Marana voters will not get the chance to vote on a developing data center.
On Friday, a Pima County judge ruled that the Town Clerk for Marana was right to reject two referendum petitions.
The reason those petitions were denied in February was because they lacked the correct rezoning ordinances and legal description of the properties.
In January, the Town Council unanimously approved the rezoning of two adjacent parcels of agricultural land to be used for a data center.
Marana citizens had argued that petitioners submitted the property information that was provided to them by the Town Clerk.
Jackie McGuire, a Marana resident and plaintiff in the case said the court’s ruling was disappointing.
“We’re committed to continuing to fight for the people of Marana and for their right to have control over the future of the town,” McGuire said. “We’re working with counsel to determine next steps and will continue to communicate updates as we’re able to.”
The judge also ruled that the Town Clerk was correct to reject the request to withdraw the two referendum petitions made by the petitions’ applicant Arizonans for Responsible Development – a political action committee sponsored by the advocacy non-profit, Worker Power.
In February, the committee said that it retracted the petition signatures it supported and no longer supported placing the measures on the ballot.
The following day, the Town Clerk said that it did not have the authority to permit the petitions to be withdrawn after applications have been submitted.
The judge’s ruling said that at no point after referendum petitions are filed does the law permit an applicant to withdraw an application.
In March, Fremont Peak Properties – a subsidiary of Beale Infrastructure, the developer of two proposed data centers in Pima County – sued the Town of Marana for not allowing the petitioners to withdraw their requests.
The judge also denied Fremont Peak Properties' request to compel the Town to accept the request for withdrawal.
Oral arguments for both complaints were heard on April 27 – the cases were consolidated because they involved the same properties.
