Southern Arizona candidate challenges state lawmakers' decision to move up primary

A candidate in Cochise County is challenging the decision of state lawmakers to move up the date of this year’s primary by two weeks — or at least the way they did it.

Eli Dalton-Webb, who is running to be the county clerk of Cochise County Superior Court, does not dispute that the Arizona Constitution permits lawmakers to enact new laws with an emergency clause.

Use of the emergency clause means a measure takes effect as soon as the governor signs it — sidestepping the normal process under which anything approved by the legislature takes effect 90 days after the end of the session. More to the point, that 90-day period gives anyone who disagrees with what lawmakers did adequate time to gather enough signatures to hold up enactment until voters statewide get a chance to ratify or reject it.

Dalton-Webb, a Sierra Vista resident, contends, however, that lawmakers can’t simply declare something an “emergency.”

He said they have to explain what is the emergency that allows them to override that right of voters to refer the issue to the ballot. And, in this case, he said, there was no such explanation.

He is asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como to void the change in the election date as improperly enacted.

But Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-Scottsdale), who crafted the bill — and included the emergency clause — said there is no such requirement for lawmakers to explain why something is an emergency. He said that is totally within the purview of the Legislature.

And even if that were not the case, there is a clear — and he believes emergency — reason for the change.

What the court ultimately rules could have ripple effects beyond whether the new election date is legal. It could define — and curb — the ability of lawmakers to simply declare measures as “emergencies” to get around the ability of voters to second-guess their decisions.

The measure — the first bill approved by lawmakers this year — makes a series of changes in state election laws.

Two years ago, they moved the date of the primary up by one week, from the first week of August to the last week of July. But that was a one-time fix.

The new law — the one being challenged — permanently moved the date of the primary for this election up by two weeks. This year that means going from Aug. 4 to July 21.

That, however, had a ripple effect on candidates like Dalton-Webb.

The earlier election also means that the deadline to turn in nomination papers — and all the necessary signatures — also moved up by two weeks, from April 6 to March 23.

What it also contained was what has become boilerplate language, declaring, “This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law.”

It also got the necessary two-thirds vote of each chamber — a legal precursor to an emergency.

In fact, there was only one vote against it, from Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales. The Tucson Democrat said she never votes for anything with an emergency clause, specifically because it eliminates that right of referendum.

Dalton-Webb, in his court filing, cited that point.

“The Legislature has denied the people of Arizona the right to refer the change of the primary election date to the ballot,” he said.

“HB 2022 does not state in a separate section why it is necessary that it shall become immediately operative like the Arizona Constitution requires,” Dalton-Webb said. “It simply alleges that it is an emergency, but does not explain why HB 2022 is an emergency.”

Kolodin, who sponsored the legislation, said there was a need for quick action.

He said that, without the earlier date, various other changes in state and federal election laws would have left insufficient time for county election officials to process the ballots in time to prepare for the November general election. That also includes a change in Arizona statutes that could require time-consuming recounts in more elections.

And there’s something else.

“Passing this bill was necessary in order to allow our members of the military serving overseas to vote,” Kolodin said.

And he said that’s important with troops deployed for the war in Iran.

“So it’s important that our members of the military be able to be deployed and fight that war out there without having to worry about whether they’re going to be disenfranchised,” Kolodin said. “I think that’s exactly what emergency clauses are for.”

Nor does he believe that those details need to be spelled out in the legislation.

One remaining question is how quickly the immediate question of the legality of this particular measure — and, specifically, the emergency clause — can be decided.

Como has scheduled a hearing for April 1, which is after the new March 23 deadline to file nominating papers. But if the judge accepts Dalton-Webb’s arguments, he still could rule that the March 23 deadline was unenforceable and require election officials to accept petitions through the prior April 6 deadline.