The Skinny

Courtroom Campaign

Unsuccessful Republican candidates ask a judge to toss out the results of last month's city election

Two of the three Republican candidates who lost their bids for the Tucson City Council last month got their day in court earlier this week.

Attorneys for Margaret Burkholder, who lost to Democratic incumbent Shirley Scott in Ward 4, and Kelly Lawton, who lost to Democratic incumbent Paul Cunningham in Ward 2, told Pima County Superior Court Judge Gus Aragon that the Republican duo were cheated of their rightful victory because they won their respective wards.

And because a panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges have ruled that the city's current system of nominating candidates in ward-only primaries but allowing all voters to cast ballots in citywide elections is unconstitutional, the results of the Nov. 3 election should be thrown out.

"There has been an unconstitutional election," said attorney Kory Langhofer, who is representing the GOP candidates. "There must be a remedy."

Langhofer is also the attorney for the Public Integrity Alliance, a group of Republicans who sued in federal court earlier this year to have the city's current election system declared unconstitutional. While Langhofer lost at the district court level, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted 2-1 just one week after the city's election that the city's system did violate the one-man, one-vote rule of the 14th Amendment.

The city voted earlier this month to ask the full Ninth Circuit panel of judges to review the three-judge panel's decision, so a final decision in the case has yet to be issued.

Attorneys for the city and the Democratic council candidates who prevailed in last month's election told Aragon that because the legal decision remains on appeal, the Republican candidates don't have a legal leg to stand on.

"There is no finality," said Senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis McLaughlin.

But even if there were finality to the Ninth Circuit's order, McLaughlin said it wouldn't affect the election that took place before the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling because state statutes only allow election challenges based on laws in force "at the time the election occurred" and when voters cast their ballots, the city had a district court order in place saying the system was constitutional.

"We had a legal election," McLaughlin said.

And even if the judge concluded that the Ninth Circuit's order did require a new election, McLaughlin added, there's no reason to believe that the city would need to move to ward-only general elections. He said that the Ninth's Circuit's order actually leaned toward requiring the city to move to a citywide primary system and a citywide general election.

"If you were to order a do-over, we would have to have a new election and both (primary and general elections) would be citywide," McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin also argued that the challenge came too late because the Republican candidates signed up to run under the current rules and even accepted public money for their campaigns based on those rules.

"If you are going to challenge an election, you have to do it before the election happens," McLaughlin said. "You can't come in afterwards."

Langhofer conceded that no final decision has been made, but argued that the current call by the appeals court is all that matters in this court case. And, he added, the Republicans couldn't have challenged the system because the federal court hadn't issued its order declaring the current system unconstitutional.

Aragon said he'd make a ruling by Monday, Dec. 7.

After the hearing, City Attorney Mike Rankin said he was "anxiously awaiting the judge's decision."

Burkholder said she felt the same way.

"I'm not a patient person," she said. "I'm looking forward to Dec. 7."

Lawton said the legal challenge "is not a sour-grapes petition. It's equal rights for equal citizens in the city of Tucson."

Bad Connection

Arizona Attorney General wants to remove chairwoman of the Arizona Corporation Commission over telecom lobbying gig

Speaking of legal challenges to elected officials: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich earlier this week filed a special complaint in the Arizona Supreme Court to remove the chairwoman of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Susan Bitter Smith.

Brnovich says Bitter Smith's position as executive director and designated lobbyist for the Southwest Cable Communications Association, which represents cable companies in Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, makes her ineligible to serve on the Corporation Commission.

State law prohibits commissioners from receiving payment from companies that they regulate.

Bitter Smith, who is seeking reelection to her ACC seat next year, has maintained that cable companies are not regulated by the commission, so she has no conflict with her lobbying job, which pays her $150,000 a year.

But Brnovich told the press that because cable companies bundle their services with phone companies, which are regulated by the commission, a clear conflict exists.

"Arizonans deserve fair and impartial regulators," said Brnovich in statement to the press. "We filed this case today to protect the integrity of the commission and to restore the faith of Arizona voters in the electoral process. Arizona law clearly prohibits a Commissioner from receiving substantial compensation from companies regulated by the commission."

The Corporation Commission has been rocked by political controversy in recent years as electric utilities have pushed to significantly reduce subsidies for rooftop solar programs.

Zona Politics with Jim Nintzel airs at 8 a.m. Sunday mornings on the CW Tucson, Channel 8 on Cox and Comcast and Channel 58 on Dish, DirecTV and broadcast. You can hear the show on KXCI, 91.3 FM, at 5 p.m. Sundays or watch it online at This week's guests are former state lawmaker Jonathan Paton and Democratic strategist Rodd McLeod.

About The Author

Comments (5)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly