# Arizona official may keep Obama off the ballot **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 19, 2012, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398 "2012-05-19T05:06:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/41 "2012-05-21T18:06:37Z")
[The full text is here.](http://truthinjustice.org/phoenix-constitution.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/42 "2012-05-21T18:14:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No state requires driver’s licenses. > > Some states require voter ID. > > This requirement is perfectly constitutional, at least with respect to the federal constitution. And it’s a great idea. I too favour voter suppression, particularly when the goal is limiting the vote of the opposition. The fun of it being all done in the name of a non-existent problem is almost as good as championing new, useless spending requirements while decrying wasteful spending! Weeee! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/43 "2012-05-21T18:16:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you referring to the 2007 arrest of Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin? > > How was this either pumped or made up charges? They admitted what they did. They called it an act of civil disobedience: > > Can you explain what you mean? Believing the authorities think it’s illegal, and actually thinking it actually is illegal are two different things. I read their statement as just deciding not to care whether it really is illegal to do what they are doing, not that they accept that it is definitely so. Also, the term “trumped up charges” can include charges that are technically accurate, but that you have no intent to actually follow through with prosecution. This is what I believe **GIGObuster** is suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/44 "2012-05-21T18:24:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [The full text is here.](http://truthinjustice.org/phoenix-constitution.htm) That text includes: > [@](#): > > The seemingly picayune matter of Sheriff Arpaio’s home address getting printed at the bottom of an opinion column on our Internet site . . . Well, not that it justifies the MCSO’s insanely disproportionate reaction here, but I can understand their going ballistic over it. Cops do **not** want their home addresses published anywhere ever, for obvious reasons – anybody you ever arrested could find out where to find you, and your family. And in Arpaio’s case, he would have to have a 'round-the-clock detail guarding his house to prevent assassination. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/45 "2012-05-21T18:51:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, let me put it this way: that is still very risky, even more when I’m Hispanic, you should be aware that even the the editors of the weekly independent magazine _The New Times_ who are critical of Arpaio were recently arrested on pumped or made up up charges (that were later dismissed) by Arpaio’s henchmen. > [@Bricker](#): > > Are you referring to the 2007 arrest of Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin? > > How was this either pumped or made up charges? They admitted what they did. They called it an act of civil disobedience: > > > [@](#): > > > > It is, we fear, the authorities’ belief that what you are about to read here is against the law to publish. But there are moments when civil disobedience is merely the last option. We pray that our judgment is free of arrogance. > > Can you explain what you mean? You asked him, not me; but after reading the article **Miller** linked to, I’d like to take a stab at it. ISTM that the “civil disobedience” spoken of in the quote you provided refers to their publication of the particulars of the grand jury subpoena. Please feel free to instruct me if I am mistaken. However, the article on the whole does a very good job of creating the perception that the empaneling of the grand jury (on the matters to which the subpoena refers) was based upon a tissue of what can be described as “pumped up” or “made up” probable causes for investigation. The fact that the charges were dropped the day after the arrests were made would seem to support that perception. Was that at least approximately what you meant, **GIGObuster**? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/46 "2012-05-21T19:56:27Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Also, someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but if Arizona were to keep Obama off the ballot, wouldn’t they just forfeit their electoral votes? I don’t think so – that is, I know of no legal requirement to that effect. **Bricker?** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/47 "2012-05-21T20:10:53Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > However, the article on the whole does a very good job of creating the perception that the empaneling of the grand jury (on the matters to which the subpoena refers) was based upon a tissue of what can be described as “pumped up” or “made up” probable causes for investigation. > > The fact that the charges were dropped the day after the arrests were made would seem to support that perception. > > Was that at least approximately what you meant, **GIGObuster**? Yep, you got it. And of course the lawsuit then was filed by the editors: > **[New Times files a prelude to a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, County...](https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/new-times-files-a-prelude-to-a-lawsuit-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio-county-attorney-andy-thomas-and-a-discredited-ex-special-prosecutor-on-behalf-of-its-readers-and-the-constitution-6433034)** > > New Times submitted a formal Notice of Claim on Wednesday, February 20, against the public officials responsible for a fiasco in October that saw the attempted trampling of the First Amendment rights of this newspaper and its readers, and culminated... But it has been hold in the courts as they are deciding if the perpetrators of the abuse can be the subjects of a lawsuit, no matter, you bet that the defense lawyers for the state are active trying to dismiss that and are getting their pay courtesy of the taxpayers of Maricopa county. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/48 "2012-05-21T20:35:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep, you got it. And of course the lawsuit then was filed by the editors: > > [New Times files a prelude to a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, County Attorney Andy Thomas and a discredited ex-special prosecutor on behalf of its readers and the Constitution | News | Phoenix | Phoenix New Times | The Leading Independent News Source in Phoenix, Arizona](http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-21/news/new-times-files-a-prelude-to-a-lawsuit-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio-county-attorney-andy-thomas-and-a-discredited-ex-special-prosecutor-on-behalf-of-its-readers-and-the-constitution/) > > But it has been hold in the courts as they are deciding if the perpetrators of the abuse can be the subjects of a lawsuit, no matter, you bet that the defense lawyers for the state are active trying to dismiss that and are getting their pay courtesy of the taxpayers of Maricopa county. There is such a thing as [“sovereign immunity”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity) – “Wrongs do not run against the King,” or, in republican terms, the state can’t be sued for any tort in its own courts – not without its own permission, that is; sovereign immunity can be waived in a specific case, or more generally by statute . The federal government has enacted the [Federal Tort Claims Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act) and ractically every state has enacted legislation allowing the state to be sued to some extent under some circumstances. (If such legislation sounds like a no-brainer to you, remember that suing the state = suing the taxpayers = suing the voters.) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/49 "2012-05-21T21:25:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you referring to the 2007 arrest of Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin? > > How was this either pumped or made up charges? They admitted what they did. They called it an act of civil disobedience: **Bricker** , you should read the decision by the [Ninth Circuit](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf): [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf) . The publishers were not arrested for publishing the address of Arpaio. They were arrested for publishing Grand Jury subpoenas contrary to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2812(A), however, there never were any Grand Jury subpoenas in the first place, nor were there any prosecutor issued subpoenas later ratified by a Grand Jury. All there was were documents the prosecutor was passing off as valid subpoenas. To make matters worse, the prosecutor went to state court prior that day asking for arrest warrants, but rather than waiting for the court to either issue or deny arrest warrants, the prosecutor had the publishers arrested – whisked away in the night in unmarked black vehicles. Arrests without warrants based on fake subpoenas. All in all, that’s trumped up charges in my book. The whole decision is well worth reading, but the relevant pages are at 2627 and 2628. You can’t make this shit up. The publishers’ case is still trucking along. Note that what the court seems to be chewing on is not so much whether Arpaio and his cronies did bad, but rather whether or not they have immunity due to their jobs. There’s something deeply wrong with the electorate in Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/50 "2012-05-21T22:45:21Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > There’s something deeply wrong with the electorate in Arizona. Must be the heat. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/51 "2012-05-21T23:10:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This requirement is perfectly constitutional, at least with respect to the federal constitution. And it’s a great idea. Why? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/52 "2012-05-21T23:45:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Must be the heat. :rolleyes: Oh, get off your Canuckistani high-horse! Canadians are more sensible than Yanks! We get it! ☹ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/53 "2012-05-21T23:54:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Must be the heat. Well, it’s not the humidity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/54 "2012-05-22T01:06:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No state requires driver’s licenses. > > Some states require voter ID. > > This requirement is perfectly constitutional, at least with respect to the federal constitution. And it’s a great idea. ITT: **Bricker** supports poll taxes or coughs up where to get a free ID, including the supporting documentation to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/55 "2012-05-22T01:28:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t think so – that is, I know of no legal requirement to that effect. **Bricker?** Me neither. But that’s just a shoot from the hip response. No research. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/56 "2012-05-22T01:34:28Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > **Bricker** , you should read the decision by the [Ninth Circuit](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf): [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf) . > > The publishers were not arrested for publishing the address of Arpaio. They were arrested for publishing Grand Jury subpoenas contrary to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2812(A), however, there never were any Grand Jury subpoenas in the first place, nor were there any prosecutor issued subpoenas later ratified by a Grand Jury. All there was were documents the prosecutor was passing off as valid subpoenas. > > To make matters worse, the prosecutor went to state court prior that day asking for arrest warrants, but rather than waiting for the court to either issue or deny arrest warrants, the prosecutor had the publishers arrested – whisked away in the night in unmarked black vehicles. > > Arrests without warrants based on fake subpoenas. All in all, that’s trumped up charges in my book. The whole decision is well worth reading, but the relevant pages are at 2627 and 2628. You can’t make this shit up. > > The publishers’ case is still trucking along. Note that what the court seems to be chewing on is not so much whether Arpaio and his cronies did bad, but rather whether or not they have immunity due to their jobs. > > There’s something deeply wrong with the electorate in Arizona. Wait a second, though. You say that the subpoenas were fake, but that’s just the allegation from the complaint. In other words, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, the court assumes the truth of everything the complaint alleges. Is it certain that this part is true? I am seriously just asking. If true, it’s absolutely outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/57 "2012-05-22T01:35:33Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > ITT: **Bricker** supports poll taxes or coughs up where to get a free ID, including the supporting documentation to get it. That’s not a poll tax. See Crawford v. Marion County. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/58 "2012-05-22T02:32:29Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Also, someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but if Arizona were to keep Obama off the ballot, wouldn’t they just forfeit their electoral votes? Why? A state isn’t required to accept every candidate who tries to get on the ballot if he’s not qualified. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/59 "2012-05-22T02:46:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not a poll tax. See Crawford v. Marion County. Nevertheless, it is and you fucking know it. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398/60 "2012-05-22T03:20:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait a second, though. You say that the subpoenas were fake, but that’s just the allegation from the complaint. In other words, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, the court assumes the truth of everything the complaint alleges. > > Is it certain that this part is true? > > I am seriously just asking. If true, it’s absolutely outrageous. The decision resulted in a new hearing which is presently ongoing, so it would be premature to conclude that the facts have been proven. I read the reasons as if all allegations of material fact were taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as per Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.1996). But here`s where it gets interesting. The publishers appealed and the prosecutor cross-appealed, so the judges ended up having to weigh the evidence, and in so doing had to be very careful to set out when the parties disagreed as to the facts. I did not notice any reference to the prosecutor having taken the position that the subpoenas were valid, or that there had been an arrest warrant. That suggests to me that although it ain`t over until the fat lady swings (hey, it`s Arpaio country), the subpoenas were bogus and there were no arrest warrants. Have a boo at the following: [INDENT]@ 7635 Plaintiffs have successfully alleged that because Wilenchik failed to adhere to Arizona law when issuing the subpoena regarding the grand jury proceedings, he knew it was not protected grand jury material and he therefore had no probable cause to believe Plaintiffs had violated the grand jury secrecy statute. @ 7635 In a cross appeal, Wilenchik has appealed the district court’s determination he does not qualify for absolute immunity. He argues he was not engaged in investigatory activities when he issued the document requests and had no role in the arrests following the news article about the grand jury proceedings. We agree with the district court. @ 7637 We emphasize, however, that discovery may result in a more complete picture of the events surrounding the grand jury proceedings and arrests—information which might support an argument that the investigation had moved to the prosecution phase. For instance, Wilenchik may be able to clarify the status of the matter before a grand jury in support of probable cause or whether charges had been filed against Plaintiffs. Or he may provide enough facts to rebut any notion he advised police or ordered the arrests. Should he do so, the district court can consider any further arguments at the summary judgment stage of the case. But at this point, the complaint alleges Wilenchik knew the subpoena was not approved by a grand jury and that he lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiffs committed a crime by publishing them. [10] Thus, as it stands, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Wilenchik performed an investigatory function when he advised the police to make the arrests. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision not to grant Wilenchik absolute immunity for ordering the arrests.[/INDENT] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-official-may-keep-obama-off-the-ballot/622398.md?page=4)