A Pima County judge will decide if Marana residents will be able to vote on a measure challenging the rezoning of two properties for a proposed data center.
Oral arguments were heard Monday, from attorneys representing the Town of Marana, some of its residents and Fremont Peak Properties LLC, a subsidiary of Beale Infrastructure, the developer behind two data centers in Pima County.
Jackie McGuire is a Marana resident and plaintiff in the case. She says the judge should rule in the favor of the people.
“There is a reason that referendum is enshrined in the Arizona State Constitution and it’s because it’s one of the most valuable rights that we have and one of the greatest checks and balances for power,” McGuire said.
In February, McGuire, Sue Ritz and Matthew Rohen-Trapp formed the organization, Marana Citizens for Ethical and Transparent Government and sued the Town of Marana and Town Clerk Jill McCleary, for rejecting referendum petitions that were initially filed by Arizonans for Responsible Development – a political action committee sponsored by the advocacy organization Worker Power.
Town officials said in a press release that the petitions didn’t include the legal descriptions of the involved properties required for zoning ordinances, a requirement under state law.
Nearly 3,000 signatures were submitted to Marana officials before the town officially denied them on Feb. 18. Marana residents are asking the judge to compel the town clerk to transmit the signatures to the Pima County Recorder’s Office for further verification.
Attorneys representing Marana residents argued that a sufficient legal description of the land was included with the referendum application, based on information that was provided by the town.
However during Monday’s hearing, Jon Paladini, the attorney representing the town, argued that if the town clerk makes a mistake, it falls on the petitioners to catch that mistake.
The town has not disputed the fact that it did err by failing to provide legal descriptions for the referendum petitions to the Pima County Recorder’s Office.
Marana officials have said that they re-submitted proper documents after realizing their mistake.
Paladini argued that the town clerk has no statutory authority to reject petitions that are visibly incomplete or incorrect.
Fremont Peak Properties
In March, Fremont also filed a lawsuit against the Town of Marana for not allowing petitioners to withdraw their petitioners – a request that Arizonans for Responsible Development filed on Feb. 17.
The committee stated that it no longer supported the petitions nor placing the measures on the ballot.
Marana officials have said that the town does not have the statutory authority to withdraw referendum petitions that have been filed and that the town is legally obligated to complete the administrative review process. Towards the end of Monday’s hearing, Paladini asked the judge to advise whether the clerk made the correct decision.
Eric Spencer, an attorney representing Fremont argued that the town clerk should’ve recognized the committee’s request for withdrawal under the law, therefore asking the judge to order the town clerk to do so and cease any further processing of the petitions.
Scott McDonald, the judge presiding over the case postulated that it should be up to the qualified electors who signed the petitions to withdraw the application.
Spencer argued that qualified electors or voters, shouldn’t have an expectation of the outcome when referendum petitions are filed in the first place.
Both Marana Citizens’ and Fremont Peak Properties’ complaints were consolidated by Pima County Superior Court because they reference the same two properties.
Sue Ritz, a plaintiff, said after the hearing that she was impressed by Paladini for asking the judge to advise what the rules are but that it should be up to the voters to decide whether a large infrastructure project will get built.
“We the people, we need to remember that we are the final say on this, not some billionaire hedge fund somewhere who may or may not make money for the town,” Ritz said.
Rohen-Trapp, the third plaintiff, said he disagreed with Spencer’s argument that it was not in the government’s interest to hang on to the referendum petitions.
“Our government is meant to serve the people and if the people still want their voices heard, still need their voices heard, there should be no question of what’s easiest for the government,” Rohen-Trapp said.
Ritz and McGuire are running as candidates for the town council. Rohen-Trapp, who did file his interest in running, dropped out of the race.
The judge expects to issue a ruling by the end of this week.
