Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

T. Hays, Deputy
12/7/2020 10:29:56 PM
Filing ID 12300059

1 Spencer G. Scharff, 028946

SCHARFF PLLC
2 502 W. Roosevelt Street
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 739-4417
4 spencer@scharffplc.com
5 Joshua A. Matz*
Marcella Coburn*
6 Michael Skocpol*
7 KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110
8 New York, New York 10118
jmatz@kaplanhecker.com
9
mcoburn@kaplanhecker.com
10 mskocpol@kaplanhecker.com
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming
11
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
12
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
14 JAMES STEVENSON, et al., Case No. CV2020-096490
15
Petitioners, THE CENTER FOR TECH AND
16 CIVIC LIFE’S MOTION FOR
v. LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE
17 BRIEF
18 DOUG DUCEY, et al.,
(Assigned to the Hon. David J. Palmer)
19 Respondents.
20
21 The Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) respectfully moves for leave to file a

22 brief as amicus curiae in response to the Petition for Election Contest filed in this Court on

23 December 4, 2020.

24 I. INTERESTS OF CTCL AS AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Curiae CTCL is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose mission is to
25
promote civic engagement and the modernization of election administration procedures.
26
Since its founding in 2014, it has provided trainings and support to local election officials
27
to enable them to more effectively serve voters in their communities. CTCL also works to
28
 1 collect and disseminate data to make elections and election processes more accessible and
2 transparent to the public. CTCL’s leadership is bipartisan, and its Board of Directors and
3 Advisory Committee includes members affiliated with both major political parties (or no
4 political party at all) as well as nonpartisan election administrators from around the
5 country. CTCL’s team also includes civic technologists, trainers, researchers, and election
6 administration and data experts working to foster a more informed and engaged democracy.
7 In keeping with its mission, when CTCL recognized that in 2020 the global COVID-
8 19 pandemic presented local election administrators throughout the country with
9 unprecedented challenges, CTCL took action to help localities adapt: It created a COVID-
10 19 Response Grant Program, which offered funding to local election administrators to
11 enable them to provide safe and secure voting procedures during the pandemic. CTCL’s
12 COVID-19 Response Grants were made available on a nondiscriminatory, nonpartisan
13 basis to any bona fide local election office anywhere in the country that chose to apply.
14 Ultimately, over 2,500 local governments around the country applied for and received
15 grants, including 9 of Arizona’s 15 counties. CTCL provided grants with the expectation
16 that they would be used for lawful election administration purposes as determined by local
17 officials.
18 Petitioners, however, allege that CTCL’s COVID-19 Response Grant Program was
19 really just a disguise for an insidious partisan scheme to skew Arizona’s elections in favor
20 of Democrats, thereby violating state and federal election laws. See Pet. ¶¶ 9, 38–62.
21 Amicus seeks leave to submit the brief attached as Exhibit A to correct that
22 misrepresentation of its program. In particular, CTCL has an interest in aiding the Court’s
23 decisional process by providing an accurate description of its grant program, addressing
24 the baseless and offensive charges leveled by Petitioners, and offering a more
25 comprehensive account of how its grant program operated both in Arizona and nationwide.
26 CTCL is also uniquely well positioned to provide this Court with additional context for the
27 allegations set forth in the Petition: As the attached brief recounts, eight federal district
28
2
 1 judges, nine federal appellate judges, and two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have
2 rejected motions premised on allegations of impropriety or illegality in the operation of
3 CTCL’s grant program. Those rulings, in conjunction with the actual facts about CTCL,
4 confirm that Petitioners’ challenges to the legality of CTCL’s grant program lack merit.
5 To the extent that Petitioners’ broader claims of electoral impropriety rest on their
6 spurious accusations against CTCL, it only underscores the error of their legal positions.
7 II. ARIZONA TRIAL COURTS HAVE AUTHOIRTY TO ACCEPT AMICUS
BRIEFS.
8
“Courts have inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the
9
administration of justice.” Schavey v. Roylston, 8 Ariz. App. 574, 575 (1968). Consistent
10
with this principle, Arizona trial courts have accepted amicus curiae briefs to assist the
11
court even in the absence of a specific trial court rule. See Home Builders Ass’n of Cent.
12
Ariz. v. City of Apache Junction, 198 Ariz. 493, 496 n.4 (App. 2000) (“Several amici have
13
appeared, both here and in the trial court, supporting the respective positions advanced by
14
the appellants, the City, and the District.”). In fact, another division of this Court recently
15
accepted an amicus brief in a recent, election-related action. See Donald J. Trump for
16
President, Inc. v. Katie Hobbs, et al., Case No. CV2020-014248.
17
III. CONCLUSION
18
The Center for Tech and Civic Life respectfully requests that this Court grant its
19
motion for leave to file the accompanying amicus brief.
20
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of December, 2020.
21
SCHARFF PLLC
22 /s/ Spencer G. Scharff
Spencer G. Scharff
23
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
24 Joshua A. Matz*
Marcella Coburn*
25
Michael Skocpol*
26 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming
27 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
The Center for Tech and Civic Life
28
3
 1 ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed
this 7th day of December, 2020
2
3 COPY of the foregoing was emailed and e-served
Via AZTurboCourt this 7th day of December, 2020, upon:
4
David W. Spilsbury
5
Spilsbury Law, PLLC
6 18 E. University Drive, Suite 208
Mesa, Arizona 85201
7 dave@spilsburylaw.com
8
Erick G. Kaardal
9 William F. Mohrman
Gregory Erickson
10
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.
11 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
12 kaardal@mklaw.com
13 mohrman@mklaw.com
erickson@mklaw.com
14 Attorneys for Petitioners
15
Roopali H. Desai
16 D. Andrew Gaona
Kristen Yost
17 Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
18 2800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
19 rdesai@cblawyers.com
agaona@cblawyers.com
20 kyost@cblawyers.com
21 Attorneys for Respondent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs

22 Brett W. Johnson
23 Snell & Wilmer LLP
400 East Van Buren Street
24 Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
25 bwjohnson@swlaw.com
26 Attorney for Respondent Governor Doug Ducey

27
28
4
 1 Stephen W. Tully
Bradley L. Dunn
2 Law Offices of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
3 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 750
Phoenix, AZ 85016
4 stully@hinshawlaw.com
bdunn@hinshawlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Maricopa County
6
/s/ Spencer G. Scharff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5