A judge yesterday denied the state’s attempt to invalidate an agreement by the Cochise County Oversight Board to organize election affairs under Rector David Stevens.

Santa Cruz County Judge Thomas Fink ruled that the state did not meet its burden of proving that the move was an “unconditional transfer of statutory authority,” as alleged in the initial filing of the preliminary injunction. bottom.

Fink said the agreement contains clauses that act as “sufficient safeguards, in the court’s opinion, to ensure that the board fulfills its powers with respect to the conduct of elections in Cochise County.”

He heard arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction in Pima County Superior Court.

Joshua Bender

Joshua Bender, Attorney General for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, argued on behalf of the state.

“This lawsuit is about whether the law allows one man to have almost sole control over the Cochise County elections,” Bendall told the court. “The answer is clearly no.”

He argued that under the agreement, recorders were not obligated to report regularly to the board, and that the board “has no authority to demand information.” Bender later said the lack of reporting obligations “means that the board doesn’t really run the show here.”

He also argued that the agreement had no way for the board to terminate it for good cause.

Cochise County Superintendent Attorney Tim La Sota disagreed with Bendall’s allegations, stating, “The Recorder shall advise the Board from time to time on matters relating to the election and shall prepare reports for Board approval.” I will,” quoted the language of the agreement.

He also said the agreement provided a way for the board to terminate the agreement.

“The country is roaming around looking for real theories about this document,” La Sota said. “States can challenge the way the agreement is written, but that’s a lawyer’s critique, not a real argument.”

Fink brought up the fact that Yuma County organizes election affairs in a similar way.

Bendor argued that the agreement had “essentially nothing” regarding guardrails.

“Boards with statutory powers need to exercise the controls necessary to actually enforce their statutory powers,” he said. “And other agreements that other counties have entered into have had different ways of ensuring that.”

Fink dominated from the bench.

He said the court would not consider other factual allegations about the board’s previous actions in the 2022 election.

Fink said, “This court will be characterized as ‘Re-run the election with Cochise County,'” adding that previous decisions “had nothing to do with this issue.”

He also referred to the allegations about Stevens, saying the state aims to “paint Stevens as an unreliable figure in elections.”

Fink again said that the question of the agreement remained unchanged and that the allegations were “irrelevant and would not affect the court’s decision.”

La Sota said in an interview that efforts to bring down previous election lawsuits were “made to cover up the serious weaknesses of this case.”

“It was a distraction and obviously didn’t work,” La Sota said.

During the filing in early March, Attorney General Chris Mays said in a statement, “While counties may properly enter into cooperative agreements with recorders to govern elections, Cochise County’s agreements are legal boundaries. It goes way beyond the line,” he said.

Mr Fink said in the ruling: The objection is actually about the extent of the issue to delegate, according to the board. ”

He goes on to explain why:

He said there were appropriate guardrails in the agreement to ensure the board maintained its statutory powers.

“Although I do not agree with yesterday’s decision, defendants importantly acknowledged that the Cochise County Oversight Board does retain oversight authority over the Cochise County election. The decision was made based on concessions,” Mays said in a statement.

Going forward, she said, the office will “closely monitor the handling of elections in Cochise County to ensure that statements made by defendants in court are honored and elections are lawfully administered.”

La Sota said he and the board were “certainly happy with the decision” given the pending elections for prison districts in the county.

Stevens agreed, saying, “I thought the judges nailed all the points.”

He said the lawsuit did not disrupt preparations for the next election.

Ballots came out today. And outside of the upcoming election, Stevens said he was working with election administrators to amend forms and prepare budgets for both the registrar and the elections department.

Stevens also noted that he has sent a recommendation for a new election commission to the board.

He said he had filed a declaration in the lawsuit that included all the work he had done under the agreement so far, and said it could help the lawsuit.

“It just sets an example that I won’t be a rogue,” Stevens said. “I’m just doing what I have to do.”