Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:44 -0700
From: ernesthancock@inficad.com ("Ernest Hancock")
Subject: [lpaz-xcom] Fw: 16-153 - Voter registration; confidentiality; definition (http://www.azleg.stat
To: free-libertarian@egroups.com, Trawles@kimlav.com ("Tom Rawles"), lrawles@grand-canyon.edu ("Rawles, Linda"), buttrick@brownbain.com ("John Buttrick"), lpaz-xcom@egroups.com ("lpaz-xcom"), azRKBA@asu.edu
Reply-To: lpaz-xcom@egroups.com
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 proper=
ly assigned to a voting precinct, does not include an address where he live=
s, just a mailing address. =
While Scott was here at the store I called Steve Galardo of the Maricopa Co=
unty 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 ut wh=
ere 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 an=
d 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 docum=
ent 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 availab=
le on public computers,... INCLUDING SS#'s and birth days. In his line of w=
ork he has been able to track down people that DO NOT want to be tracked do=
wn by anyone, with the use of government databases. Also Scott has a concer=
n for his personal safety due to the fact that some people do not like bein=
g 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 o=
f domestic violence that must go through a long process that may take month=
s to have data removed.
I was talking to my wife Donna about this this morning. I explained that wh=
at is at issue is the fact that "The King's Men" have a totally new class t=
o 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 all=
ow for anyone to have rights or privelidges that do not equally apply to ev=
eryone (of course the government will argue that government employees ARE s=
pecial 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 famo=
us 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 ta=
ke this on then HELL, we got us a really good issue. She knows the work inv=
olved in filing the suit (we've done it many times before and is no big dea=
l to her and would cost little since we would do it ourselves). BUT! This i=
s 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 c=
ountry 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 t=
he same way that Scott intends to do when we try to register in our new dis=
trict since we have moved recently (after all it was her idea :)
I called the staff aid that is writing the new language for Speaker Grosco=
st (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 w=
as 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 legisl=
ature to know what was coming before they went sine die so that they could =
not claim ignorance to the issue involved in an elction year. I also let h=
er know that I was not counting on the legislature to do anythng positive o=
n the issue. Letting them know what is coming like this is what gives us in=
fluence on many other issues. We have always warned them and then we have a=
lways lived up to our promise. So sometimes we are successful in stopping o=
r 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 ve=
ry easy win with little or no risk to life, limb, reputation or wallet. Tim=
ing may be after the court rules on the internet voter data issue but surel=
y 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 w=
ay to do your part and earn some activist stripes without a single push, pu=
ll 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://w=
ww.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 courtjudges, peace officer=
s or victims of domestic violence may request that the general public be pr=
ohibited from accessing the residential address, telephone number and votin=
g precinct number contained in their voter registration record. =
B. Justices, judges, commissioners or officers may request this action by f=
iling 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 addre=
ss, telephone number and voting precinct number of the person's voting reco=
rd will serve to reduce the danger.
C. The affidavit shall be filed with the presiding judge of the superior co=
urt in the county in which the affiant resides. To prevent a multiplicity o=
f filings, peace officers shall deliver the affidavit to their commanding o=
fficer, who shall file the affidavits at one time. In the absence of an aff=
idavit that contains a request for immediate action and is supported by fac=
ts justifying an earlier presentation, the commanding officer shall not fil=
e affidavits of peace officers presented to the commanding officer more oft=
en than quarterly.
D. Upon receipt of an affidavit or affidavits, the presiding judge of the s=
uperior court shall file with the clerk of the superior court a petition on=
behalf of all requesting justices, judges, commissioners and peace officer=
s. The petition shall have attached each affidavit presented. In the absenc=
e of an affidavit that contains a request for immediate action and is suppo=
rted 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 j=
ustice, judge, commissioner or officer should be granted. The presiding jud=
ge of the superior court shall order the sealing of the information contain=
ed in the voter record of the justice, judge, commissioner or officer if th=
e presiding judge concludes that this action will reduce a danger to the li=
fe or safety of the affiant.
F. Upon entry of the court order, the clerk of the superior court shall fil=
e the court order with the county recorder. Upon receipt of the court order=
the county recorder shall seal the voter registration of the justices, jud=
ges, 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 informa=
tion 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 registra=
tion 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 har=
assment issued pursuant to section 12-1809 or an order of protection or inj=
unction against harassment issued by a court in another state, the county r=
ecorder shall seal the voter registration record of the domestic violence v=
ictim. 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 registratio=
n shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.
I. For the purposes of this section, "domestic violence" has the same meani=
ng as prescribed by section 20-448.