Clayton v. West
| Decision Date | 24 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-20-0249-AP/EL,CV-20-0249-AP/EL |
| Citation | 489 P.3d 394,251 Ariz. 226 |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rasean CLAYTON, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kanye WEST, et al. Defendants/Appellants. |
Mary R. O'Grady, Joseph N. Roth, Joshua D. Bendor, Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix, Attorneys for Rasean Clayton
Timothy J. Berg, Keith Miller, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix; and Timothy A. La Sota, Timothy A. La Sota, PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Kanye West, Donald Anglin, Kristin Anglin, Kelli Whitehead, Brittani Quale, William Quale, Rachel Wallace-Sassarini, Patrick Wallace-Sassarini, Keith Gilbert, Marilyn Tuck, Michele Vrabel, and Mark Renberg
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Kara M. Karlson, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State
Michael B. Whiting, Apache County Attorney, Joseph D. Young, Chief Deputy County Attorney, St. Johns, Attorneys for Larry Noble, in his official capacity as Apache County Recorder, and Apache County Board of Supervisors
Brian M. McIntyre, Cochise County Attorney, Christine J. Roberts, Deputy County Attorney, Bisbee, Attorneys for David W. Stevens, in his official capacity as Cochise County Recorder, and Cochise County Board of Supervisors
William P. Ring, Coconino County Attorney, Rose Winkeler, Deputy County Attorney, Flagstaff, Attorneys for Patty Hansen, in her official capacity as Coconino County Recorder, and Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Bradley D. Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney, Jefferson R. Dalton, Deputy County Attorney, Civil Bureau Chief, Globe, Attorneys for Sadie Jo Bingham, in her official capacity as Gila County Recorder, and Gila County Board of Supervisors
Scott Bennett, Graham County Attorney, Safford, Attorney for Wendy John, in her official capacity as Graham County Recorder, and Graham County Board of Supervisors
Jeremy O. Ford, Greenlee County Attorney, Clifton, Attorney for Sharie Milheiro, in her official capacity as Greenlee County Recorder, and Greenlee County Board of Supervisors
Tony Rogers, La Paz County Attorney, Ryan N. Dooley, Chief Deputy County Attorney, Parker, Attorneys for Richard Garcia, in his official capacity as La Paz County Recorder, and La Paz County Board of Supervisors
Allister Adel, Maricopa County Attorney, Joseph E. La Rue, Andrea Cummings, Deputy County Attorneys, Phoenix, Attorneys for Stephen Richer, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder, and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Matthew J. Smith, Mohave County Attorney, Ryan H. Esplin, Deputy Civil County Attorney, Kingman, Attorneys for Kristi Blair, in her official capacity as Mohave County Recorder, and Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Brad Carlyon, Navajo County Attorney, Jason S. Moore, Deputy County Attorney, Holbrook, Attorneys for Michael Sample, in his official capacity as Navajo County Recorder, and Navajo County Board of Supervisors
Laura Winsky Conover, Pima County Attorney, Daniel Jurkowitz, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson, Attorneys for Gabriella Cázares-Kelly, in her official capacity as Pima County Recorder, and Pima County Board of Supervisors
Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, Craig Cameron, Scott M. Johnson, Allen Quist, Deputy County Attorneys, Florence, Attorneys for Virginia Ross, in her official capacity as Pinal County Recorder, and Pinal County Board of Supervisors
George E. Silva, Santa Cruz County Attorney, Kimberly J. Hunley, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, Nogales, Attorneys for Suzanne "Suzie" Sainz, in her official capacity as Santa Cruz County Recorder, and Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney, Matthew Black, Deputy County Attorney, Prescott, Attorneys for Leslie M. Hoffman, in her official capacity as Yavapai County Recorder, and Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
Jon R. Smith, Yuma County Attorney, William J. Kerekes, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, Yuma, Attorneys for Robyn Stallworth Pouquette, in her official capacity as Yuma County Recorder, and Yuma County Board of Supervisors
¶1 Rasean Clayton filed an application for a temporary and permanent injunction seeking to enjoin Kanye West and his presidential electors from appearing on the general election ballot for president in 2020.
¶2 The trial court granted Clayton's application, and West and his electors appealed to this Court. Sitting in division, we found that the presidential electors had failed to file the statement of interest required by A.R.S. § 16-341(I). Consequently, the nomination petition signatures submitted on their behalf were invalid, leaving West unable to qualify for the ballot. We issued a decision order affirming the trial court's ruling and enjoining the Secretary of State ("the Secretary"), county boards of supervisors, and county recorders from placing West and the electors on the ballot for the November 3, 2020, general election and stated an opinion would follow. This is that opinion, which sets forth our reasons.
¶3 Kanye West announced his intention to run for President of the United States in July 2020 and sought to qualify for the ballot in Arizona as an independent candidate. West was required to provide the Secretary with a letter designating the names of his vice-presidential running mate and his eleven presidential electors, a statement signed by each consenting to their designation, and a nomination paper on behalf of each elector. § 16-341(J). Additionally, the electors were required to submit nomination petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. A.R.S. § 16-341(C),(E), (F).
¶4 On August 24, paid circulators on behalf of West registered with the Secretary's office and began circulating nomination petitions. On August 31, Clayton, a resident and qualified elector of Arizona, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent West and his electors from appearing on the ballot. Clayton alleged two major deficiencies with West's effort. First, as registered Republicans, neither West nor ten of his eleven electors could meet the requirements of § 16-341(A) to appear on the ballot. Second, none of the electors had filed the statement of interest required by § 16-341(I) before the circulation of nomination petitions, rendering all signatures collected invalid and subject to challenge.
¶5 On September 2, West submitted his initial filing to the Secretary, which included the letter designating his vice-presidential candidate and eleven electors along with their signatures consenting to the designation and their respective nomination papers. West also submitted nomination petitions with 57,892 signatures for the electors and provided notice that an additional 90,000 signatures would be filed by the September 4 deadline, far more than the requisite 39,039 signatures.
¶6 The superior court heard argument on Clayton's application for temporary and permanent injunctive relief on September 3. The court considered the likelihood of Clayton succeeding on the merits, the possibility of irreparable injury if the court did not grant the injunction, the balance of hardships, and whether public policy favored the requested relief.
¶7 With respect to the merits, the court focused on the fact that § 16-341(A) is limited to "[a]ny qualified elector who is not a registered member of a political party that is recognized pursuant to this title ...." (Emphasis added). Because West was a registered member of the Republican Party in Wyoming, the court concluded he was therefore a registered member of a recognized political party and thereby prohibited from qualifying for the ballot as an independent candidate under § 16-341. Accordingly, the court found Clayton had "a significant probability of success on the merits." The court also noted, without elaboration, that "[t]he status of his presidential electors, too, is problematic."
¶8 The court further found that Clayton had demonstrated the possibility of irreparable injury given the pending ballot printing deadline and the risk of a disqualified candidate appearing on the ballot. While finding public policy "cut both ways," the court ultimately concluded that the balance of hardships favored Clayton and entered an order enjoining the Secretary and county boards of supervisors from placing West and his electors on the ballot for the general election. Additionally, the court enjoined the Secretary from accepting nomination petitions for West's presidential electors that were "not preceded by statements of interest from those electors."
¶9 West appealed directly to this Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(6) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 16-351(A).
¶10 "We review a trial court's grant of an injunction for an abuse of discretion," Cheatham v. DiCiccio , 240 Ariz. 314, 317–18 ¶ 8, 379 P.3d 211, 214-215 (2016), and we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, State v. Christian , 205 Ariz. 64, 66 ¶ 6, 66 P.3d 1241, 1243 (2003).
¶11 We affirmed the trial court because the electors failed to qualify for the ballot and not because § 16-341(A) precluded West's candidacy. Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Am. Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists , 227 Ariz. 262, 270 ¶ 16, 257 P.3d 181, 189 (App. 2011) . Section 16-341(A) provides that "[a]ny qualified elector who is not a registered member of a political party that is recognized pursuant to this title may be nominated as a candidate for public office otherwise than by primary election or by party committee pursuant to this section." This provision applies to independent presidential candidates only if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial