DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 Alexander Kolodin (SBN 030826)

Arno Naeckel (SBN 026158)
2 Roger Strassburg (SBN 016314)
Veronica Lucero (SBN 030292)
3
Davillier Law Group, LLC
4 [email protected]
[email protected]
5 [email protected]
6 [email protected]
[email protected] (file copies)
7 4105 North 20th Street Ste. 110
Phoenix, AZ 85016
8 Telephone: (602) 730-2985
9 Facsimile: (602) 801-2539

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14
ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, a No.
15 recognized political party; YAVAPAI
16 COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE,
the Yavapai County committee of the VERIFIED COMPLAINT
17 Arizona Republican Party; LOIS [Show Cause Hearing Requested]
FRUHWIRTH, Chairwoman of the Yavapai
18 Election-Related Matter
County Republican Committee; ANNE
19 ROPER, Secretary of the Yavapai County
Republican Committee;
20
Plaintiffs,
21
v.
22
YAVAPAI COUNTY ELECTIONS
23 DIRECTOR;
24 Defendant,
25
STATE OF ARIZONA, a body politic.;
26
Defendant and Real-Party-In-Interest.
27
28 Plaintiffs, for their complaint against Defendants, allege as follows:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 OVERVIEW
2 1. This suit seeks to enjoin unconstitutional legislation—HB 2839—that
3 disenfranchises Arizona voters and candidates by extinguishing their right to vote and run
4 for political party precinct committeemen (sometimes “PCs”) in the upcoming 2022
5 primary election. The bill was passed, by mistake, on March 3 of this year.
6 2. Specifically, this Complaint challenges the lawfulness of Sec. 4 of the bill, as well
7 as the use of an emergency clause in Sec. 5 of the bill to bring the provisions of Sec. 4 into
8 effect immediately. Section 4 reads as follows:
Sec. 4. 2022 election cycle; precinct committeemen; county party committee; board of
9 supervisors
Notwithstanding any other law, for the 2022 election for political party precinct
10 committeemen only, the following apply:
1. Candidates for precinct committeeman shall submit to their county political party
11 committee a nomination paper or other similar written statement of candidacy not
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539

later than April 18, 2022 and shall not be required to submit a nomination petition or
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 file other documents with a filing officer.

2. The county political party committee shall verify the potential candidates’ eligibility
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 based on the April 1 voter registration totals prescribed by section 16-168, subsection
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

G, Arizona Revised Statutes.

14 3. Not later than May 2, 2022, the county political party committee shall submit to the
county board of supervisors one precinct committeeman candidate’s name for each
15 election precinct in the county for appointment pursuant to section 16-410 and
section 16-822, subsection B, Arizona Revised Statutes. The county political party
16 committee is the sole determiner of the single political party precinct committeeman
candidate whose name is to be submitted for appointment from each election precinct
17 in the county.
4. The county board of supervisors shall appoint the political party precinct
18 committeemen from the names submitted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this section.
Precinct committeemen who are appointed pursuant to this section for the 2022 term
19 of office are deemed elected precinct committeemen for all purposes.
5. For any vacancies in the office of precinct committeeman that occur during the 2022
20 term of office, the county political party committee shall appoint eligible persons to
fill those vacancies and shall maintain a current roster of precinct committeemen for
21 the remainder of the 2022 term, and no further action regarding vacancies is required
by the county board of supervisors. 1
22
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
23
3. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
24
4. Plaintiff Arizona Republican Party (sometimes “AZGOP”) is a recognized political
25
party in Arizona.
26
5. Plaintiff Yavapai County Republican Committee is the Yavapai County arm of the
27
AZGOP.
28
1
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0003.pdf

2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 6. Plaintiffs Fruhwirth and Roper are elected PCs and officers of the Yavapai County
2 Republican Committee.
3 7. Defendant Yavapai County Elections Director is the public official tasked with
4 overseeing elections in Yavapai County. The officer themselves is not specifically
5 identified, pursuant to ARCP 17(d), as they are merely named so that an injunction, if
6 necessary, may be entered against them prohibiting them from enforcing the State’s
7 unconstitutional law or, alternatively, prohibiting them from enforcing it in a manner
8 contrary to the legislature’s intent.
9 8. Defendant and real-party-in-interest State of Arizona (“State”) is a body politic.
10 9. The “core constitutional authority and duty” of this Court is to declare whether
11 statutes are constitutional and construe their intent. Ariz. Sch. Bds. Ass’n v. State, 501 P.3d
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 731, 737 (Ariz. 2022), see also ARS. 12-1831 – 1846.

4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 10. This court has jurisdiction over this action and venue is proper in Yavapai County
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-401 and other applicable law.

15 FACTS
16 11. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
17 12. On March 3, 2022, the Arizona Legislature passed HB 2839: misleadingly entitled,
18 “candidate nominations; signatures; redistricting.”
19 13. HB 2839 passed the House unanimously by a vote of 58-0 and passed the Senate by
20 a unanimous vote of 28-0.
21 14. Typically, legislation is subject to extensive review and vetting before it is enacted.
22 It is first assigned to a committee, which holds public hearings and in total, is read and
23 reviewed at least three times before being enacted.
24 15. This was not the case with HB 2839. HB 2839 never went through the committee
25 process or had a first or second read. It was instead presented to the body, for the first time,
26 just a few minutes before the members were to vote on it.
27

28

3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 16. Ordinarily changes from existing law are clearly indicated in blue capital letters in
2 a bill so that legislators know what they are voting on. Indeed, most of the changes to
3 existing law in HB 2839 were clearly indicated in blue, capital, letters, as per the following
4 example from HB 2839:
5

6
17. However, the provisions of HB 2839 at issue here were not:
7

10

11
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 18. The title of HB 2839 also gave no notice to the members of the body that by passing
2 the bill, they would be disenfranchising the almost three million Arizona voters who are
3 registered Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians by stripping them of the right to vote
4 for precinct committeepersons.
5 19. Under the Arizona Constitution, legislation does not take effect until 90 days from
6 the end of session. The Arizona Constitution, however, contains an exception for bills
7 passed by a super-majority that are necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and
8 safety. Unfortunately, HB 2839 contained an emergency clause.
9 20. A super-majority of the Legislature passed HB 2839 Sec. 4, and appended an
10 emergency clause to it, by mistake. Or, at least, enough members of the legislature voted
11 for the bill by mistake that it would not have passed, or would not have passed with an
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 emergency clause, had members known of its contents.

4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 21. HB 2839 was signed by the Governor as an emergency measure, also on March 3,
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 2022, and took effect immediately.

15 22. By its title, HB 2839 purported to be limited to the subject of “candidate
16 nominations, signatures, and redistricting” but—without proper notice to legislators voting
17 on the bill—actually terminated the candidate nomination process for political party
18 precinct committeemen seeking to run for election and instead provided that precinct
19 committeemen are to be appointed rather than elected for the 2022 election cycle only.
20 23. Upon information and belief, the bill was intended to standardize the number of
21 signatures that congressional and legislative candidates need to get their names on the
22 ballot to run for election because of the confusion created by a combination of changes to
23 election laws in recent years, the redistricting process, and delays in the 2020 Census.
24 24. However, HB 2839 contained a poorly worded provision, upon information and
25 belief, intended to address “split precincts,” but which actually discriminated against one
26 class of candidates running for election—those candidates running for election to the office
27 of precinct committeeperson in their political party for their precinct.
28

5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 25. HB 2839’s provision on precinct committeepersons differed radically from the other
2 provisions in the bill.
3 26. The other provisions of the bill dealt with standardizing signature requirements for
4 federal, state, and local candidates to get on the ballot to run for election.
5 27. Rather than dealing with signature requirements for party precinct
6 committeepersons to get on the ballot to run for election, HB 2839 suppressed the rights of
7 those party precinct committeepersons candidates to run for election no matter how many
8 signatures each could collect.
9 28. HB 2839 also suppressed the rights of electors to vote for party precinct
10 committeeperson candidates.
11 29. Instead of electing party precinct committeepersons, HB 2839 abolished those
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 elections and imposed instead a system of appointments by the county supervisors from
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 the list of candidates for appointment.

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 30. Even worse—HB 2839 abolished the rights of every 125 electors in their precinct
15 to have one precinct committeeperson. Instead, each precinct—no matter its population—
16 would only have one, unelected precinct committeeperson.
17 31. In reporting on this error, AZ Mirror reported:
18 Lawmakers last week approved legislation intended to standardize the
19 number of signatures that congressional and legislative candidates need to
20 get their names on the ballot. The process was thrown into disarray and
21 confusion by a combination of changes to election laws in recent years, the
22 redistricting process and delays in the 2020 Census. The legislation was
23 introduced and unanimously approved in less than a day so it would be in
24 place on Monday, when candidates can legally begin submitting their
25 nomination petitions to qualify for the ballot. The bill also included another
26 provision, misunderstood or unread by many legislators, that makes drastic
27 changes to the process for selecting party officials known as precinct
28 committeemen.

6
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 ...
2 House Majority Leader Ben Toma said those two provisions were
3 unintentional drafting errors. The purpose of that section of the bill was to
4 ensure that new precincts that are being redrawn because of the redistricting
5 process get at least one PC. 2
6 32. The Arizona Republic reported: “[I]t appears no one actually read the bill.” 3
7 33. And the Speaker of the House testified regarding Section 4 “I did not understand
8 it.” He also testified that Sec. 4 “intimates” that there will also be elected PCs in addition
9 to the one appointed PC per district. He further testified “The Precinct Committeemen are
10 the backbone of our party.” 4
11 34. Thus, by passing HB 2839, the legislature converted over seven thousand elected
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 positions to a handful of appointed ones. By mistake.

4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 35. Unfortunately, since HB 2839 was passed with an emergency clause, a super-
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 majority of the legislature is required to undo it in time for the fix to be effective. As
15 Democrats have realized since HB 2839 was passed, though the bill disenfranchises all
16 voters, it has disproportionately negative effects on the Republican Party owing to its
17 greater reliance on grass-roots activism. Thus, sufficient democratic votes for a fix have
18 not been forthcoming.
19 36. Precinct Committeepersons play an important role in Arizona’s politics which
20 makes it highly inappropriate for the position to be appointed. For example, they are
21 responsible for nominating candidates for state legislature in the event of a vacancy. ARS
22 41-1202. A person must also be an elected PC to serve as a State Committeeman or as any
23 statutory officer of the Arizona Republican Party, including chairman of the Arizona
24 Republican Party as well as to be elected as one of the Arizona Republican Party’s
25
2
https://www.azmirror.com/2022/03/07/after-mistakenly-scrapping-party-official-elections-in-2022-gop-
26 lawmakers-scramble-to-undo-it/ (emphasis supplied).
3
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2022/03/08/embarrassment-arizona-legislature-
27 strikes-again/9427709002/
4
Testimony of the Speaker of the Arizona House to the Government and Elections Committee given on March 8,
28 2022, minutes 36:30-48:20; (https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?eventID=2022031052)(last accessed March 13,
2022).

7
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 representatives to the RNC. And a person must be an elected PC to serve on the Yavapai
2 County Republican Committee.
3 37. “[I]n order to fully implement the constitutional right to vote, the vote of all citizens
4 should have approximately equal weight.” Tucson v. Royal, 20 Ariz. App. 83, 87, 510 P.2d
5 394, 398 (1973). “It is without cavil that the right to vote is a constitutionally protected
6 right and legislative interference with this right is not justified by merely showing a
7 substantial state interest. Laws which impair the right to vote are unconstitutional unless
8 the governmental body can demonstrate that the laws are necessary to promote a
9 compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 87. As a corollary, “it must be said that there is
10 also a right not to vote.” Beare v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 1100, 1103 (S.D. Tex. 1971).
11 38. Thus, giving the Yavapai County Republican Committee the sole authority to select
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 Yavapai County’s PCs vests it with authority that the Committee neither wants, needs, nor
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 considers to be legitimate or democratic. Yet the Yavapai County Republican Committee

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 has been compelled by this legislative mistake to play the role of kingmaker despite its
15 wishes and contrary to the provisions of the Arizona Constitution.
16 39. In crushing the democratic rights of electors to vote for party precinct
17 committeepersons, and destroying the rights of candidates to run for election to these
18 positions, HB 2839 violates several Arizona constitutional provisions as is shown below.
19 CAUSES OF ACTION
20 First Cause of Action
21 Violation of Single Subject/Single Title Rule
22 40. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
23 41. Article 4, part 2, section 13 of the Arizona Constitution places two important
24 limitations on laws passed the Legislature: (1) the laws can cover only one subject (the
25 “Single Subject Rule”), and (2) their contents must be properly noticed in the title of the
26 bill (the “Fair Notice of Contents by Title Rule”). Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 13.
27 42. The title requirement in section 13 “was designed to enable legislators and
28 the public upon reading the title to know what to expect in the body of the act so that no

8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 one would be surprised as to the subjects dealt with by the act.” State v. Sutton, 115 Ariz.
2 417, 419 (1977) (quotation omitted, emphasis supplied).
3 43. The title of HB 2839 was “AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 16-322,
4 ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING LAWS 2021, CHAPTER 155,
5 SECTION 2; RELATING TO CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.”
6 44. This title was not adequate to put members of the legislature on notice that
7 the bill would be converting hundreds of elected positions to appointed ones, thus
8 disenfranchising millions of Arizona voters by mistake and violating the Arizona
9 Constitution.
10 45. Further, the title of the act claims that it amended certain statutes “relating to
11 candidates for public office”. This is a very different thing then eliminating public offices
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 entirely. Again, the Arizona Constitution was violated.

4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 Second Cause of Action

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 Unconstitutional Special Law

15 46. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
16 47. Article 4, part 2, section 19 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits the
17 legislature from enacting local or special laws regarding the “conduct of elections” or
18 “[w]hen a general law can be made applicable.” (the “No Special or Local Law Clause”).
19 Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 19 (11, 20).
20 48. The test for whether a law violates the No Special or Local Law Clause is
21 threefold: (1) whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate legislative
22 purpose; (2) whether the classification is sufficiently general to encompass all members
23 similarly situated; and (3) whether the classification is sufficiently elastic to accommodate
24 warranted inclusions and exclusions as circumstances change. Arizona Ctr. for Law in the
25 Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356 (App. 1991); Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Apache
26 County, 185 Ariz. 5 (App. 1995).
27

28

9
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 49. Further, a statute is unconstitutional as a special or local law if it is worded

2 such that its scope is limited to a particular case and it looks to no broader application in
3 the future. Republic Inv. Fund I v. Surprise, 166 Ariz. 143 (1990).
4 50. HB 2839, by its language, is limited in scope to the particular case of the
5 upcoming 2022 statewide election and will no longer apply once the election is completed.
6 51. HB 2839 discriminates against elected party precinct committeepersons
7 apart from all other candidates for federal, state, and local offices whose rights to run for
8 election (and the rights of the electorate to vote for them) are not altered.
9 52. HB 2839’s classification abolishing the elective rights of precinct
10 committeepersons for only one election cycle in 2022 is not rationally related to a
11 legitimate legislative purpose.
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 53. The rest of HB 2839 has a perhaps sensible means of standardizing signature
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 requirements for federal and state candidates to get on the ballot for election that appears
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 rationally related to the legitimate state purpose of uniformity across all fifteen Arizona
15 counties so that the burdens of getting on the ballot are in rough parity across the State.
16 54. However, HB 2839 has a nonsensible means of abolishing entirely all
17 elections for party precinct committeepersons which has nothing to do with uniformity of
18 burdens for candidates to get on the ballots in their respective counties for election contests.
19 55. The classification is not sufficiently general to encompass all members
20 similarly situated because it only applies to persons seeking to run for election as party
21 precinct committeepersons and the electors desiring to vote for them, but excludes all other
22 candidates for elective office in federal and state elections and electors desiring to vote for
23 them.
24 56. The classification is not sufficiently elastic to accommodate warranted
25 inclusions and exclusions as circumstances change because the classification has no
26 elasticity at all because it abolishes entirely one class of elections from taking place—but
27 only for one year.
28

10
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 57. For the reasons above, HB 2839 is a grotesque example of an

2 unconstitutional special law that offends the letter and spirit of Arizona’s Constitution.
3 Third Cause of Action
4 Improper Use of Emergency Clause
5 58. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
6 59. Article 4, part 2, section 12 of the Arizona Constitution provides that “no act
7 passed by the legislature shall be operative for ninety days after the close of the session of
8 the legislature enacting such measure, except such as require earlier operation to preserve
9 the public peace, health, or safety, or to provide appropriations for the support and
10 maintenance of the departments of the state and of state institutions.”.
11 60. Sec. 4 of HB 2839 has no application to the public peace, health, or safety.
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 61. In addition, words have meanings that have limits. They say one thing and
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 exclude another.
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 62. An “emergency” means the “[c]onfrontation by sudden peril. A pressing

15 necessity; an exigency; an event or occasional combination of circumstances calling for
16 immediate action or remedy. An unforeseen occurrence or condition calling for immediate
17 action to avert imminent danger to life, health, or property.” Emergency, Ballentine’s Law
18 Dictionary (3rd ed. 2010) (citations omitted).
19 63. Sec. 4 of HB 2839 was not a response to a bona fide emergency, that is, a
20 “confrontation by sudden peril,” nor was there an unforeseen occurrence or condition
21 calling for immediate action to avert imminent anger to life, health, or property.”
22 64. “Emergency measures” mean “[a]cts performed in an emergency.
23 Legislation enacted in an emergency; laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the
24 public peace, health, or safety….” Emergency Measures, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3rd
25 ed. 2010) (citations omitted).
26 65. Again, Sec. 4 of HB 2839 was not necessary for the immediate preservation
27 of the public peace, health, or safety.
28

11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 66. Thus, the use of an emergency clause to enact Sec. 4 of HB 2839 was
2 unconstitutional.
3 Fourth Cause of Action
4 Violation of Art. 2 Sec. 2 of the Arizona Constitution
5 67. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
6 68. Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution provides that “All political power is
7 inherent in the people.”
8 69. Prior to HB 2839, Legislative vacancies were filled by elected PCs from a
9 candidate’s district.
10 70. However, now that HB 2839 has been enacted, an appointee to fill a
11 legislative vacancy may themselves be appointed by unelected officials.
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 71. For this and the other reasons outlined herein, HB 2839 Sec. 4 violates Art.
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 2 Sec. 2 of the Arizona Constitution.

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 Fifth Cause of Action

15 Violation of Art. 2 Sec. 5-6 of the Arizona Constitution and the First Amendment to
16 the US Constitution (as incorporated against the states)
17 72. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
18 73. Article 2, 5-6 of the Arizona Constitution and the First Amendment to the
19 US Constitution protect the freedom of speech and association.
20 74. Under these constitutional provisions, a political party has a right to choose
21 its own candidate selection process for party officials.
22 75. Though this right is not without limitation, if it encompasses anything it
23 encompasses not having the right to elect PCs entirely striped away from the party’s
24 members.
25 76. Recognizing the importance of the people speaking as to who their PCs will
26 be, the AZGOP’s Bylaws provide that only elected PCs are eligible to hold seats on the
27 Party’s State Committee and therefore to govern the AZGOP and vote on, or serve as, the
28 Party’s executive officers. Similarly, the Yavapai County Republican Committee’s bylaws

12
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 provide that “All officers elected to the County Committee at the Statutory/Organizational
2 Meeting shall be elected PCs” and explain that one of the organization’s purposes is to
3 “[t]rain precinct committeeman and volunteers to grow the party, register voters and achieve
4 maximum election turnouts for Republican candidates.”
5 77. Further, seats on the State Committee are allocated to Counties based on their
6 number of elected PCs.
7 78. The Yavapai County Republican Committee’s bylaws require it to be made
8 up entirely of elected PCs.
9 79. Further, perhaps owing to its conservative nature, Yavapai County has higher
10 per-capita number of elected PCs than most counties in Arizona and Yavapai County has
11 a significant number of precincts with competitive PC elections. Indeed, all or almost all
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 PCs in Yavapai County are elected.

4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13 80. Thus Sec. 4 of HB 2839 will reduce the Yavapai County Republican
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14 Committee and its members’ overall influence on the governance of the AZGOP.
15 Sixth Cause of Action
16 Declaration of Legislative Intent
17 81. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
18 82. In the alternative, it was neither the intent of the legislature to reduce all PC
19 positions to appointed positions nor to reduce the number of PCs. Rather, the legislature’s
20 intent, if any, was to provide a means to ensure that each precinct had at least one PC by
21 providing a simple manner by which that one PC could be appointed. Plaintiffs ask this
22 Court to declare the same.
23

24 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray:

25 A. That this Court declare that Section 4 of HB 2839 is unconstitutional, that the use
26 of an emergency clause was unconstitutional as to Section 4 of HB 2839, and
27 grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief regarding the same;
28

13
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 B. Alternatively, for this Court to declare that the legislature’s intent was not for HB
2 2839 to limit the number of PCs nor to require more than one PC per precinct to
3 be appointed instead of elected and grant preliminary and permanent injunctive
4 relief regarding the same;
5 C. For an order awarding Plaintiffs their attorney fees and costs under the private
6 attorney general doctrine, A.R.S 12-2030, 341, 348, and any other applicable
7 statute or equitable doctrine.
8 D. For such other relief as this Court deems just and fair.
9

10

11 Respectfully submitted this 14th day of March 2022

Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12 By /s/Alexander Kolodin
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Alexander Kolodin
14 Arno Naeckel
Roger Strassburg
15
Veronica Lucero
16 Davillier Law Group, LLC
4105 North 20th Street Ste. 110
17 Phoenix, AZ 85016
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22AACEA5-EC32-4AE7-BE8D-32D03FEB37EC

1 Rule 80 Verification

2 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
3

4 Printed Name: Lois Fruhwirth

5 Signed Name:
6
Title: County Chairman, Yavapai County Republican Committee
7
Date: 3/14/2022
8

10

11
Telephone: (602) 730-2985 / Facsimile: (602) 801-2539
Davillier Law Group, LLC

12
4105 North 20th Street Suite 110

13
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15