JudicialPedia Logo
    • Explore
      • Cash Courts vs. Constitutional Courts
      • The Constitution
    • Resources
    • Browse Cases
    • Support
      • Donate
      • Partner
      • Thank You
    • Contact Us
    Add Case
    Sign in or Register
    Add Case

    Arizona Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs / COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    • Date
      June 10, 2020
    • City/County
      Phonex
    • Type of Case
      Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity
    • Case Details
    • New Page 0
    • prev
    • next
    • Get directions
    • Leave a review
    • Bookmark
    • Share
    • Report
    • prev
    • next
    Title

    Arizona Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs / COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Date
    June 10, 2020
    State or Country
    Arizona
    County/City:
    Phonex
    The Court the Case was filed in

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

    Type of Case
    Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity
    Case Number

    2:20-cv-01143-DLR (D. Ariz.) 20-16759; 20-16766 (9th Cir.)

    Judges

    U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes

    Plaintiff

    The Arizona Democratic Party
    The Democratic National Committee;
    DSCC

    Defendant

    Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as
    Arizona Secretary of State; Edison Wauneka,
    in his official capacity as Apache County
    Recorder; David Stevens, in his official
    capacity as Cochise County Recorder; Patty
    Hansen, in her official capacity as Coconino
    County Recorder; Sadie Jo Bingham, in her
    official capacity as Gila County Recorder;
    Wendy John, in her official capacity as
    Graham County Recorder; Sharie Milheiro, in
    her official capacity as Greenlee County
    Recorder; Richard Garcia, in his official
    capacity as La Paz County Recorder; Adrian
    Fontes, in his official capacity as Maricopa
    County Recorder; Kristi Blair, in her official
    capacity as Mohave County Recorder; Michael
    Sample, in his official capacity as Navajo
    County Recorder; F. Ann Rodriguez, in her
    official capacity as Pima County Recorder;
    Virginia Ross, in her official capacity as Pinal
    County Recorder; Suzanne Sainz, in her
    official capacity as Santa Cruz County
    Recorder; Leslie Hoffman, in her official
    capacity as Yavapai County Recorder; and
    Robyn Stallworth Pouquette, in her official
    capacity as Yuma County Recorder,
    Defendants

    Intervener

    The State of Arizona’s (“State”) and EDISON WAUNEKA, in his official
    capacity as Apache County Recorder;
    DAVID STEVENS, in his official capacity
    as Cochise County Recorder; PATTY
    HANSEN, in her official capacity as
    Coconino County Recorder; SADIE JO
    BINGHAM, in her official capacity as Gila
    County Recorder; WENDY JOHN, in her
    official capacity as Graham County
    Recorder; SHARIE MILHEIRO, in her
    official capacity as Greenlee County
    Recorder; RICHARD GARCIA, in his
    official capacity as La Paz County Recorder;
    No. 20-16759
    D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01143-DLR
    District of Arizona,
    ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity
    as Maricopa County Recorder; KRISTI
    BLAIR, in her official capacity as Mohave
    County Recorder; MICHAEL SAMPLE, in
    his official capacity as Navajo County
    Recorder; F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, in her
    official capacity as Pima County Recorder;
    VIRGINIA ROSS, in her official capacity as
    Pinal County Recorder; SUZANNE SAINZ,
    in her official capacity as Santa Cruz County
    Recorder; LESLIE HOFFMAN, in her
    official capacity as Yavapai County
    Recorder; ROBYN POUQUETTE, in her
    official capacity as Yuma County Recorder,

    The Republican National Committee, the Arizona Republican Party, and
    Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.’s (“Movants”)

    KATHLEEN GALLAGHER
    RUSSELL D. GIANCOLA
    PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS
    & ARTHUR LLP
    6 PPG Place, Third Floor
    Pittsburgh, PA 15222
    Phone: (412) 235-4500
    JOHN M. GORE
    Counsel of Record
    ALEX POTAPOV
    JONES DAY
    51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20001
    Phone: (202) 879-3939
    jmgore@jonesday.com
    Counsel for Applicant

    Plaintiff Attorney

    Alexis E. Danneman (SBA #030478)
    Joshua L. Boehm (SBA #033018)
    PERKINS COIE LLP
    2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
    Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
    Telephone: 602.351.8000
    Facsimile: 602.648.7000
    ADanneman@perkinscoie.com
    JBoehm@perkinscoie.com
    DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com
    Kevin J. Hamilton (Wash. Bar #15648)*
    KHamilton@perkinscoie.com
    Marc Erik Elias (D.C. Bar #442007)*
    MElias@perkinscoie.com
    William B. Stafford (Wash. Bar #39849)*
    WStafford@perkinscoie.com
    Sarah Langberg Schirack (Alaska Bar # 1505075)*
    SSchirack@perkinscoie.com
    Ariel Glickman (Va. Bar #90751)*
    AGlickman@perkinscoie.com
    PERKINS COIE LLP
    700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800
    Washington, DC 20005
    Telephone: 202.654.6200
    Facsimile: 202.654.6211
    *Pro Hac Vice Application To Be Filed

    Others that affected your case

    Whether recent changes to Arizona's election procedures – which provide both absentee voters whose signatures on their mail-in ballots cannot be verified, and in-person voters who cannot provide proper identification at the polls, up to five days after Election Day to remedy their ballot identification issues – must also be extended to absentee voters who submit unsigned ballots.

    Comments

    Issues: Whether recent changes to Arizona's election procedures – which provide both absentee voters whose signatures on their mail-in ballots cannot be verified, and in-person voters who cannot provide proper identification at the polls, up to five days after Election Day to remedy their ballot identification issues – must also be extended to absentee voters who submit unsigned ballots.

    Arizona allows all voters to vote by mail without an excuse in the 27 days leading up to an election. In June, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in federal court in Arizona. They challenged the state’s requirement that voters who forget to sign their mail-in ballots fix the mistake by Election Day, rather than within five days after the election, which is the deadline when the state determines that a voter’s signature on a mail-in ballot doesn’t match the one on file. Observing that in “recent general elections, a significant number of mail ballots have been rejected in Arizona for missing signatures,” the ADP argued that missing signatures could create even more problems this year because of the current delays in mail delivery. Voters may send in their ballots on time, the ADP contended, but if they neglect to sign their ballots, “through the vagaries of mail delivery that are entirely outside their control,” they may not be able to provide a signature by Election Day so that their ballots can be counted.

    U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes ruled for the ADP on September 10. He concluded that the state’s Election-Day deadline for voters to supply a missing signature “imposes minimal but unjustifiable burdens on the right to vote” and does not do enough to protect the rights of voters, especially voters who submit their ballots so close to Election Day that they may not have time to correct a missing signature. Rayes ordered election officials to give voters who forget to sign their ballots five days after Election Day to provide the missing signature.

    Rayes rejected a request from Arizona, the Republican National Committee, the Arizona Republican Party and the Trump campaign (all of which had intervened in the case) to put his ruling on hold while they appeal. Rayes acknowledged that the issues in the case “are difficult and fairly contestable,” but he also observed that “the State’s chief election officer” – Hobbs, who is a Democrat – had “welcomed” his order.

    The intervenors went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, asking that court to fast-track their appeal so that they could “seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court before the general election if necessary.”

    The 9th Circuit on Oct. 6 granted the state’s request to put Rayes’ order on hold while the state’s appeal is litigated. The court of appeals concluded that the requirement that voters supply a missing signature by Election Day imposes only a “minimal” burden. By contrast, the court concluded, “as we rapidly approach the election, the public interest is well served by preserving Arizona’s existing election laws, rather than by sending the State scrambling to implement and to administer a new procedure for curing unsigned ballots at the eleventh hour.” This is particularly true, the court noted, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished the lower federal courts not to change the rules of an election in the run-up to that election.

    Social Networks
    • Other
    • Other
    • Website
    • Website
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    Document Links 1 (Scribd et. al)

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052315/https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/06/AZ_Filed_Complaint.pdf

    Document Link 2

    https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20A84.pdf

  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment

    Leave a Reply · Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You May Also Be Interested In

    Illegal Guardianship FREEDOM DENIED for Combat Veteran Sioux Indian

    • Lower Sioux tribal court
    • Illegal Guardianship
    • Jessica Ryan/Kramer Doing this for her family who sued Cal and didn't receive the property.

    Arizona Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes

    • Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County
    • CV2020-014553
    • Voter Integrity, Voter Fraud
    • HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR

    Arizona Mi Familia Vota v. Katie Hobbs

    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
    • 2:20-cv-01903-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.) 20-16932; 20-17000 (9th Cir.)
    • District court order extending deadline to address unsigned mail-in ballots put on hold by 9th Circuit
    • U.S. District Court Judge Steven Logan
    Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Blogger

    Judicial Pedia follows The Constitution of the United States of America which  is the Supreme Law of the United States.    The First Amendment:     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Judicial Pedia gives every American a place to exercise The First Amendment.But, when you post and submit a case you agree to the following:   When this form is submitted.The party giving the written statement declares the facts / information stated are true and confirms this to the best of their knowledge. The party confirms that the information here is both accurate and relevant information has not been omitted.

    Liberty Bell

    The Liberty Bell reads:

    "Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." from Leviticus 25:10.

    Let us continue to "RING" the BELL for Justice.

    • Explore
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us

    © Judicial Pedia. All rights reserved.

    Cart

      • Facebook
      • Twitter
      • WhatsApp
      • Telegram
      • LinkedIn
      • Tumblr
      • VKontakte
      • Mail
      • Copy link