We The People AZ Alliance Files Lawsuit Against Maricopa County to Force Compliance With Public Records Request

Maricopa County is trying to prevent anyone from looking at the ballots to see if the signatures match the ones on file from where they registered to vote, even though the law states they have to.

But, Maricopa County officials do not feel constrained by the law. If you conducted an honest election and you legitimately matched the signatures, why on earth would you violate the law to keep people from proving you were honest?

We The People AZ Alliance filed a new Special Action Complaint yesterday seeking a writ of mandamus that would give them access to the envelopes from mail-in ballots and the registration signatures so that they can check on the legitimacy of the 2022 election. The lawsuit is signed off by We The People AZ co-founder, Shelby Busch.

We the People AZ Alliance submitted a FOIA request for the information on April 5th, but they were told they could not have it despite the fact that the states they have to. Kari Lake and AZ State Senator Wendy Rogers have also been denied access.

This request is in accordance with ARS 16-168(F), which states:

Any person in possession of a precinct register or list, in whole or part, or any reproduction of a precinct register or list, shall not permit the register or list to be used, bought, sold or otherwise transferred for any purpose except for uses otherwise authorized by this section. A person in possession of information derived from voter registration forms or precinct registers shall not distribute, post or otherwise provide access to any portion of that information through the internet except as authorized by subsection I of this section. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE PUBLIC INSPECTION OF VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS AT THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER for the purposes prescribed by this section, except that the month and day of birth date, the social security number or any portion thereof, the driver license number or nonoperating identification license number, the Indian census number, the father’s name or mother’s maiden name, the state or country of birth and the records containing a voter’s signature and a voter’s e-mail address shall not be accessible or reproduced by any person other than the voter, by an authorized government official in the scope of the official’s duties, for any purpose by an entity designated by the secretary of state as a voter registration agency pursuant to the national voter registration act of 1993 (P.L. 103-31; 107 Stat. 77), for signature verification on petitions and candidate filings, FOR ELECTION PURPOSES AND FOR NEWS GATHERING PURPOSES BY A PERSON ENGAGED IN NEWSPAPER, RADIO, TELEVISION OR REPORTORIAL WORK, OR CONNECTED WITH OR EMPLOYED BY A NEWSPAPER, RADIO OR TELEVISION STATION or pursuant to a court order. Notwithstanding any other law, a voter’s e-mail address may not be released for any purpose.  A person who violates this subsection or subsection E of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.

More from the new lawsuit:

“It should be undisputed that the documents and information sought by Plaintiff are public records. Defendants have failed to produce or make such records available for inspection promptly, thereby disregarding their statutory obligations under Arizona’s Public Records Act.”

“Plaintiff seeks to inspect the affidavit under a statutory exemption, which broadly include ‘the voter, by an authorized government official in the scope of the official’s duties, for any purpose by an entity designated by the secretary of state as a voter registration agency pursuant to the national voter registration act of 1993 . . ., for signature verification on petitions and candidate filings, for election purposes and for news gathering purposes by a person engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station or pursuant to a court order.’”

“Defendants also denied Plaintiff access based on an undisclosed ‘best interest of the state’ exception. Here, the best interests of the state cannot be defined as preventing a Plaintiff from discovering the use of fraudulent signatures in the vote by mail process.