OK, Here it comes.
Scott Decker's effort to file an affidavit with the County Elections Dept. that gave all the information that was needed in order for him to be properly assigned to a voting precinct, does not include an address where he lives, just a mailing address.
While Scott was here at the store I called Steve Galardo of the Maricopa County Elections Dept. to ask how he wanted to proceed with this document. He said that he could file it with them but that it would likely be put into a file that would generate a letter to him stating that he must fill out where he resides in order to be able to vote. I told him that he has already in fact got one of those letters from the elections dept. and is now using this affidavit to insure that the information he is providing is correct and is sufficient to determine where he will vote by stating what precinct he is in.
Then he said that there was a law that allowed the court to produce a document that would keep the records off any database. I got the impression that he meant ANY county database. But this could easily be tested since Scott is a process server for the court and KNOWS how much information is available on public computers,... INCLUDING SS#'s and birth days. In his line of work he has been able to track down people that DO NOT want to be tracked down by anyone, with the use of government databases. Also Scott has a concern for his personal safety due to the fact that some people do not like being served by a creative process server and threats are not uncommon. After a short conversation it was revealed by Steve that he was talking about ARS 16-153. This law only applies to Judges, Law Enforcement and PAST victoms of domestic violence that must go through a long process that may take months to have data removed.
I was talking to my wife Donna about this this morning. I explained that what is at issue is the fact that "The King's Men" have a totally new class to be defined as with special protection that we are not allowed. Of course she wondered if this was legal or constitutional. Then it hit me. The very clear language of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not allow for anyone to have rights or privelidges that do not equally apply to everyone (of course the government will argue that government employees ARE special and are entitled to more than you or I,... if we're lucky :) You see, this is another win if we lose win if we win kinda thing that we are famous for.
Now, get ready for this. Donna said, "I think you should file a lawsuit". "Donna, are you feeling well"? She understands the issue and thinks that it is important enough to devote time and effort to. If Donna is willing to take this on then HELL, we got us a really good issue. She knows the work involved in filing the suit (we've done it many times before and is no big deal to her and would cost little since we would do it ourselves). BUT! This is a great opportunity for some one other than a Hancock to get really good press and have some fun in a case that will get a lot of press around the country with little or no chance of even a bit of bad press and no threat of any punishment. Just a regular person wanting to be treated equally under the law to help protect themself and their family. I hope Scott will do it since he is very articulate about the subject and has a very sharp mind and would do great on the radio. Others like Tim and Ricky also have this type of court experience and would do well also. I would be limited in claiming privacy should I run for any public office this year (which I intended on doing) So maybe my wife would get standing for the suit by trying to file the same way that Scott intends to do when we try to register in our new district since we have moved recently (after all it was her idea :)
I called the staff aid that is writing the new language for Speaker Groscost (she asked that her name not be made public for some reason and I see no reason to for now so she is a "staff aid"). She made it clear that there was little chance of getting the privacy issue addressed and that they were moving to appease the labor unions by making the data even MORE accessable to the public. I said that I wasn't surprised, but that I wanted the legislature to know what was coming before they went sine die so that they could not claim ignorance to the issue involved in an election year. I also let her know that I was not counting on the legislature to do anythng positive on the issue. Letting them know what is coming like this is what gives us influence on many other issues. We have always warned them and then we have always lived up to our promise. So sometimes we are successful in stopping or starting things that the public never hears about to protect our freedoms,... just how the game is played.
So, take a look at the law at the end of this post and think about getting your name on the short list for the Patrick Harper award list. This is a very easy win with little or no risk to life, limb, reputation or wallet. Timing may be after the court rules on the internet voter data issue but surely well before the election cycle gets too deep. So a determination made by one (or MORE) of you isn't right now but fairly soon. This is a very good way to do your part and earn some activist stripes without a single push, pull or sit-up. But you do need to be ready for some interviews and air time, that I guarantee.
-----Original Message----- From: Decker Family <jmdecker@concentric.net> To: ernesthancock@inficad.com <ernesthancock@inficad.com> Date: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:13 PM Subject: 16-153 - Voter registration; confidentiality; definition (http://www.azleg.stat
16-153. Voter registration; confidentiality; definition
A. Justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges or commissioners of the superior court, municipal court judges, peace officers or victims of domestic violence may request that the general public be prohibited from accessing the residential address, telephone number and voting precinct number contained in their voter registration record.
B. Justices, judges, commissioners or officers may request this action by filing an affidavit which states all of the following:
1. The person's name.
2. The position the person currently holds and a description of the person's duties.
3. The reasons for reasonably believing that the person's life or safety or that of another person is in danger and that sealing the residential address, telephone number and voting precinct number of the person's voting record will serve to reduce the danger.
C. The affidavit shall be filed with the presiding judge of the superior court in the county in which the affiant resides. To prevent a multiplicity of filings, peace officers shall deliver the affidavit to their commanding officer, who shall file the affidavits at one time. In the absence of an affidavit that contains a request for immediate action and is supported by facts justifying an earlier presentation, the commanding officer shall not file affidavits of peace officers presented to the commanding officer more often than quarterly.
D. Upon receipt of an affidavit or affidavits, the presiding judge of the superior court shall file with the clerk of the superior court a petition on behalf of all requesting justices, judges, commissioners and peace officers. The petition shall have attached each affidavit presented. In the absence of an affidavit that contains a request for immediate action and is supported by facts justifying an earlier consideration, the presiding judge may accumulate affidavits and file a petition at the end of each quarter.
E. The presiding judge of the superior court shall review the petition and each attached affidavit to determine whether the action requested by each justice, judge, commissioner or officer should be granted. The presiding judge of the superior court shall order the sealing of the information contained in the voter record of the justice, judge, commissioner or officer if the presiding judge concludes that this action will reduce a danger to the life or safety of the affiant.
F. Upon entry of the court order, the clerk of the superior court shall file the court order with the county recorder. Upon receipt of the court order the county recorder shall seal the voter registration of the justices, judges, commissioners or officers listed in the court order no later than one hundred fifty days from the date of receipt of the court order. The information in the registration shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.
G. If the court denies an affiant's requested sealing of the voter registration record, the affiant may request a court hearing. The hearing shall be conducted by the court where the petition was filed.
H. Upon request by a domestic violence victim and presentation of an order of protection issued pursuant to section 13-3602, an injunction against harassment issued pursuant to section 12-1809 or an order of protection or injunction against harassment issued by a court in another state, the county recorder shall seal the voter registration record of the domestic violence victim. The record shall be sealed no later than one hundred fifty days from the date of receipt of the court order. The information in the registration shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.
I. For the purposes of this section, "domestic violence" has the same meaning as prescribed by section 20-448.