Two ballot measure campaigns suffered a defeat in federal court when a judge ruled against their bid for online petition signature collection.
The campaigns initiated litigation earlier this month on assertions the ongoing coronavirus outbreak hampered their efforts to land spots in the November election.
U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza, however, declined the complainants’ request for the Arizona government to let them use the same website state office candidates use to obtain voters’ signatures. According to Lanza, the state constitution requires initiative campaigns to secure signatures in person.
“Although the public has a strong interest in enacting laws through the initiative process, and although the court is loathe to take any action (or inaction) that would expose Arizonans to an increased risk of harm during these challenging times, the signature requirements (the lawsuit) seeks to displace have been a part of Arizona’s constitutional and electoral landscape for over a century,” Lanza wrote in a 30-page order.
He said it is on policymakers, not the courts, who should change the law.
The bid received support from Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. According to AZCentral.com, Hobbs’ office could make necessary changes to E-Qual to fit the initiatives.
Several other groups have argued that the state’s process of direct democracy could be impacted by COVID-19 and the practices recommended to slow its spread.
One of the groups behind the failed online signature bid seeks to get a measure on recreational marijuana usage on the November ballot while the other is devoted to fair elections.
Lanza acknowledged that the groups could not have foreseen the coronavirus crisis but sided with lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office that they should have started collecting signatures at an earlier time.
Rodd McLeod, a spokesman for the group Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare, said the state’s voters should not have to choose between their health and their right to vote.
