Kochise County Seeks New Election for Prison Tax Hike

Kochise County is looking to hold a new election regarding a proposed tax increase intended to finance a new prison. This move comes after a judge determined that the county had disenfranchised approximately 11,000 inactive voters by failing to send out ballots.

The proposed tax measure involves a half-cent excise tax, which was approved with 52% of the vote in May 2023. The funds are aimed at supporting a prison project currently in its planning stages.

However, residents Daniel Laschans, Henry Stephen Conroy, Yvonne Mayer, and Robert McCormick filed a lawsuit in June 2023, claiming that the election’s result was not valid due to the lack of voting access for those inactive voters. These individuals are identified as such when correspondence from the county recorder is repeatedly returned. According to state law, individuals on this inactive list can still vote if they confirm their addresses with election officials.

The plaintiffs argued that had these disenfranchised voters been able to cast ballots, the outcome could have been different. Initially, a Superior Court judge in Kochise County dismissed the lawsuit, finding no misconduct. However, an appeal led to a ruling from the Arizona Court of Appeals that acknowledged the disenfranchisement of the 11,000 voters.

Following this decision, county supervisors sought to engage the Arizona Supreme Court for a review. Yet, after local voters elected two new board members in November, the supervisors reversed their direction.

This year, the board decided to withdraw its petition to the Supreme Court and, following a settlement, suspended tax collection related to the prison, committed to holding a new election in November, and agreed to pay $130,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs, contingent upon court approval.

The Attorney General’s Perspective

Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays has voiced concerns, asserting that the county’s efforts to dismiss the election results violate state law. She has filed a motion for the Arizona Secretary of State to intervene, questioning the legitimacy of the settlement agreement.

In her motion, Mays stated, “The existing parties to this lawsuit appear to intend to seek this court’s approval of an agreement to ensure the outcome of the election without meeting the requirements for doing so under Arizona’s election contest law.” Additionally, she has the responsibility to demonstrate that the plaintiffs would have influenced the election’s outcome if the inactive voters had participated.

Legal expert Jim Burton noted that the situation is somewhat unusual yet could fall within legal limits given the context of a settlement in progress. He emphasized the complexity of the case, particularly in light of ongoing judicial oversight.

While the board’s unanimous decision to withdraw its Supreme Court petition occurred on March 27, the vote was momentarily reset due to an incorrect trial number listed in an earlier meeting’s agenda. County officials remain committed to ensuring proper procedures are followed, especially concerning election integrity.

In discussions about the prison funding, County Manager Frank Antenoli underscored the importance of confirming public support for financing the project through sales tax.