AI- 5496
.
Special / Executive Session Board of Supervisors Mtg-1:30pm
- Meeting Date:
- 10/22/2020
- Title:
- Discussion regarding Hoffard voter disability discrimination lawsuit
- Submitted By:
- Susana Stark, County Attorney
- Department:
- County Attorney
Presentation:
No A/V Presentation
Recommendation:
Document Signatures:
# of ORIGINALS
Submitted for Signature:
Submitted for Signature:
NAME
of PRESENTER:
of PRESENTER:
Christine J. Roberts
TITLE
of PRESENTER:
of PRESENTER:
Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney
Mandated Function?:
Source of Mandate
or Basis for Support?:
or Basis for Support?:
Information
Agenda Item Text:
Discussion and possible direction regarding the Hoffard voter disability discrimination lawsuit over the County’s elimination of curbside voting, and Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to compel the County to offer curbside voting.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3) and (4), the Board may go into executive session for legal advice with the attorney of the public body and to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position in pending litigation.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3) and (4), the Board may go into executive session for legal advice with the attorney of the public body and to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position in pending litigation.
Background:
On August 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors and Elections Director, Lisa Marra was served with a voter disability discrimination lawsuit for Plaintiff Kathleen Hoffard. Ms. Hoffard is represented by the Arizona Center for Disability Law (“ACDL”). The crux of the matter is that Plaintiff believes the County’s elimination of curbside voting amounts to disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”).
The County’s position is that curbside voting is no longer offered because all of the County’s vote centers are ADA accessible and compliant. At the January 23, 2018 work session, the Board and the Elections Director discussed eliminating curbside voting and on May 3, 2018, the County issued a new release about the fully ADA compliant vote centers and elimination of curbside voting. Additionally, there are safety concerns for poll workers. Moreover, the ExpressVote machines are highly sensitive and not designed to be moved back and forth for curbside voting.
On September 21, 2020, the County Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed but has not yet been heard by the Court.
On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff file a motion for preliminary injunction to compel the County to offer curbside voting.
At this time, the Cochise County Attorney’s Office would like to discuss the lawsuit, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and legal strategy with the Board. As well as solicit guidance and direction from the Board.
The County’s position is that curbside voting is no longer offered because all of the County’s vote centers are ADA accessible and compliant. At the January 23, 2018 work session, the Board and the Elections Director discussed eliminating curbside voting and on May 3, 2018, the County issued a new release about the fully ADA compliant vote centers and elimination of curbside voting. Additionally, there are safety concerns for poll workers. Moreover, the ExpressVote machines are highly sensitive and not designed to be moved back and forth for curbside voting.
On September 21, 2020, the County Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed but has not yet been heard by the Court.
On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff file a motion for preliminary injunction to compel the County to offer curbside voting.
At this time, the Cochise County Attorney’s Office would like to discuss the lawsuit, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and legal strategy with the Board. As well as solicit guidance and direction from the Board.
Department's Next Steps (if approved):
Implement any direction provided by Board of Supervisors.
Impact of NOT Approving/Alternatives:
Legal strategy may be inconsistent with the Board’s objectives.
To BOS Staff: Document Disposition/Follow-Up:
N/A