are invalid as a matter of law. ,See A.R.S. $ 19- 102'01 '

5 obiection 27: Missing or Incorrect Circulator ID Numbers

6 Zll. Upon registration of petition circulators, the Secretary of State assigns a
7 random circulator ID number to the circulator.

I 2lZ. The circulator ID number must be used for all petitions being circulated by

9 that particular individual.

10 2I3, According to the Secretary of State's Initiatíve and Referendum Guíde,"faf

11 registcred circulator must place the circulator ID number on the front and back of each
a
a
I r2 petitionsheet..,"
.i

Er?r 13 ZL .
For this Initiative Petìtion, a total of 10,691 signatures were collected on
-= l.-óå
sb¿ lil
r.¿
ãs3
I 9>@9 t4 , de.
petition signature sheets that did not include the registered circulators' circulator ID
- Tdu cèr
^'L

JioegS
<J r ài:È 15 number.
:i If,Þ*'
U)I
El,5j
Pq
r6 ZlS. Such sheets do not strictly comply with the requirements for initiative
å
T7 petitions. The signatures on those sheets are therefore invalid as a matter of law'

18 IV. The Substance of the Initiative Petition is Dgfective as a Matter of Law

t9 ffiàte. Mistèadine. and otherwise Unconstitutional.

z0 216. In addition to the defects described above, the substance of the Initiative

2t petition is legally deficient. The strict compliance standard for initiative measures, as set

22 forrh in A.R.S. $ 19-102.01(A), applies equally to the constitutional and statutory

23 requirements for the substance of an initiative. Because this Initiative does not strictly

24 comply with those requirements, it cannot be placed on the statewide ballot for the

25 November20lg election. The specific substantive defects with the Initiative are set forth
26 below.

27 A. T'he Initiative's Title is Misleadine and Otherwise Defective

28 Zl'1. As stated above, theTitle and TextRule in Article A,Part 1, $ l(9) of the

-34-
 1 Arizona Constitution requires that the full and complete title of an initiative measure be
) attached ro each and every petition signature sheet. See also A.R.S. $ 19-121(AX3)

3 (.,Signature sheets filed shall . . . Be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text

4 of the lneasure, or amendment to the constitution, proposed or referred by the petition.")'

5 21g. The title of a legislative bill *may not be deceptive or misleading" and
,.must state the subject of the legislation with sufficient clarity to enable persons reading
6

7 the title to know what to expect in the body of the act." See Arizona Bill Drafting Manual
I Z0l7-Z0Ig atp. g.This standard equally applies to the title of an initiative measure' which
9 similarly attempts to modiff legislative or constitutional acts. There is also a strong policy
10 interest in ensuring the electorate is not misled by the titles of such measures'

11 Zlg. For this Initiative, the official title is as follows: 'oA Constitutional
8
9 t2 Amendment Amending Article XV of the Constitution of Arizona to Require Electricíty
.;
províclers to Generate at Least ofTheir Annual Sales of Eiectricity from Renewable
if; l3
50%o
HI
s li{f;Ê8 l4 Energy Sources." SeeEx. A (emphasis added)'
trtËì;g
:oqgn
"1
<,) t zY¿s 15 220, The Initiative's title is misleading to the point of fraud, and creates a

= l:!.r'
Ëlt
ct)
,5i T6 significant danger of electorate confilsion and unfaimess, because it is likely to mislead
Ëu
.!

Ë
t7 voters to believe that all "electricity providers" - and not just the subset of non-municipal

18 energy corporations that can be legislated through the Initiative - will be required to
r9 comply with the Initiative if approved by voters. ,See Ex. A.

20 221. Although the term o'electricity provider" is not defined under Arizona law, a
2t reasonable voter is likely to believe the Initiative's requirements apply to all electric

22 utilities in the state. In reality, the Initiative applies only to "affected utilities," which is
23 defined in the Initiative to cover only "a public servics corporation serving retail electric

24 load in Arizana.',Initiative $ A(l). Importantly, the Arizona Constitution clarifies that a

25
..public service corporation" includes only non-municipal corporations providing utility

26 services. AzuZ. CONST. art. XV, $ 2. Thus, the Initiative only applies to a subset of
27
,'electricity providers," which is entirely inconsistent with the lnitiative's title.

28 ZZZ. For example, the Initiative has no impact on Salt River Project ("SRP"),

-35 -
 is Arizona's
I which is a quasi-rnunicipal corporafion, not a public service corporation. SRP
second largest electricity producer. Yet, nothing in the Initiative or its summary
) indicates

3 to petition signers that SRP is exempted'

4 223. The Initiative's title obscures the true scope of the Initiative from voters,
rnisleading them into believing the Initiative will affect all electricity
providers in the
5

6 of clarity in the title, a voter may have signed the Initiative Petition,
State. Due to the lack

or may vote in favor of this Initiative, believing his or her electricity provider will
be
7

I required to increase the use of renewal energy'

9 224. The Initiative title is also misleading because it obscures the reality of the

10 changes hidden within the Initiative's operative provisions and the indirect impact on
l1 other laws, and the requirement for non-municipal utility corporations to implement
9 12 distributed energy generation mechanisms.
'tc
l-i , does not preclude multi-subject
9lI
?^,
!R
5ê.1
13 Z2S. Although the Title and Text Rule generally
'r
initiatives, Cottonwood Dev. v, Foothílls Area Coalitíon of Tucson, Inc.,l34
tr I ;( côó Atíz' 46,49
L
D
2+E¡ci t4
I -é60
I 9>óo

,J ioegR to the
q) t >Y'iú 15 (19g2), the Initiative here alters several existing laws and constitutional provisions,
=ol lf fî,8,Ë
extent that Initiative's deceptive title is misleading to the point of fraud and
creates a
U'II EÀ t6
Ê 02
g
the purity
17 significant risk of electorate confusion. 'oThe courts must be alert to preserving
o
18 of elections and its doors must not be closed to hearing charges of deception and fraud
that in any way impede the exercise of a free elective franchise ,' Grffin v'
Buzard,86
1,9

20 Ariz. 166,173 (1959)

2l 226. In addition, the Secretary of State's Initiative and Referendum Guide sets

22 forth the following requirements to be included in an initiative petition title:

23 a. the phrase *AN INITIATIVE MEASURE" foT an initiative;
24 b. a listing of all the changes to specific sections of the Atizona
25 Constitution (for a Constitutional Amendment) followed by the

26 phrase "RELATING TO" and a single, brief statement about the

27 subject of the measure; and

o'Be
28 c. an enacting clause: it enacted by the People af Atizona."

-36-
 1 See Secretary of State, "Initiative and Referendum Gttide," May 2018, at7-9 see also

2 A.R.S. $ 19-t 19.A2.

ô
J ZZ7. For this Initiative, the title also fails to cornply with the Secretary of State's

4 explicit requirements for a constitutional amendment title in at least two ways:

5 a. First, the Initiative title includes the phrase "A CONSTITUTIONAL

6 AMENDMENT" instead of the requisite ooAN INITIATIVE

7 MEASURE.''
8 b. Second, the Initiative title lacks the phrase "RELATING TOo" followed

9 by a brief statement about the subject of the measure'

10 ZZB. Because the Initiative fails to strictly cornply with the Title and Text Rule
on the
il and the ..Initiative and Referendum Guide," the Initiative is may not appear
e
g
12 November, 20 I 8, ballot.
't
lr ,
9l 2",
!n 13 B. The Initiative's Text Creates a Significant Danger of Confusion
ñ I¡ n.?,- its text
tr,i^^oø
idño
l4 ZZg. The Initíative also violates the Title and Text Rule because is
tËì;s
misleading to the point of fraud, and creates a signifïcant danger of electorate
t JvYÉ.ô
co confusion
t ¿iï: 15
l:tro
-1qI íÉ,
trlo:
u)t Ëè
t6 and unfairness.
.3

t7 Z3O. The Initiative states: "The Secretary of State shall submit this Constitutional
Amendment to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI,
Section
18

19 l, Constitution of Arizona." tnitiative $ 4. This statement incorrectly states at which

20 election the amendment will be voted upon.

2l 231. The plain tanguage of the text indicates that, should Arizona voters approve

the Initiative in November 2018, the measure would again be placed on the ballot
in
22

November 202A $he date of "the next general election.") Initiative $ 4. However,
the
23

24 Initiative further notes that

*[i]f approved by the voters, the Constitutional amendment
shall take effect as of January l, zalg." Initiative $ 5(A). Therefore, it is unclear
and
25

misleading as to the voters' actions in November,2Al8: will they be voting

to arnend the
26
be placed on a future
27 state constitution, or voting whether the proposed amendment should

28 general election ballot?

-37 -
 I 232. Such internally inconsistent language creates significant danger that
2 individuals signed the Initiative Petition under a false impression with regard to what they
J were really supporting.

4 233. The Initiative's repeated use of the term "clean energy" is also highly

5 misleading because the Initiative specifically excludes nuclear power from the forms of
6 energy the Initiative promotes, even though nuclear power is one of the most common

7 forms of clean energy. "Today, nuclear energy generates roughly 20 percent of America's

8 electricity while emitting zero greenhouse gases, making it by far the largest source of
9 clean energy in the country." U.S. Dep't of Energy, "Nuclear Energy: Clean, Constant,
10 and Cool," June 28,z\n,5 Moreover, the Arizona Legislature has specifrcally found that

1l "the Palo Verde Generating Station [which provides nuclear energy] is the nation's largest
I
.;
t2 source of clean energy.o' 2018 Atizona Senate Concurrent Mernorial No. 1003, Arizona
00)l
Él
Êo
Ëì
13 Fifty-Third Legislature - Second Regular Session (201S) (emphasis added). Thus, clean
.Å I íl eóo

> IHi?q t4 energy is nearly synonymous with nuclear power.

' ¡rqcFr
J:oaRR
4) t >Y'5* 234. The misleading language of the Initiative's text "cieates a significant danger
*r lSí)ts l5
Tl jj 16 of confbsion or unfairness," and therefore is inappropúate. Save Our Vote v, Bennett,2?l
UDI gq
I
1,7 Ariz. 145, 152 (20t3). By confusing voters, the Initiative fails to strictly comply with
o
18 applicable constitutional and statutory requirements and, thus, should not be allowed on

t9 the ballot. ,See A.R.S. $ 19-102.01(A); Bee v. Day,2I8 Atiz.505, 506 (200S).

20 C. The Initiative's 100-Word Summary is Highly Misleading

21 235.A.R.S. $ 19-102(A) requires that initiative petition signature sheets contain

o'of no more than one hundred words of the
22 a description of the proposed initiative
23 principal provisions of the proposed measure."
24 236. For this Petition, for purposes of the 100-word summary requirement, the

25 Comrnittee included the following summary of the Initiative on the application it filed

26 with the Secretary of State:

27

28 s
Available at hftps:l/wvtw.energy.gov/articles/nuclear-energy-clean-constant-and-cool

-38-
 I

2 The Clean Energy fbr a Healthy Arizona Amendment requires affected

electric utilities to provide at least 50Yo of their annual retail sales of
3 electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The Amendment
4 defines ienewable energy sources to include solar, wind, small-scale
hydropower, and other sources that are replaced rapidly by a natural,
5 ongoiñg process (excluding nuclear or fossil fuel). Distributed renewable
like rooftop solar, must comprise at least 10% of utilities'
6 "nðrgyìóurces,
unnuut retail sales of electricity by 2030. The Amendment allows electric
7 utilities to earn and trade credits to meet these requirements. lExhibit A]

9 237. This surnmary is misleading to the point of fraud, and creates a signifïcant

l0 danger of electorate confusion and unfairness, because it fails to address or mention many

11 of the Initiative's substantive provisions, including the utility providers exempt from.the
9 t2 amenclment, the sources of funding for the measure, the effects on consumer costs of
,'
blia
çl ;ìr 13 electricity, and the direct or indirect impacts on other existing Arizona laws. The summary
:.:" I ¡i ã*8 also perpetuates the inaccurate message that nuclear power is not a form of clean energy.
tr lË;ig t4
-¡ ioç9R
to t zYis l5 Simply, the summary ís misleading when compared to what the Initiative actually intends
=8llf 3E
!.É'
(nt Ed
16 to accomplish.
!
Ê
t7 Z3B, Under A.R.S. $ 19-121(AX1), when initiative petition signature sheets
o
18 contain an improper description of a proposed initiative, all signatures on the
19 accompanying signature sheets are invalid. For this Initiative Petition, all of the petition

20 signature sheets contained the same misleading summary, and, therefore, all signatures on

21 those petitions are invalid and should be disqualified as a matter of law.

22 D. The Initiafive Violates the Separate Amendment Rule

/.5 z3¡g. Article 21, $1 of the Arizona Constitution requires that "[i]f more than one
24 proposed amendment shall be submitted at any election, such proposed amendments shall

25 be submitted ín such manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed
26 amendments separatelY."

27 240. The Initiative violates this separate amendment rule because it contains

28 separate and unrelated provisions.

-39 -
 oorenewable"
I 241. The Initiative creates two separate regulatory schemes: one for

2 energy sources, and another for "distributed renewable" energy sources. Initiative $$ D' E.
a
J Z4Z. The primary aim of the Initiative is to require non-municipal utility
4 corporations to gradually increase the portion of retail energy sales generated by

5
.'renewable energy sources," through the corporations' annual purchase of "renewable

6 energy credits." lnitiative $$ D(1), (2).

7 243. However, the Initiative also creates a separate "distributed renewable

I energy" scheme, requiring rion.ffiuriicipal utilify corporations to gradually increase their

9 use of distributed renewable energy in retail energy sales through the purchase of separate

10
,'distributed renewable energy credits.'o Inítiative $$ E(1), (2). These distributed renewable

1l energy sources ate, atbest, a subset ofthe renewable energy sources, as they are required
I 12 to be an energy generation source at the electricity customer's location. Initiative $$ A(5),
.;
ql
áË 13 (6). Tfuese two provisions should be addressed in separate ballot measures that voters can
Htåi
ñIn"3o
L I -óñO
t4 separately consider, rather than 'olog-rolling" these requirements into one initiative and
tr tË;i:
¿ iSçfi t5 forcing voters to opt for all or neither. Kerby v. Luhrs,44 Ariz. ?08,214 (1934). :

siìË
I
=8l 3E t6 244. Because the Initiative attempts to combine votes for the measure based on
(t) | Êe
: in violation of the separate amendment rule, the Initiative violates
t7 disparate provisions,
o
18 the Arizona Constitution and should not be placed on the November 2018 ballot.

t9 couryr o¡lp
20 (Declaratory Relief - Pursuant to A.R.S. $ 12-1831)
2I 245. Plaintifß incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 244 as

22 if fully set forth herein.

23 246. Pursuant to Arizona's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (A.R.S' $ 12-

24 IB3l et seq.),Plaintiffs are entitled to and request a judicial determination and declaratory
25 judgment that the Initiative Petition does not comply with the constitutional and statutory

26 requirements for placement on the ballot.

27 247. Plaintifß have an interest in the proper construction and strict application of

28 Arizona statutes and constitutional provisions requiring strict compliance with: (1) the

-40-
 I proper registration of a political cornmittee applying to circulate an initiative; (2) the

2 proper regulation of paid and out-of-state circulators; (3) the statutory prohibition on
J paying circulators per signature; (4) the disqualification of invalid initiative petition

4 signature sheets'and invalid signatures on those sheets; and (5) the constitutional and

5 statutory provisions relating to the substance of a constitutional amendment initiative.

6 248. There is an actual and justiciable controversy, and such judgment or decree

7 will terrninate the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to this proceeding as required

8 by A.R.S. $ 12-1s36.

9 249. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief providing that

10 the Initiative is legally insufficient and that the measure may not be oertifîed for
11 placement on the statewide election ballot for the November 2018 general election.
ê
I t2 coIJ-NT TïVO
'!
f{, Ø--,
9l 13 (Injunctive Relief - Pursuant to A.R.S. $$ 12-1S01 and 19'122)
Ël E3
,r I :-1 "3T
¿-,Ò
> ! giis 14 250. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 249 as
. ïe@aFr
JfoaS*
Q I ¿v.¿¿ 15 if tully set forth herein.
)!i'
= I 3E
Ël
u)t Êõ
ló 251. As stated above, "[a]ny person may contest the validity of an initiative...
I
'¿

t7 [and] rnay seek to enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from certiffing or printing
o
l8 the official ballot for the election that will include the proposed initiative or referendum

t9 and to enjoin the certification or printing of the ballot." A.R.S. $ 19-122(C).

20 252. Because the Initiative Petition does not strictly comply with applicable

2T constitutional and statutory provisions, the Secretary of State's and Counties' certification

22 of the Petition will irreparably injure the Plaintifß and the Arizona electorate if placed on
23 the November 2018 ballot.

24 253. The balance of equities and considerations of public policy strongly support

25 the issuance of injunctive relief.

26 254. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief enjoining the

27 Secretary of State from certifling and placing the Initiative on the ballot for the November

28 2018 general election in the State of Arizona

-4r-
 I COUNT THREE

2 (Mandamus Relief - Pursuant to A.R.S. $ 12-2021)

J 255. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 254 as

4 if fully set forth herein.

5 256. The Secretary of State and the Counties have a non-discretionary legal duty

6 to reject petition signature sheets and signatures included in the Initiative Petition to the
7 extent they were submitted by an unauthorized political committee that failed to properly

I register or that fail to strictly comply with one or more applicable constitutional or

9 statutory provisions, as detailed above.

10 ZS7. The failure of the Secretary of State and the Counties to reject Initiative

o
ll petition signatures submitted by an unauthorized and inappropriately registered political
o
I T2 committee or to otherwise remove all submitted Initiative petition signature sheets
't
õr?s
tr I iôl
l3 suffering from the defects alleged in this Verified Complaint would result in the Secretary
Ë I qiå' t4 of State and the Counties proceeding without or in excess of their legal authority, and
>J ljËìi3
f oeRf
4) I >-z ¿z l5 would result in a determination by the Sectary of State which is arbitrary and capricious,
=Ëll:!.É'
3E
U) I EE:
T6 or an ¿rbuse of discretion.
I

z
t7 258. Plaintifß lack a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law to compel the

18 Secretary of State to perform the non-discretionary legal duties imposed upon her by

t9 statute.

20 ZSg. Accordingly, Plaintifß seek mandamus relief requiring the Secretary of

2l State to disqualify all petition signature sheets and signatures that do not strictly comply

22 with governing laws, which include those submitted by an unauthorized or unlawfully

23 qualified political committee and to reject the Initiative Petition as legally insufficient.

24 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

26 A. Declare that the Initiative Petition fails to strictly comply with applicable

27 statutory and constitutional requirements for initiatives and should not be referred to the

28 ballot for the November 2018' general election in the State of Atizona for each of the

-42-
 I following independent reasons :

2 l. The Committee was not properly registerqd with the Secretary of

J State as a political committee prior to submitting its Initiative Petition

4 application, as required by A.R.S. $$ l6-906, l9-102.01,19'111(A)'

5 t9-11,4.

6 Z. The Committee submitted an Initiative Petition application that

7 misstated the correct and required name of the Committee, which
8 needed to include the actual sponsor's name, NextGen Climate

9 Action, pursuant to A.R.S. $$ 16-906, lg'102.01,19-l l l(A), and 19-

10 Lt4.
11 3. The Initiative Petition was circulated by individuals who were not
e
9 12 properly registered to circulate petitions ín the State of Arizona;
Ê

õl
Êl
;ã
gì 13 4, The Committee improperly conditioned circulator employment on a

per-shift signature quota requirement, in violation of A.R.S. $

,é II ií eôo
-dñ¿ t4 19-
> L.ÉliF',
Q,JioePA
I ¿r'ã¿ 15 11S.01(A), thus rendering all of the petition signature sheets invalid.
500) lf,!*'
I Fc
dI
UDI
õË
EË
16 5. The Initiative Petition contains fewer than the 225,963 valid

ì t7 signatures required to refer the Initiative to the ballot.

18 5. The Initiative Petition violates the Title and Text rule in Article 4,
I9 Part 1, () 1(9) of the ArizonaConstitution and A.R.S. $ 19'121(AX3).

2A 6. The Initiative violates the separate amendment rule in Article 21, $ I

2l of the Arizona Constitution;

22 B. Enter an injunction prohibiting Defendant Secretary of State from certiffing

23 and placing the Initiative on the ballot for the November 2018 general election in the State

24 of Arizona;
25 C. Enter other injunctive relief that is necessary and appropriate to ensure

26 compliance with the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions;

27 D. Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State and the

28 Counties to fully and effectively discharge their non-discretionary legal duties to reject all

-43-
 I petition signature sheets and signatures in the Initiative Petition that were submitted by an

2 irnproperly registered political committee or that do not otherwise strictly comply with all
J applicable Arizona Constitution provisions and Arizona Revised Statutes;

4 E. Errter an order awarding Plaintifß' attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses

5 incurred in this action under:

6 l. the private attorney general doctrine as established in Arnold v. Arí2.

7 Dep't of Health Servs., 160 Ariz. 593 (1989), because the rights
I sought to be vindicated here benefit alarge number of people, require

9 private enforcement, and are of societal importance;

10 2. A.R.S. $$ 12-348, 19-118(D); and

11 3. any other applicable law or common law authorizing the award of

o
9 t2 attorneyos fees and nontaxable expenses to Plaintifß;
z
õt ¿Ë 13 F. Enter an order awarding Plaintiffs their taxable costs; and
t-l 5Ì
5rÈ l.^€3
>
r
I ;i coo
l gii€ T4
T cø cè¡
G, Award such other relief as the Court deems necessary, equitable, proper, and
Jioe93
Q I ¿v¿¿ l5 just.
lr!.f'
=O I EÍ.
É I (J9
U) I Eî" I6 DATED this lSth day of July,2018.
I
t7 Respectfully submitted,
o
18 SNELL & \MILMER r.¡-.p.

19

20 By:
Brett
2T Jennifer Hadley Catero
Colin P. Ahler
22 Matthew Goldstein
Andrew Sniegowski
23 Lindsay Short
One Arizona Center
24 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 00 4 -2202
25 Attorneys þr P laíntiJfs
26

27

28

-44-
 I VERIFICATION
2
STA'|E OF AzuZONA )
3 ) ss.
COUNTY OF MAzuCOPA )
4
1. I, Vince Leach, am a qualified elector residing in Arizona.
5
2. I have read the forgoing Verifîed Complaint tbr Special Action, and Injunctive,
6 it is true
Declaratory, and Mandamus Relief, know the contents thereof, and state. that
7
based on my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon
8
information and belief, and that as to those matterso I believe thern to be true.
9
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
l0
of rny knowledge.
11
.a DATED this day of July,2018
ç
t2
1 C'
',}
9lI
t- i?,
';'.'
t3
.d I it .--e
*
'
!,8',,-"3
:3s tar
T4
Vince Leach
'4 tl >i j::
r . "'a t5
-¿t-y4
f-i I ¿i l6
g1 I E¿
.t
ã
17

l8
T9

20

2l
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-46-