The desire of a Sedonabased group to give voters an alternative to Home Rule hit a roadblock this week, which may result in the initiative not appearing on the November ballot.

On Monday, July 30, Sedona City Clerk Susan Irvine informed representatives from Arizona Liberty, a local political action committee seeking to place a permanent base adjustment on the ballot, that its proposal had been deemed invalid for the Nov. 6 ballot.

According to a release from the city, the proposal failed following completion of a comprehensive review process as established in statute by the Arizona State Legislature with guidance from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

The final phase of the process included receipt of random sampling results from the Yavapai and Coconino county recorders, which resulted in a determination by the city clerk that 16 percent of the petition signatures are invalid.

The projected number of valid signatures that remain is below the statutory requirement.

Arizona Liberty needed a minimum of 429 valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot. It ended with 638 signatures, but following the review that number dropped to 399, resulting in the disqualification.

“Proponents of the permanent base adjustment sought to place a proposal on the city’s general election ballot to establish a permanent expenditure limit of approximately $25.2 million subsequent to the Home Rule vote scheduled for the Aug. 28 primary ballot by the Sedona City Council,” the city’s release states.

The process for removing petition and ineligible signatures is governed by Arizona Revised Statute §19-121.01-04. In this process, the city clerk first removes petition sheets that do not meet requirements for form.

After this process is completed the clerk reviews the sheets to determine the county of the majority of the signers and removes all signatures of those not in the county of the majority on each sheet. Then the signature sheets are grouped by county of registration of the majority of those signing.

If the signatures that remain meet the constitutional minimum, the city clerk requests that the Yavapai and Coconino county recorders check specific signatures among randomsample sheets for verification that the signer is a qualified elector. In the case of an initiative, including the Sedona permanent base adjustment initiative, this is a random sample of 5 percent. The signatures selected for verification by the county are randomly generated by the Arizona Secretary of State.

City of Sedona Attorney Robert Pickels said in reviewing the initiative petitions, the city clerk followed the specific procedures enacted by the Legislature and guidelines provided by the secretary of state. He said the statutes clearly require that all signatures of petitioners on a signature sheet shall be those of qualified electors who are registered to vote in the same county, and that if signatures from more than one county appear on the same signature sheet, only the valid signatures from the same county that are most numerous on the signature sheet shall be counted.

“Although the court may have the authority to interpret the statutes differently, I don’t believe that the city does,” Pickels said. “We simply followed the established procedures as given to us. The initiative proponents should avail themselves of the legal process if they believe that the procedure is flawed or has been misapplied. That is how the legal system is designed.

“I find it somewhat ironic that the city is criticized for allegedly not following state law in the case of recent [Senate Bill] 1487 complaints, but then we are also criticized for following the law too rigidly in a case like the initiative petitions.”

As a result of this decision, Arizona Liberty co-founders Dwight Kadar and Mike Schroeder said they plan to file a lawsuit in Yavapai Superior Court while seeking injunctive relief. If granted, this would expedite the lawsuit due to filing deadlines in order to put the measure on the November ballot.

Kadar pointed out that Coconino County Deputy Recorder Donna Casner filed her official certification letter on the matter on July 20, followed by Yavapai County Recorder Leslie Hoffman doing the same on July 25. But he said their group was not notified by the city of the invalidation until Monday,
July 30. Their organization felt July 30 was the deadline to be notified by the city as to whether it was accepting or rejecting the petition.

“That’s a problem,” Kadar said. “If the city had known about this for five days, they should have contacted us sooner. This smacks of gamesmanship. We had no time to reply. This should be a fundamental problem in the eyes of the voters.”

However, Arizona Revised Statues state the 20-day deadline excludes Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. So, the city had until Monday, Aug. 6, to notify the group per statute. When told of this, Kadar said he stood corrected and that he thought it was 20 calendar days, not business days.

In a press release of its own, Arizona Liberty said a permanent base adjustment “lets voters decide how much of their taxpayer dollars the city of Sedona would be allowed to spend. Currently, there are no limits.”

“This outrageous attempt to disenfranchise voters will not stand,” Kadar said in the release. “We will go to court to protect citizens’ right to vote on the financial future of Sedona.”

Kadar went on to state that in the written notification from Irvine, it said 156 signatures were found to be ineligible.

“The city clerk rejected them as ineligible because, in her words, ‘The signatures were not county of majority on petition,’ whatever that means,” Arizona Liberty’s release states. “Arizona Liberty has contacted election officials in both Coconino and Yavapai counties and they have no knowledge of such language or requirement.”

When asked about this claim, Kadar said he did not directly speak with officials from either county but rather this is what others representing Arizona Liberty were told and in turn, were directed to talk with the city. In fact, Arizona Revised Statutes — which cities and counties must abide by — state, “Remove all signatures of those not in the county of the majority on each sheet placing an adjacent mark or striking through the signature line.”

Ron Eland can be reached at 282-7795 ext. 122, or email reland@larsonnewspapers.com