[tjinaz]

A licensed atty from Arizona disagrees and thinks it will stick.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...224735&page=33

I'm a licensed Arizona attorney, but I will admit I am no elections law expert. Notwithstanding that, it isn't very hard to read the statute and a few cases to know that, at least in Arizona, strict compliance is required here and even technical defects can lead to rejection of the petitions. This is a dot the "i" and cross the "t" area, and close isn't good enough, at least under Arizona law.

I understand to some it might be frustrating to hear that the rejection of the petitions will likely be affirmed so long as the techinical violations the CoG has identified are indeed accurate, but my unsolicited and non-expert opinion is that it is highly unlikely the petitioneers will get any relief, at the trial court or appellate court level. And, the petitioneers may be subject to an award of attorney fees so I question whether Cobb/Jones at least will follow through on the threat of a court challenge. The tax initiative has some people behind it with money and resources to fight. I'm not so sure Cobb/Jones have the stomach, even if the GWI provides them with free representation. Jones is already facing a potential attorney fee award for the last go around wiht the CoG, and he can pay his water bill for years with the potential exposure he may face if he were to lose his challenge and the court were to award the City's fees against him. I suppose he could insulate himself by suing in the name of his PAC, but there appears to be issues with whether the PAC was properly formed and administered in accordance with elections laws.

The only challenge I see coming is a potential gift clause challenge by the GWI should Jamison be able to close. I continue to think this is all the tail wagging the dog because the real issue remains and that is whether Jamison has the $$$.