Bob Christie Capitol Media Service
The judge denied a request from Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays to block the Cochise County Oversight Board from delegating election control to an elected county registrar.
On Tuesday, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink denied Mays’ injunction to block enforcement of the February agreement. In his lawsuit, Mays alleges that the board has illegally delegated oversight of the election to Rector David Stevens.
But an agreement signed by the board provided Mr. Fink with sufficient oversight to meet the legal requirements, including regular reporting from Mr. Stevens to the board and the power to reverse decisions the board deems objectionable. is given.
“If there is a problem with the registrar’s performance of his election duties, these provisions, in the court’s view, are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Commission has the authority to conduct elections in Cochise County.” Mr Fink said.
Others are reading…
The decision comes after an hour-long court hearing in which Mays’ attorney general Josh Bender tried to convince Mr. Fink that the county had illegally delegated its powers to Stevens.
Timothy La Sota, an outside attorney for the county, said the Attorney General’s office is acting cautiously to find flaws in the agreement that do not exist.
“If you look at the state’s criticism of the agreement, it looks like something a lawyer would put together when trying to find something for a client about what they didn’t like,” said La Sota. Told. judge. “‘I don’t like this way of writing’, ‘I don’t like that way of writing'”
La Sota said a county commission of two Republicans and one Democrat has the power to review Stevens’ decision and remove him if he wishes.
These are important clarifications in the agreement that states have interpreted differently, Bendall said in an interview after the hearing.
He argued that the judge’s decision was not a clear loss to Mays. The attorney general argued that the agreement crossed the line of illegitimacy by being highly unclear about the commission’s ability to oversee elections, including upcoming elections on the new prison tax.
“They can’t express their opinion to a judge and not execute it that way,” Bendall said. “So I think it’s important that the board has oversight over Stevens’ election affairs, and I think the judge said so. We hope that they will act in line with their statements, and if they do, there will probably be no need for us to appeal.”
The Attorney General’s lawsuit points to a series of problems in last year’s Cochise County election, in which the commission sought to conduct a 100% hand tally. This was blocked by a court, and two Republican governors refused to certify the election results until ordered.
But Judge Fink said these issues were irrelevant to his ruling and would be expunged from the record as the case progressed.
In an interview after the attorney general filed the lawsuit in March, Stevens said the deal does not fully allow the attorney general to do as he pleases.
Instead, it says the board should approve his decision. He pointed out that the agreement was drafted by the county attorney’s office and that he made only two minor changes before the board signed it.
Republican Stephens said the idea that he could use his new role to influence the conduct and outcome of elections was misplaced.
After Tuesday’s ruling, Bender said the Democratic attorney general will continue to closely monitor Cochise County’s election administration.
“We have to keep an eye on what’s going on there,” Bender said. “We expect[Stevens]to comply with the law, but we will be monitoring him in case of any misconduct.”
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens, who was also recently appointed interim election director, told two people who were collecting signatures to remove manager Tom Crosby that there would be no recall at this location. . Stevens and Crosby have united in a speculative effort to change the way elections are conducted.
