|
Several neighbors have reached out asking a fair question regarding my vote on our legal case: Heap vs Galvin:
What clarifications are still needed?
I tried to get those answers during our public meeting, including requesting the background materials and legal basis tied to the stay or appeal. That request was denied. Put simply, I was asked to vote on a significant matter without the supporting information needed to make a fully informed decision.
I was excused from executive session and instead met separately with staff and my attorney. Staff, while unable to provide legal advice, shared that there are still unresolved operational questions about how to implement the ruling. Those issues include the proposed split of IT systems, databases, domains, and servers, along with ongoing ambiguity in statutes referencing the “officer in charge of elections.”
This is a time-sensitive matter that should have been resolved long ago. My focus remains where it has always been: solutions, clarity, and protecting voters. I believe the best path forward is asking the court to clarify ambiguity rather than pursuing a broad appeal. The public deserves certainty, and we should be working urgently to provide it.
Watch video below to see my questions from the dais.
 ###
Contact:
Kristy Dohnel
kristy.dohnel@maricopa.gov
|
