We succeeded in collecting 289 signatures. Scans of some of them are posted below (last names, signatures and address details have been redacted). The minimum number required is 238. These signatures represent a hard fought effort by a group of excellent volunteers and myself. I want to thank Jennifer Miller, John Kistler, Drake Mitchell, Elisha Dorfsmith and of course, my wife, Cynthia Difranco, for the time they each spent helping with this. My wife and I spent all of the past several weekends as well as many afternoons walking door to door with precinct lists of Independent and Libertarian voters. We and other volunteers also spent time collecting signatures at public events including Earth day, Farmer’s markets, outside the post office, at the entrance to Buffalo Park, at gun shows, etc..
Unfortunately, I have decided that it would not be appropriate to submit these petitions as there are only about 210 signatures that I am confident would survive the scrutiny of an inevitable challenge.
I will pursue a write in nomination in the upcoming primary election along with other Libertarian candidates who have found themselves in a similar position regarding signatures. We are continuing with a challenge to the constitutionality of the current law and may succeed in achieving a reasonable change before the primary.
The Arizona Libertarian party filed pleadings requesting an emergency injunction against the enforcement of the recent legislation that resulted in the change to our signature requirements. The judge denied the emergency injunction, so the new requirements remain in effect. The judge denied the request as having been filed too late. One of the reasons the judge gave amounts to a suggestion that the new requirements are so obviously constitutionally suspect, that there was no reason to wait to challenge them. The judge wrote:
“Even a cursory examination of this data reveals that H.B. 2608 significantly increased the number of signatures AZLP candidates must obtain to secure a place on the primary ballot. This evidence fully supports the claims made by Plaintiffs in this case – that AZLP members are required to obtain an unconstitutionally high percentage of signatures from AZLP members, or to seek signature from non-AZLP voters.”