Page:Aguilera v. Fontes (CV 2020-014562) (2020) Order.pdf/8

 CV 2020-014562 4.42, emphasis added.) Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that "Defendants failed to open the location where electronic adjudication occurs to the public." (Complaint, ¶ 4.43.)

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS the relief requested is not appropriate or feasible for several reasons. First, the adjudication of votes had been completed by or on the date of the Hearing. Second, the uncontested evidence established that the public is able to view the adjudication process on an Elections Department website which broadcasts to the public these very Election Department activities, yet both Plaintiffs testified that they had not even looked at the website. Although Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the website's camera view was distant or in some fashion inadequate to satisfy Plaintiffs, this was argument of counsel since Plaintiffs had never actually availed themselves of the website viewing opportunity to know personally what was visible or whether it was satisfactory.

Third, the Court questions a process which permits anyone other than the authorized personnel hired/appointed to do so, to view a ballot in the fine detail Plaintiffs desire. Disclosing the details of another voter's ballot to a member of the public offends ballot secrecy. If Aguilera or Drobina had asked to watch closely in some manner the adjudication or processing of her or his own ballot, secrecy would not be an issue. However, because, as all parties agree, it is impossible to associate a ballot, once cast, with any specific voter, neither Plaintiff could have watched her/his own ballot being processed or adjudicated. Furthermore, THE COURT FINDS Plaintiffs did not establish that the public website fails to satisfy the Electronic Adjudication Addendum § (D)(1) requirement that adjudication be "open to public viewing".

In the Motions to Dismiss, Defendants and Intervenor contend that the Complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine of laches. The Court disagrees. The defense of laches is available in election challenges. Harris v. Purcell, 193 Ariz. 409, 412, 973 P.2d 1166, 1169 (1998); Mathieu v. Mahoney, 114 Ariz. 456, 458–59, 851 P.2d 81, 83–84 (1993). This doctrine is an equitable counterpart to the statute of limitations, designed to discourage dilatory conduct. Harris, 193 Ariz. at 410 n. 2, 973 P.2d at 1167 n.2. Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party. Id. at 412, 973 P.2d at 1169. … A laches defense, however, cannot stand on unreasonable conduct alone. Harris, 193 Ariz. at 412, 973 P.2d at 1169. A showing of prejudice is also required. Id.; Mathieu, 174 Ariz. at 459, 851 P.2d at 84. … The real prejudice caused by delay in election cases is to the quality of decision making in matters of great public importance. Mathieu, 174 Ariz. at 460, 851 P.2d at 85. The effects of such delay extend far beyond the interests of the parties. Waiting until the last minute to file an election challenge "places the court in a position of having to steamroll through the delicate legal issues in order to meet the deadline for measures to be placed on Docket Code 042