SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
the ballot." Id. at 459, 851 P.2d at 84 (citation omitted). We repeat our caution that litigants and lawyers in election cases "must be keenly aware of the need to bring such cases with all deliberate speed or else the quality of judicial decision making is seriously compromised." Id. at 460, 851 P.2d at 85. Late filings "deprive judges of the ability to fairly and reasonably process and consider the issues … and rush appellate review, leaving little time for reflection and wise decision making." Id. at 461, 851 P.2d at 86. It is imperative that we consider fairness not only to those who challenge a ballot initiative, but also to the sponsors who place a measure on the ballot, the citizens who sign petitions, the election officials, and the voters of Arizona. Harris, 193 Ariz. at 414, 973 P.2d at 1171.
Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, 82–83 ¶¶ 6, 8 and 9 (2000).
The Court further finds under the circumstances presented that although Plaintiffs could have proceeded more expeditiously, substantial prejudice is not shown and the Court therefore proceeds on the merits.[1]
"To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2191, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). An allegation of generalized harm that is shared alike by all or a large class of citizens generally is not sufficient to confer standing. Id. at 499, 95 S.Ct. at 2205." Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 69 ¶ 16 (1998).
The Court further finds Plaintiffs fail to allege harm of the nature required to achieve standing. Plaintiffs both cast their ballots. Plaintiffs both allege that they would prefer the process to be different. A change in the established process goes to the process used with and available to all voters, not uniquely to Aguilera and Drobina.
Recognizing federal law as instructive, the Court in Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., and Pub. Safety v. Hobbs, 249 Ariz. 396, 471 P.3d 607, 616 ¶ 22 (2020), analyzed redressability, noting that "a party must show that their requested relief would alleviate their alleged injurty." (Id. ¶ 25, citing Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Artz. 520, 525 ¶ 18 (2003).)
For the reasons discussed above, the relief sought by Plaintiffs would not alleviate their alleged injuries in how their ballots were processed and handled. That fully complete process is a locked box, in effect. It is impossible to open the box, to identify or locate Plaintiffs' ballots, to review or change those ballots, and equally impossible for either Plaintiff to cast another ballot as doing so would contravene Arizona law.
- ↑ Given the urgency of the compressed time constraints in this and similar election matters, this Court elected, with the parties' agreement, to hear argument on the Motions to Dismiss simultaneously with hearing the evidence on the relief sought by Plaintiffs in the Complaint. The Court determined that doing otherwise could negatively impact or potentially preclude a timely resolution including appeal for the parties.
