Circulators at center of legal challenge over Arizona voucher reform

In a bid to block Proposition 212 and its attempt to rein in voucher enrollment, spending and stockpiling, opponents argue the voter initiative failed in some cases to use qualified petition circulators and, coupled with other signature deficiencies, fell short of the requirements to qualify for the ballot.

But proponents claim most of the circulators at issue legally collected signatures and that, if the court decides otherwise, it could invalidate the signatures of large numbers of otherwise valid voters.

Final findings from the judge — and the counties' separate signature reviews — now could determine the fate of the Protect Education Act, with a dwindling buffer between the number of signatures collected and the number required to go to voters.

In July, the Protect Education committee turned in a total of 415,438 signatures. By the end of the Secretary of State's review, the committee was left with 389,376, still surpassing the 255,949 required to qualify.

But in a lawsuit filed on behalf of voucher advocates and parents, attorney Kory Langhofer claims the committee still falls short, chiefly because of petition circulators with mismatched addresses, past criminal records or court findings of incompetence.

James Barton, attorney for the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, contends the challenged circulators are qualified. He argued for some leniency under state law regarding addresses and said some circulators had their civil rights restored or were otherwise eligible to register to vote.

At the start of a three-day bench trial Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell heard testimony from circulators about their addresses, criminal histories and competency to determine whether the signatures they collected can withstand legal challenges.

On criminal backgrounds, attorneys primarily focused on whether circulators had their civil rights restored.

Under state law, circulators cannot legally collect signatures if they have a felony conviction or a conviction involving fraud, forgery or identity theft.

In Arizona, the state restores civil rights for individuals with a single felony conviction automatically upon completion of probation, release from prison and payment of restitution. But if convicted of multiple felonies or a felony in another state, Arizona law requires a petition to reinstate civil rights.

One circulator, Kisha Christian, previously pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens and importing methamphetamine. She testified that she never had her civil rights restored, leading Barton to agree to her disqualification.

Langhofer questioned another circulator, Mark Trusiak, about a second felony mentioned in a court record.

Trusiak confirmed he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of possession of drug paraphernalia.

But when Langhofer questioned him about the alleged second felony charge, Trusiak maintained he had only one felony. He acknowledged misdemeanor DUI convictions but said his civil rights had been restored and that he was registered to vote.

Langhofer said that because he could not otherwise access Trusiak's complete criminal record, he could not confirm a second felony and withdrew the challenge.

Langhofer and Barton then called Keyandria Campbell, a circulator previously deemed incompetent to stand trial by a court in a prior criminal case.

Campbell said she had experienced problems with her mental health. She said she was a "celebrity'' and "influencer'' who experienced anxiety after she claimed multiple people were following her around.

But she did not recall court-ordered mental health exams, treatment or an order declaring her incompetent to understand her court case and assist her attorney in her defense.

"Nobody took my rights away from me,'' Campbell said. "I was not deemed seriously mentally incompetent.''

Langhofer then brought up an ongoing case against Campbell in which she faces seven felony charges of aggravated assault and criminal damage for allegedly assaulting doctors and nurses and breaking a computer monitor at an urgent care facility. Campbell claims she was attacked and noted that the case remains ongoing.

When Langhofer brought up a more recent order from a judge declaring Campbell incompetent to stand trial, she challenged the characterization.

"I don't know if that's true or not. I don't believe that — the evaluators actually said I'm competent to stand trial,'' Campbell said.

"I can sit here and talk to you like a normal human being,'' she said. "Do you think that I'm incompetent as I can sit here and answer your questions perfectly fine? Do I seem incompetent to you, sir?''

When Barton questioned her, Campbell confirmed that a judge had never found her incompetent to the extent that it made her ineligible to register to vote. She also confirmed that she is currently registered to vote.

Langhofer maintained Campbell was not qualified to serve as a circulator because she had been found incompetent to stand trial.

Barton acknowledged the prior finding of incompetence but again stressed that the court did not take away her voting rights.

"I don't know if she's really a celebrity. I don't know if she's really an influencer. I frankly don't necessarily know what some of those things are, but it doesn't matter,'' Barton said. "She's never had her right to vote taken away, and she is eligible to register to vote. And for that reason, she properly circulated signatures.''

Barton and Langhofer called other witnesses to the stand to clear up questions around addresses, with disagreement on which address is required by law.

Langhofer contends circulators must provide their permanent residential address, while Barton argued the requirement encompasses a circulator's current living situation.

"That might be an Airbnb, that might be a hotel, that might be their residence when they were circulating,'' Barton said. "We can't read in 'permanent residence address' when it says 'residence address.' ''

One woman was temporarily living with her great-aunt in Phoenix but had her permanent address listed as her grandmother's house in Pennsylvania. Another made a typo in her address.

Another woman described a "nomadic" lifestyle. Her address on her state identification was a women's shelter in Tucson, but she listed addresses for Airbnbs where she stayed while working as a circulator.

A circulator who was homeless listed a Kentucky address, a Salvation Army shelter and an organization where he had his mail delivered. A college student used his apartment address when registering but wrote his parents' address on his petition sheets.

Barton conceded the challenge to one circulator based on her address: a woman who listed the address of her child's father as her permanent address, though she never moved in and later signed petition sheets using her sister's address.

He otherwise maintained that the question of residence for other circulators was still up to the court to decide.

Barton and Langhofer plan to call additional circulators and witnesses to the stand Monday.

Meanwhile, the parties and the court are waiting for a special master's report on signatures and signature reports from six remaining counties, including Maricopa and Pima.

Ultimately, it will be up to McDowell to decide who has met the legal requirements to circulate petitions.

That, in turn, leads to arguments that Barton and Langhofer are still arguing over how to calculate the final number of valid signatures, with unresolved questions about whether disqualified people are being double counted and how to extrapolate out the validity rate.

The measure, if approved, would rein in the universal Empowerment Scholarship Account program approved in 2022 which allows any student to get state funds to attend private or parochial schools or be homeschooled.

It would set limits on the kinds of purchases that can be reimbursed, specifically excluding lingerie, hot tubs, babysitting and admission to water parks. It also would restrict these universal vouchers — ones not tied to specific special needs — to families earning less than $150,000 a year.