Related articles:

Affirmative-action opponents file suit to put ban on ballot Affirmative-action foes give up on 2008 ballot Anti-affirmative action fails, shy valid signatures for ballot

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President

PHOENIX — Opponents of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative filed suit Monday in hopes of getting a judge to block it from being on the ballot.

But there are preliminary indications that the initiative, which would strike down government affirmative-action programs, could have a hard time qualifying for the ballot even without the lawsuit, due to a high number of invalid petition signatures. The Arizona Secretary of State's Office is still in the process of verifying petition signatures.

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, contends that many of the petitions submitted last month for Proposition 104 were circulated by people not legally entitled to do so, including people who don't live in Arizona and convicted felons who have not had their civil rights restored.

Attorney Charles Blanchard also cited a series of other problems with some of the petition pages, some technical, which he said also should prevent any signatures on those pages from being counted.

The allegations likely will be combined with those of another lawsuit filed last month, which contends circulators committed fraud and misled signers about what the measure would do.

The issue, however, may be moot. Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said late Monday that counties were still checking random samples of the signatures.

And Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne said an initial check of the signatures sent by Tyne's office to her agency showed close to 46 percent were invalid. With more than 280,000 of the signatures coming from Maricopa County, that error rate alone would bring the total number of valid signatures below the 230,047 required to put the measure on the ballot.

Despite that, Max McPhail, director of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, said Monday that he remains confident voters will get a chance to decide the issue in November.

"They might have found one or two people that maybe aren't qualified to circulate," he said of the lawsuits, but he still anticipates having enough valid signatures.

McPhail said opponents want to kill the measure now with legal maneuvers because a majority of Arizonans would support it if it makes it onto the ballot.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, one of the leaders of the anti-104 effort, said this isn't an effort to squelch voter rights.

"I believe that people should have the right to vote on issues that are fairly and honestly placed before them," she said. "But no one should be forced to vote on an issue that has gotten to the ballot because of illegal activity and cheating."

Proposition 104 would amend the state constitution to make it illegal to "discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

The initiative, drawn up by Californian Ward Connerly, is identical to one approved by voters of his own state in 1996. Similar measures have since been approved in Michigan and Washington.

Backers submitted nearly 335,000 signatures.

Tyne said his office threw out more than 9,000 names on petitions that were not signed by their circulators or that were not properly notarized.

A random sample of what was left was sent to the counties.

Blanchard, in his lawsuit, claims Tyne's office should have thrown out petitions with another 105,107 names. That claim, if successful, would automatically disqualify the measure from the ballot even before the random county-by-county checks.

He said some circulators are convicted felons who are legally precluded from carrying petitions because they have not had their civil rights restored. Others, he said, are not Arizona residents.

Tyne said his office does not check the residence or criminal backgrounds of circulators. Osborne said neither do the counties, as circulators sign sworn affidavits that they are legally entitled to pass petitions.

That leaves the question of their qualification to challengers.

Sinema said the lawsuit serves a purpose, even if Tyne's office concludes there are not enough signatures.

She said Connerly might want to challenge those findings in court, as has been done by backers of three other initiatives that also were found to have insufficient signatures. One of those has since been restored to the ballot.

Sinema said that if Connerly sues, that opens the door for a judge to review all of the separate evidence of flawed petitions her group has found.

It also would mean evidence could be introduced from the earlier lawsuit filed by a group known as By Any Means Necessary. That includes affidavits from petition signers who said they were led to believe the measure would help minorities.

There also are claims by people who were hired as paid circulators for Proposition 104 who said they witnessed people forging signatures. And there are affidavits claiming petitions were circulated by non-Arizona residents, a violation of state law.