“A good example is when Congress put Gov. Brewer’s tax dollars to a vote,” La Sota said. “They specifically said that if you are a city that has a contract with the county to run elections, you need to make sure this tax comes first on the ballot. — I think the legislature is clearly aware that these kinds of agreements are being made all the time.”

Focusing on the May 16 Cochise County special election, La Sota argued that issuing an injunction to the agreement would do more harm than good.

“Courts have frowned upon making changes in the middle of the electoral process for a very long time,” La Sota said. “Even if there is something objectionable, illegal or unconstitutional, more damage can be done by actually intervening and trying to remedy it … we are having elections and The harm that could be done could be more important than what is about to be stopped.”

The agreement is valid for now. La Sota said the board will decide on candidates for the Electoral Commission next week.

Background

The motion filed by the Arizona Attorney General on April 5 stated that the board’s agreement with the county registrar “has no legal basis and threatens the right of Cochise County residents to hold elections lawfully and transparently.” is.”

“The State has taken this action to prevent and remedy these harms,” ​​the motion read. “But the court cannot ring the bell for county voters once the defendant begins enforcing the agreement and exercising (or waiving) its powers in connection with the next special election… , I respectfully request the court to pre-bar the defendant from enforcing the agreement.”

The lawsuit started on February 28[https://news.azpm.org/s/96238-cochise-county-recorder-to-head-elections/], when the Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted two to one to approve the agreement with Stevens Recorder. Republican Overseers Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd voted in favor, while Democratic Overseer Anne English voted against.

This triggered a lawsuit filed on March 7 by Arizona Attorney General Mays, in which the Board reached an agreement with Rector Stevens that “the election powers and obligations conferred by law on Cochise County shall not be exercised.” It’s intended to give almost everything to the Cochise County Registrar.” County Board of Supervisors. ”

The attorney general argued that the agreement illegally extended the powers of the county registrar and that the board also illegally handed over statutory election duties to the registrar, according to the filing.

Authority to appoint election administrators under the county registrar, according to the agreement. The contract states that any appointment must be approved by the Board of Directors.

Cochise County Administrator Richard Karvatska said at a special meeting on Valentine’s Day that the administration and administrative functions of the election had been delegated to county administrators by the Oversight Board prior to the drafting and approval of the agreement.

The agreement moves administrative powers over the electoral division away from the County Administrator, a nonpartisan county official appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

But it wasn’t the first time the board had been sued by a state over an election.

2022 election

In November, then-Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sued the board for refusing to vote in the 2022 general election by the state’s November 28 deadline.

Supervisors Crosby and Judd, who hold a Republican majority on the board, stalled the canvas under baseless allegations from voters that the vote-counting machines were rigged.

Election administrator Cori Rorick later said at a meeting on Nov. 18 that the voting machines had been tested and proven to be accurate.

“The equipment used in Cochise County is properly certified under both federal and state laws and requirements,” says Lorick. “The claim that the SLI test lab was not properly accredited is false.”