Sec. of State Brewer Announces Dismissal of Two Ballot Measure Challenges
Court Rules that Challengers Failed to Timely Challenge Disqualification
PHOENIX -- Secretary of State Jan Brewer announced today that the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the challenges filed against her by proponents of the disqualified ballot measures, Transportation Infrastructure Moving Arizona’s Economy (Proposition 203) and Our Schools, Our Land (Proposition 103). Both challenges were filed after Secretary Brewer disqualified the measures for failing to file enough valid signatures.
“The judge’s ruling today reaffirms the longstanding principle that election challenges must be brought timely and resolved expeditiously,” stated Secretary Brewer. “My staff finished the processing of the petitions at issue several weeks ago. The law clearly states that any challenges had to be brought within ten days. That did not happen here and the judge correctly dismissed the matter.”
By law the Secretary of State has twenty business days to process filed petitions, which includes removing petitions not attached to true and correct copies of the text, petition sheets not properly signed by circulators, and removing other improper signatures. When this process is complete, a five percent random sample of petition signatures is sent to the respective county recorders for verification. The county recorders have fifteen business days to perform their verifications and when they are complete the Secretary of State determines whether the measure qualifies for the ballot based on the validity rate of the sample.
In this case, both measures projected below the number necessary to qualify the measures for the 2008 general election ballot and both were disqualified by Secretary Brewer. “I never believed that either of these challenges had any merit. The state and county election officials conducted their jobs according to the letter of the law and these measures simply fell short of the needed signatures,” stated Secretary Brewer.
13 comments:
Isn't it interesting that the Secretary of State (ie. THE GOVERNMENT) has 20 business days to process filed petitions, then the County Recorders (ie. THE GOVERNMENT) have 15 business days to verify a random sample of signatures, then the Secretary of State determines whether the measure qualifies for the ballot based on the validity rate of that sample (it doesn't state how many days are allowed for THIS process) and THEN the PEOPLE have only 10 days to file a challenge.
So the GOVERNMENT gets more than 35 days to perform their obligation but the PEOPLE get only 10 days in which to perform theirs.
How does that translate into "Government FOR the PEOPLE?"
First of all, the government IS the people. So, if you don't like the process, then you have the right to go through the requirements to have it changed.
Secondly, if the people had done their jobs right to begin with (i.e., collected valid signatures on properly completed forms), this wouldn't be an issue. It's when paid signature collectors flood the state that the initiative process suffers.
Firstly I would like to address a rather curt and dismissive statement by 'boobie baby'. So,bb, you think the "government IS the people"? That is a canned and rather simple minded view of that which is government today. I cannot, within this blog, get into
the nitty gritty of your most convenient utilization of this programmed concept, but I am sure as hell going to disagree with you
that what we have today is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as it was intended to be; it most certainly is not! That may be your idealism (as it is mine), but it is not a reality.
Now, as to your statement relative to those taking signatures for this initiative, I must agree with you fully. I will not state where this occured but the person who took my signature was ill informed, had about 5-7 other 'measures' he was collecting for, engaged in conversation that was off point and pointedly political, was overly hurried, overly harried, and confused issues; in short, he was a total 'mess' collecting signatures in a prominent venue. And, his own ego and political bent appeared to be more important than the measures he was purportedly attmpting to benefit.
Zev,
Thanks for the info on your signature collection experience. I never was contacted so I wondered what the problem was.
Zev and others,
Of course I respect your right to disagree with me.
By stating that the government is US, I am merely pointing out that if there is something about the initiative process that we don't like, we have the power to change it--e.g., asking the legislature to change the laws to disallow paid petition carriers, making the petitions more readable, changing the number of days to check signatures, etc., etc.
If we, as the people, don't demand these changes, who is going to initiate them?
Many readers of this blog took matters into their own hands during the last OV Council election and produced change. So, yes, we are the government as well as the governed, and we can make changes if we so desire.
bb, my problem with your presentation of 'government', as it is, is that you are so much protectionist in your defense of it, overly simplistic in your conveyance of the ability to access it, and thusly you seem to pooh-pooh discontent and disagreement by falling back on that perception.
If you wish to dissect and give true credence to an opinion that you might have, please do so. You have your opinions on issues and you do have the ability to analyze and make your own presentations.
On the one hand you say [it's the LAW] and on the other you say [we ARE the law]. Awake, bb, things have changed.
It appears that our eight cylinder government seems to be operating on three cylinders; do we really have the power to fix it? It has been well documented that there is little stigma put upon lying and cheating within our education system; I posit that the same mentality is pervasive amongst the caretakers of 'our' government. Do you, bb, trust that either of our two presidential candidates are in fact truly candid? Are they truthful? Do you think that our government is still the PRODUCT of the people? I believe it has become a result of a MANIPULATION of the people. Yes, we were able to elect some sense to the Town Council of Oro Valley in our past election. That is local and less LEGAL than those governments that are more out of our reach. And, at virtually every turn now, we must file an expensive legal action in order to right a wrong. Oh yes, we can wait and vote certain persons out of or into office; but, can I wait for a new hospital to open if I'm having a heart attack?
It might help if we would forget recreation centers, weak and unkempt historical sites, and other 'pleasure centers', and put strictly our collective money into reading, writing, arithmatic and other BASIC elements of classic education. It worked for those who experienced the greatest periods in the history of our country and then - 'along came a spider'......
Well, bb, that's all for now. It is unfortunate that this forum limits our ability to debate. But, in closing, I will say that it is my personal observation that you have an excellent mind, one that I do appreciate; but, a word to the wise - be stronger in addressing the issue(s) and less bent on 'lashing' out at someone elses expressions with which you might disagree and please, discard your use of existing governmental processes as a crutch.
I would like to add that VC's comment is quite on the money!
Thanks, Zev. It's not as easy to change the government as BB would like to have us believe. Your "heart attack" analogy was perfect. We often don't know that there is a problem until it hits us in the face and then we need it corrected immediately. We can't wait 6 months to 2 years to go through the "process" of "fixing" it.
BB,
Yes, it's government BY the people because we elect our representatives, but when those "representatives" enact laws that work "against" the people, then it's not government FOR the people.
(Sigh) How did we get so far afield from the original posting?
Look--we can complain about the state land initiative till the cows come home (or at least the ones grazing in Arroyo Grande). If we don't like the process, we DO have the right to change it.
Is it easy to change? No. Are there unscrupulous people in government who will stand in the way of any change? Yes.
But--what's the other choice--to stand around and complain? That accomplishes nothing except giving bloggers the opportunity for a mental enema.
Someone once said to me (probably a Civics teacher) that if good people don't get involved in government, then that leaves only the bad people in charge. To paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, but it's so much better than whatever is in second place.
Yes, VC, Zev, and others--you have the power to introduce change. It may take decades and the change may end up being only incremental, but the challenge is there. Are you up to it?
bb, do you think that VC and myself (as well as others that post on this site) simply sit at our computers and complain? I KNOW that many who contribute to these posts do and have, in fact, worked quite hard and diligently for that which we believe was either a wrong, a needed change, or whatever; so, bb, don't insinuate that we just sit around on our lazy asses and warble. That the stream led to peripheral issues is what conversation is all about. You seem to delight in addressing the messengers instead of the message; either that or you simply do not have the wherewithall to distinguish a difference.
Quite frankly, my opinion is that most of your contribution is (as I stated above) crutch talk as well as a bit of self-adornment here and there. We don't know who you are (and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn) so your meanderings about your own accomplishments are not available for scrutiny or veracity. I will state that I have determined many errors, contradicitions, or omissions within in your own blogs. So be it, we all commit those 'indignities'. But, don't paint YOURSELF as such a high and mighty canvass!
What is it you want? What is your vision? What is your means? Tell us,bb, instead of hanging around and getting off on assumption and attack. There are book smarts and there are creative smarts; how do you apply yourself to either category?
Oh my, we seemed to have touched some sore points here.
I don't recall meanderings about my own accomplishments; I don't recall attacking anyone on this blog; and, if anything, I consistently try to get of all us to stay on-message--to discuss whatever the opening posting was about.
VC complained that government was not serving her. Fair enough. If it were me, I would be taking a whole lot more interest in the postings here regarding the state election. It's the legislators who have abrogated their responsibility to protect open space, fund transportation and education, and provide us with the kind of leadership we need. The fact that the initiative petitions didn't get the job done should be of concern to everyone.
And, yet, most of the bloggers here do NOT seem to want to comment on the state-level issues. And, VC, it will take a lot more time than 6 months or two years to address these issues.
Kudos to everyone who has worked hard to implement change in the community, in the state, in the nation. I take nothing away from any of you.
But we can all agree that it takes more than blogging to bring about the desired change, especially when it comes to government.
Am I book smart or creative smart? Heck--I dunno. Maybe a little of both? Still, this is not about me--it's about how we can work together to accomplish goals, doing something beyond just writing about what's wrong. Is that a high and mighty canvass (huh? whatever that is) or just a gentle push to everyone to take charge of your own destiny?
bb, your response to my post was quite reasoned; your demeanor - nice! Just a couple of comments not intended to be critical: I believe you do need to reflect on some of your past 'outings' and attempt to realize some of that which some of us might deem as personally negative as well as a few references to yourself that tend to self-glorify. I will reiterate that you have a lot to contribute, that you have contributed, and I look forward to the better self that most often prevails.
BB,
You said,
"If we don't like the process, we DO have the right to change it. Is it easy to change? No. Are there unscrupulous people in government who will stand in the way of any change? Yes. It may take decades and the change may end up being only incremental."
My response?
I don't have the stomach, the nervous system, or the patience to work on something for decades only to end up with some slight change.
Isn't it interesting though how if we WANT change, the "unscrupulous people in government" get in the way of that change, yet when we try to prevent something from happening, when we DON'T WANT change, we're accused of being CAVE people?
They're against us when we want change and they're against us when we don't.
In the end, whether the unscrupulous people CREATE the change or PREVENT the change, it's always for the same reason... there's money to be made.
Post a Comment