1

Paul Gattone
2 Law Office of Paul Gattone
301 S. Convent
Tucson, Arizona 85701
3 (520) 623-1922
State Bar Number: 012482
4 gattonecivilrightslaw@gmail.com
5 Counsel for Plaintiffs
6

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
9
People’s Defense Initiative, Inc.; Zaira )
10 Livier; Travonne Smith; Vivian Smith; )
Brian Dutz; Maria Johnson; Patrick )
11 Callahan; and Amanda Anyaeji, )
)
12 Plaintiffs, ) Case No. ______
)
13 v. ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
) DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND
14 Mike Rankin, Michael Ortega, Chris ) PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION
Magnus, & Steve Kozachik, all in their )
15 official capacities, and )
City of Tucson, )
16 )
)
17 )
Defendants. )
18 )
)
19 )
20
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION & COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
21 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
22 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
23
1. This suit challenges the City of Tucson’s and various city officials’ violation of A.R.S. § 9-
24
500.14, which prohibits city employees (with limited exceptions not applicable here) from using
25

26
-1-
 1 its “resources . . . or any other thing of value of the city or town, for the purpose of influencing

2 the outcomes of elections.”

2. In December 2018, a local citizen’s group received a serial number from the City Clerk’s Office
3

4 in order to circulate signature petition sheets that would qualify an initiative to be placed on the

5 November 2019 municipal ballot (hereafter “Proposition 205”)1. The applicable statute prohibits

6 the use of a city’s resources to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative “upon the filing for a
7
serial number.” Ariz. Op. Att’y Gen. No. I15-002 (July 30, 2015). Yet Defendants immediately
8
began to engage in electioneering efforts against Proposition 205, in direct violation of state law.
9 3. Approximately one month after the citizen’s group obtained its serial number, the City Attorney
10 invested City resources to prepare a legal memo assessing the legalities of Proposition 205.
11
Rather than offering his legal advice to his clients in a confidential setting, the City Attorney took
12
the extraordinary step of issuing the memo publicly and distributing it to local reporters. The
13
City Attorney chose this approach in order to influence public opinion about Proposition 205. As
14

15 was intended by the City Attorney, various city officials later relied upon the memo to urge

16 Tucson voters to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205. Opponents of Proposition 205 continue to use the

17 City Attorney’s publicly-issued memo as the basis to encourage City voters to vote “no” on
18 Proposition 205.
19 4. Since February 2019, Councilperson Steve Kozachik has distributed to Tucson voters at least

20 five communications discussing Proposition 205. Kozachik did so through his weekly e-

21 newsletters distributed to thousands of Tucson voters from his official government email account
22 and archived on the official Tucson government website. In these email communications,
23
Kozachik disseminated information in a manner that was not impartial, employing rhetorical
24
1
This citizen-led initiative was assigned a ballot number in August 2019 following certification by the City Clerk’s
25 office. Prior to obtaining a ballot number, the initiative was referred to as “Tucson Families Free and Together” and is
also referred to colloquially as the “sanctuary city” initiative. For simplicity in this complaint, “Proposition 205” is used
26 in all references.

-2-
 1 strategies that attempt to persuade the voter to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205. Many of the ‘facts’

2 included in the Kozachik newsletters are drawn from the City Attorney memo, which itself was
3
prepared with the express purpose of advocating a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 205.
4 5. On October 8, 2019, the City Attorney, the City Manager, and the Chief of Police issued a joint

5 memorandum purportedly for the purpose of “being responsive” to a number of questions that

6 had been posed to them by “City Council members and other members of the community.” To
7
the contrary, the City Attorney, City Manager, and Chief of Police prepared and distributed the
8
memorandum with the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election mere days
9
before voters are set to receive ballots in the mail.
10
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11

12 6. This Complaint raises a special action pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special

13 Actions, the forebear to which (Writ of Mandamus) was authorized to be heard by this Court,
14 pursuant to Article VI, Sec. 18 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-2021.
15 7. Special Action is appropriate here because there is no equally plain, speedy, and adequate

16 remedy available to Plaintiff.

8. Special Action is appropriate because Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court that Defendants
17
perform a duty that:
18 a. is ministerial in nature; and
19 b. which the law specially imposes a duty on Defendants; and
c. Defendants have thus far refused to perform; and
20 d. about which Defendants have no discretion.
9. This complaint seeks injunctive relief, which is authorized by A.R.S. § 12-1801.
21 10. This complaint seeks declaratory relief, which is authorized by A.R.S. § 12-1831, et seq.
11. The provisions of A.R.S. § 12-821.01 do not apply to this action because Plaintiff raises no claim
22

23 for monetary damages against any Defendants and all prayers for relief are of an exclusively

24 injunctive, declaratory, or extraordinary nature.

25

26
-3-
 1 12. Venue is proper in this Court because the Plaintiff is headquartered and based in Pima County.

2 Plaintiff seeks relief against a municipal entity situated in Pima County, and a substantial part of
3
the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in Pima County.
4
PARTIES
5
13. Plaintiff People’s Defense Initiative (hereafter “PDI”) is a nonprofit organization recognized
6
under the laws of Arizona and is a 501(c)(4) organization under Title 26 of the United States
7

8 Code.
14. Plaintiff PDI is a community-led grassroots organization dedicated to building a radically
9
inclusive and transformative movement focused on implementing progressive and inclusive
10
policies which promote community engagement defend human rights.
11
15. Plaintiff PDI advocates passage of Proposition 205 in Tucson.
12 16. Plaintiff Zaira Livier is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the City

13 of Tucson. Plaintiff Livier serves as the Executive Director of PDI and, as a recently naturalized
14 U.S. citizen, will exercise her right to vote for the first time by voting for Proposition 205 – an
15
initiative that she is proud to have helped craft.
16 17. Plaintiff Travonne Smith is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the

17 City of Tucson. Plaintiff Travonne Smith has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the
18 passage of Proposition 205.
19 18. Plaintiff Vivian Smith is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the

20 City of Tucson. Plaintiff Vivian Smith has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the

21 passage of Proposition 205.

19. Plaintiff Brian Dutz is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the City
22

23 of Tucson. Plaintiff Dutz has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the passage of

24 Proposition 205.

25

26
-4-
 1 20. Plaintiff Maria Johnson is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the

2 City of Tucson. Plaintiff Johnson has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the passage
3
of Proposition 205. Plaintiff Johnson also serves as a campaign strategist for PDI.
4 21. Plaintiff Patrick Callahan is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the

5 City of Tucson. Plaintiff Callahan has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the passage

6 of Proposition 205.
22. Plaintiff Amanda Anyaeji is a qualified voter in Arizona and resides within the boundaries of the
7

8 City of Tucson. Plaintiff Anyaeji has devoted many volunteer hours advocating for the passage of

9 Proposition 205.
23. Defendant City of Tucson is a municipal corporation under laws of Arizona.
10 24. Defendant Rankin serves as the City Attorney for the City of Tucson. Defendant Rankin is sued
11
in his official capacity.
12 25. Defendant Ortega serves as the City Manager for the City of Tucson. Defendant Ortega is sued in

13 his official capacity.

26. Defendant Magnus serves as the Chief of Police for the Tucson Police Department, a political
14

15 subdivision of the City of Tucson. Defendant Magnus is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Kozachik serves as a city councilor for the City of Tucson, representing Tucson’s
16
Ward 6.
17
STATEMENT OF FACTS
18

19 Proposition 205

20 28. On December 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed with the Tucson City Clerk’s Office an application for a

21 serial number for a city initiative petition, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 19-111, 19-141, 19-143, Chapter
22 XIX of the Tucson City Charter, and Chapter 12 of the Tucson City Code.
23 29. On the same day, the Tucson City Clerk’s Office issued serial number 2018-I001 to Plaintiffs’

24 initiative application, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to begin collecting signatures.

30. Petition 2018-001 was later qualified for the November 2019 municipal ballot and designated as
25
Proposition 205.
26
-5-
 1 31. Plaintiff Livier was the applicant whose signature appears on above-described December 4, 2018

2 application form.
32. Between December 2018 and July 2019, more than 140 community members collected more
3

4 than 18,000 signatures to place Proposition 205 on the ballot.

33. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiffs and numerous community members turned in to the Tucson City
5
Clerk’s Office 1,339 petition sheets containing 17,403 facially eligible signatures.
6 34. In August 2019, Proposition 205 was certified by the Tucson City Council to be placed on the
7
ballot.
8
January 16, 2019 City Attorney Memorandum
9
35. On January 16, 2019, Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin (hereafter “Rankin”) publicly issued a
10
memorandum (hereafter “January 16 Memorandum”) with the stated purpose of providing to the
11

12 Mayor and City Council his “evaluation of the . . . potential legal implications” of Proposition

13 205 and providing “impartial and factual information” related to the same.
36. Rankin expended city resources to research, prepare, draft, and edit the January 16
14

15 Memorandum, including, but not limited to:

a. Several hours of Rankin’s professional time during the weeks of December 31, 2018;
16
January 7; and January 14;
17 b. Use of City devices such as City-owned hardware and software;
c. Use of the City email account to communicate with others during the drafting process;
18 d. Use of City-controlled research aids such as Westlaw or Lexis Nexis;
19 e. Use of City-controlled internet service; and
f. Use of City buildings, namely City Hall located at 255 W. Alameda Street.
20 37. According to public records, Rankin earns approximately $150,000 annually.
38. Assuming, on average, a 40-hour workweek, the City of Tucson expends approximately $70.00
21
per hour (exclusive of benefits) for Rankin’s services to the City.
22 39. Upon information and belief, Rankin spent in excess of five (5) hours in researching, drafting,
23
and editing the January 16 Memorandum.
24

25

26
-6-
 1 40. Upon information and belief, additional City employees, working within the City Attorney’s

2 Office, also expended compensated staff time in researching the January 16 Memorandum and in
3
assisting Rankin during the weeks of December 31, 2018, January 7, and January 14.
4 41. Upon information and belief, City employees working within the City building located at 270 S.

5 Stone Ave also devoted compensated staff time to researching and assisting in the preparation of

6 the January 16 Memorandum.

42. It is rare for the Tucson City Attorney to publicly release a legal memorandum without express
7

8 instruction of the Mayor and City Council, assembled together.

43. Upon information and belief, Rankin prepared the January 16 Memorandum at the request of the
9
Mayor and/or certain members of the City Council.
10 44. The January 16 Memorandum is addressed to “Honorable Mayor and Council”.
45. The City Attorney renders written legal advice or opinions in his capacity as the lawyer for the
11

12 City, acting by and through the Mayor and Council. See, e.g., Tucson City Charter Chapter X,

13 Sec. 4 (“[the City Attorney] shall . . . give his advice or opinion in writing, whenever requested
14 to do so by the mayor and council.”).
15 46. Typically, a written legal opinion is rendered by the City Attorney as part of the attorney-client

16 relationship. See, e.g., Ariz. R. Prof. Conduct 1.13 (“a lawyer employed or retained by an

17 organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.”); Ariz.
18 R. Prof. Conduct 1.13, Comment 10 (“A government lawyer may have an obligation to render
19
advice to a government entity and constituents of a government entity. Normally, the government
20
entity, rather than an individual constituent, is the client.”)
21 47. As such, a written legal opinion typically may not be shared by the City Attorney with a non-
22 client without the express permission of the client. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 12-2234 (“an attorney shall
23
not, without the consent of his client, be examined as to . . . his advice given thereon in the
24
course of professional employment”).
25

26
-7-
 1 48. In this instance, Rankin noted that the January 16 memorandum “does not provide legal advice

2 relating to a proposed or contemplated action by the Mayor and Council [but rather] the legal
3
implications to the City connected with legislation proposed by third parties.”
4 49. Rankin’s justification finds no support in Arizona law and, indeed, Arizona courts have held that

5 the relevant statutory attorney-client privilege is broader than that historically recognized in the

6 common law.
50. The City Attorney’s client may decide to publicly disclose a legal opinion communicated to his
7

8 client only through its duly authorized constituents, which, in this instance, is the City Council

9 and Mayor, assembled together.

51. Upon information and belief, the City Council and Mayor never voted to release the January 16
10
Memorandum.
11
52. Upon information and belief, at no time prior to January 16, 2019 did the City Council and
12
Mayor discuss as an assembled body whether to make public the January 16 Memorandum.
13 53. Upon information and belief, Rankin issued the January 16 Memorandum to the public at the
14 express request of the Mayor and/or certain members of the City Council, but not at the request
15
of the Mayor and City Council, assembled together.
16 54. Upon information and belief, the Mayor and/or individual members of the City Council desired

17 that the January 16 Memorandum be made public, at least in part, to encourage City voters to
18 vote “No” on Proposition 205, should it appear on the ballot.
19 55. Rankin’s decision to publicly release the January 16 Memorandum is relevant insofar as it

20 indicates Rankin’s and other city officials’ intentions in January 2019 to influence the outcome of

21 an election, in violation of Title 9, A.R.S.

56. In the January 16 Memorandum, Rankin acknowledged the existence of A.R.S. § 9-500.14 and
22

23 warned the Mayor and Council against “the use of City resources to influence the outcome of an

24 election” and noted the “broad” nature of that prohibition.

57. Despite Rankin’s admonition, the very release of the January 16 Memorandum is itself a
25
violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.
26
-8-
 1 58. Despite Rankin’s characterization of the January 16 Memorandum as “impartial and factual”, the

2 January 16 Memorandum fails to employ neutral language in several sections. For example, the
3
January 16 Memorandum:
4 a. States that the authors of Tucson Families Free and Together “attempt to provide special

5 protection . . . for persons detained for . . . child molestation or sexual abuse” and that the

6 authors “attempt to protect detainees of certain crimes”, without any evidence or support
7
for this proposition.
8 b. States that Tucson Families Free and Together “give[s] a higher level of protection

9 against immigration inquiries to persons detained for sex crimes against minors”, without
10 any explanation or support for this proposition.
c. Comments, in what can best be described as a sarcastic tone of voice, on “the wisdom of
11

12 a policy that would give a higher level of protection . . . to persons detained for sex

13 crimes against minors”

59. Despite Rankin’s characterization of the January 16 Memorandum as “impartial and factual”, the
14

15 memorandum makes several facially false legal claims and conclusions, presumably designed to

16 influence the outcome of the election. For example, Rankin contends in the January 16

17 Memorandum that several aspects of Proposition 205 are “contrary to state law”, without any
18 legal analysis for that conclusion nor any citation to authority. Thus, the January 16
19
Memorandum employs rhetorical strategies that attempt to persuade the voter to vote ‘no’ on
20
Proposition 205.
21 60. Within hours of being released, the January 16 Memorandum attracted media attention in local
22 news outlets.
23 61. In the days following the January 16 Memorandum, the following headlines appeared locally:
a. “‘Sanctuary City’ effort in Tucson conflicts with state law, city attorney says”
24 b. “City atty: ‘Sanctuary city’ initiative may violate SB1070”
c. “Tucson faces potential legal battle with state over ‘sanctuary city’ petition”
25

26
-9-
 1 62. Between January 2019 and August 2019, staff and volunteers of Plaintiff PDI have been

2 informed by numerous Tucson voters that the January 16 Memorandum and/or media coverage
3
of the January 16 Memorandum directly influenced how they intend to vote on the Tucson
4
Families Free and Together initiative.
5 63. On numerous occasions, Tucson voters who would ordinarily be inclined to support the policy

6 preferences embraced by Proposition 205 have expressed that they intend to vote “no”, on the
7
exclusive basis of the information conveyed in the January 16 Memorandum.
8 64. Taken as a whole, the January 16 Memorandum unambiguously urges the reader to vote in a

9 particular manner – ie, to vote “no”.

65. Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether the January 16 Memorandum encourages a vote
10
for or against Proposition 205.
11
66. Accordingly, the January 16 Memorandum was prepared with the intention, and in fact did,
12
influence public opinion about Proposition 205, and is in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.
13
Mayor Jonathan Rothschild
14

15 67. On January 18, 2019, Mayor Jonathan Rothschild appeared as a radio guest on the Bill

16 Buckmaster Show and discussed the initiative (hereafter “January 18 Interview”).

68. During the January 18 Interview, Rothschild drew upon the opinions and analysis expressed in
17
the January 16 Memorandum.
18 69. Rothschild, drawing upon the January 16 Memorandum, made the following value-laden
19
statements in describing the initiative:
20 a. “it is just not well written”
b. “the folks who wrote it weren’t as careful as they should’ve been”
21 c. “if the initiative passed it would really do more harm than good”
70. The statements made in the January 18 Interview were heavily informed by the January 16
22

23 Memorandum which, upon information and belief, was written and made public at the request of

24 Rothschild.
71. Taken as a whole, the January 18 Interview unambiguously urges the listener to vote in a
25
particular manner – ie, to vote “no”.
26
- 10 -
 1 72. Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether the January 18 Interview encourages a vote for

2 or against the initiative.

73. Since January 18, Mayor Rothschild has relied upon the January 16 Memorandum on several
3

4 other instances in making public comments and giving public interviews urging a ‘no’ vote on

5 Proposition 205.
74. Although Mayor Rothschild is not a named Defendant, his January 18 interview and other
6
subsequent public comments were informed by the January 16 Memorandum, which in turn was
7

8 the product of the expenditure of City resources and which had the express purpose of

9 influencing the outcome of an election, in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.

75. In additionl to Mayor Rothschild, numerous other elected officials and other individuals relied
10
upon the January 16 Memorandum in attempting to influence a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 205.
11
City Councilor Steve Kozachik
12 76. Beginning in February 2019, Kozachik has issued several public statements urging Tucson voters

13 to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205.

77. Among these public statements, Kozachik has given several television interviews and public
14

15 presentations discussing his position against Proposition 205.

78. Among these public statements, Kozachik has published several weekly newsletters addressing
16
Proposition 205, which are distributed via email each week to thousands of Tucson voters.
17 79. Kozachik distributes these weekly e-newsletters from his official city council email account, and
18 archives each newsletter on a city-maintained website. Thus, Kozachik uses city resources for the
19
distribution of his newsletters, within the meaning of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.
20 80. While Kozachik does not expressly advocate in his e-newsletters for Tucson voters to vote ‘no’

21 on Proposition 205, he presents a view that is neither impartial nor neutral by conjecturing about
22 hypothetical negative consequences that could possibly befall the City, without regard to the
23
statistically remote possibility of such eventuality. Similarly, Kozachik omits details that would
24
lend to support of Proposition of 205 and amplifies details that are designed to attract opposition
25
to Proposition 205.
26
- 11 -
 1 81. Similar to Mayor Rothschild, Kozachik has publicly cited the January 16 memorandum to

2 support his position against Proposition 205.

82. But for Rankin’s decision to publicly release an otherwise confidential legal memorandum,
3

4 Kozachik would not have been able to cite to Rankin’s legal analysis as among the reasons

5 provided to Tucson voters to vote ‘no’.

83. Accordingly, Kozachik’s various public statements has influenced public opinion and was based
6
in large part upon the January 16 Memorandum, which in turn was the product of the expenditure
7

8 of City resources and which had the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election,

9 in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.

Police Chief Magnus & The October 8 Memorandum
10 84. On April 6, 2019 and again on July 21, 2019, Chief Magnus published guest opinion articles in
11
the Arizona Daily Star urging Tucson voters to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205. In both instances,
12
Chief Magnus was identified in the article using his title as a city official.
13 85. Upon information and belief, Chief Magnus used city time to draft and prepare each of the guest
14 opinion articles.
15 86. Upon information and belief, Chief Magnus used city materials, such as a city-issued computer,

16 to draft and prepare the guest opinion articles.

87. On additional occasions in 2019, Chief Magnus appeared as a guest on local television and radio
17
interviews discussing Proposition 205 and his opinion that voters should vote ‘no.’
18 88. The Tucson Police Department employs approximately 900 POST-certified law enforcement
19
officers. Additionally, the Tucson Police Department employs large numbers of civilian
20
employees who support the mission of the Department. As the police chief, Defendant Magnus is
21
a supervisor of these city employees.
22 89. A large number of the police and civilian employees of the Tucson Police Department are
23
qualified voters residing within the City of Tucson.
24 90. Defendant Magnus authored the two Arizona Daily Star opinion articles and participated in the

25 radio and television interviews knowing that a certain number of his subordinates would read,
26
- 12 -
 1 watch, and/or listen to Defendant Magnus’ comments relating to Proposition 205. Thus,

2 Defendant Magnus used “the authority of [his] position to influence the vote” of subordinate
3
employees, in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14(D).
4 91. On October 8, 2019, Defendant Magnus, along with Defendants Rankin and Ortega, co-authored

5 a memorandum (hereafter “October 8 Memorandum”) addressing Proposition 205.

92. Upon information and belief, Magnus, Rankin, and Ortega prepared the October 8 Memorandum
6
with the express purpose of encouraging Tucson voters to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205.
7
93. The October 8 Memorandum is not worded in a neutral or impartial manner, and sets forth
8
several falsities intended to influence readers to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 205.
9 94. Among other things, the October 8 Memorandum falsely suggests that passage of Proposition
10 205 would prevent Tucson from participating in ATF’s National Integrated Ballistics Network
11
and communicating with federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and/or locate fugitives.
12 95. Similarly, the October 8 Memorandum makes unfounded predictions about the behaviors and

13 decisionmaking processes of third parties over which city officials have no power or control, and
14 about which they have no authority to predict. Such statements are clearly designed to instill in
15
the public an unfounded fear of the negative consequences of voting ‘yes’ on Proposition 205.
16 96. Within minutes of issuing the October 8 Memorandum, it was distributed via numerous public

17 channels, including via Defendant Kozachik’s email list.

97. Upon information and belief, Magnus, Rankin, and Ortega chose to issue the October 8
18

19 Memorandum on October 8 precisely because ballots are set to be mailed to all Tucson voters on

20 October 10. Despite the fact that Magnus, Rankin, and Ortega were aware of Proposition 205 for

21 several months, they chose to release the Memorandum immediately prior to the start of voting.
98. Consequently, the context of the October 8 Memorandum suggests that it was prepared with the
22

23 purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.

COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY RELIEF
24

25

26
- 13 -
 1 99. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ past and continuing behavior that has the

2 purpose and objective effect of influencing the outcome of the November 2019 municipal
3
election is a violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14.
4 COUNT TWO: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
100. Plaintiffs can demonstrate both a likelihood of success on the merits and a probability of
5
irreparable harm if the Court does not grant relief.
6 101. Plaintiffs can demonstrate that the harm to Defendants is minor (if any), should the Court
7
grant Plaintiff’s injunctive relief
8 102. Plaintiffs can demonstrate that he equities tip sharply in favor of granting injunctive relief.
COUNT THREE: SPECIAL ACTION MANDAMUS RELIEF
9 103. Special Action relief is appropriate because there is no equally plain, speedy, and adequate
10 remedy available to Plaintiffs.
104. Special Action is appropriate because Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court requiring
11

12 Defendants to perform a duty that is: ministerial in nature; that the law specially imposes as a

13 duty on the Defendants; and about which Defendants have no discretion.

105. Special Action is also appropriate because Defendants are acting without legal authority.
14

15 Ariz. R. Spec. Act. P. 3(b).

106. Defendants have demonstrated through an unbroken chain of behavior that they intend to
16
continue violating this ministerial duty from now through November 5, 2019 (election day).
17 REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in
18

19 favor of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants, as follows:

A. Declaring that the January 16 Memorandum and October 8 Memorandum was
20
prepared by city employees with the purpose of influencing the outcome of a local
21
election, in violation of A.R.S. § 9-500.14; and
22 B. Issuing an expedited briefing schedule to allow this Court to craft a remedy prior to
23
the impending November 5, 2019 municipal election; and
24 C. Enjoining Defendants from further distributing the January 16 Memorandum and

25 October 8 Memorandum; and

26
- 14 -
 1 D. Issuing an injunction requiring Defendants to affirmatively take corrective actions to

2 ameliorate and mitigate the deleterious effects of the unlawful prior distribution of the
3
January 16 Memorandum and October 8 Memorandum; and
4 E. Granting Plaintiff’s petition for special action mandamus relief and exercise this

5 Court’s authority to craft proactive remedies to address Defendant’s past failure to

6 perform ministerial duties over which they had no discretion; and

F. Awarding Plaintiffs attorney fees; and
7
G. Awarding Plaintiff’s costs; and
8 H. Awarding the Plaintiffs all other relief as is just, proper, or equitable.

10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 9th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019.

11
Paul Gattone
12 /s Paul Gattone
Law Office of Paul Gattone
13 Appearing for Plaintiffs
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
- 15 -