12 13 14 15 vv 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Staci Burk Address Protected staci@asu.edu (480) 343-4518 Proper Plaintiff IN THE SUPREME COURT OF STATE OF ARIZONA STACI BURK, a single woman, Sera CV2020-01869 vs. . NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as STATEMENT DESIGNATING CASE Governor of the State of Arizona, and KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State, CLINT HICKMAN, JACK SELLERS, STEVE CHUCRI, BILL GATES, STEVE GALLARDO, collectively in their official capacities, ADRIAN FONTES, in his official capacity, DOES I-X. AS AN EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 10 ARIZONA RULES OF CIVIL APPELLANT PROCEDURE Defendants. (Election Challege) (Before Hon. Kevin White) Plaintiff Staci Burk hereby files her Statement of Designation designating this matter as an Expedited Election Matter pursuant to Rule 10 Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Rule”).a 12 13 a4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 matter as follows; Pursuant to the Rule, Plaintiff Burk attaches hereto a conformed copy of her Notice of Appeal filed with Pinal County Superior Court. See attachment A. Pursuant to the Rule, Plaintiff Burk provides the contact information for the parties to this, Attorneys for Governor Doug Ducey Brett Johnson (bwjohnson@swlaw.com) Colin P. Abler (cahler@swlaw.com) Derek C. Flint (dilint@swlaw.com) Tan R. Joyce (ijoyee@swlaw.com) Attorneys for Governor Doug Ducey Snell & Wilmer L.L.P ‘One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 382-6000 ‘Attomeyss for Maricopa County Thomas P. Liddy (liddyt@meao. maricops. gov) Emily Craiger (craigere@mcao.maricopa.gov) Joseph I. Vigil (visili@meao. muaricopao¥) Joseph J. Branco (brancoj(@meao.maricopa.gov) Joseph LaRue (Jaruci@meao.maricopa.gov) Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 225 West Madison Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Roopali H. Desai (024295) D. Andrew Gaona (028414) Kristen Yost (034052) Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs Coppersmith Brockelman, P.L.C. 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 rdesai@eblawyers.com agaona@cblawyers.com kyost@cblawyers.com Attorneys for Defendant Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs10 un 12 4 1s 16 ay 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 Finally, pursuant to the Rule, Plaintiff Burk also attaches hereto a copy of the Pinal County Superior Courts final order from which the appeal is taken. See Attachment B. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16" day of December, 2020. _ gbd-_ Staci Burk ORIGINAL filed this 15th day of December, 2020 with: Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court 1501 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 COPIES e-served to; Brett Johnson (bwjchnson@swlaw.com) Colin P. Abler (cahler@swlaw.com) Derek C. Flint (dflint@swlaw.com) Tan R. Joyce (ijoyce@swlaw.com) ‘Attorneys for Governor Doug Ducey Snell & Wilmer L.L.P One Arizona Center 400 FE. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 382-6000 Thomas P. Liddy (liddyt@meao.maricopa.gov) Emily Craiger (craigere@meao.maricopa.gov) Joseph I. Vigil (vigilj @mcao,maricopa.gov) Joseph J. Branco (brancoj@meao.maricopa.gov) Joseph LaRue (Jaruei@meao.maricopa.gov Maricopa County Attomey’s Office12 13 us 15 16 wW 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 225 West Madison Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorneys for Maricopa County Roopali H. Desai (024295) D. Andrew Gaona (028414) Kristen Yost (034052) COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 \cblawyers.com lawyers.com kyost@cblawyers.com Attorneys for Defendant ‘Arizona Secretary of State Katie HobbsAttachment ANDEC 16 AMIO: 31 iL BY. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PINAL Staci Burk Case No. CV202001869 Plaintiff, CLERK'S PROOF OF SERVICE and BY MAIL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL ‘ANDIOR BOND Doug Ducey, et al Honorable Kevin D. White Defendants. DATE: December 16, 2020 TO: Piaintit Pro Per ‘Attomey for Defendant Staci Burk Snel & Wilmer LLP Protected Address 400 E. Van Buren Ste 100 staci@asu edu Phoenix, AZ 85004 ‘Attomey for Maricopa County ‘Coppersmith Brokelman PLC Maricopa County Attomey's Office ‘2800 N Central Ave Ste 1900 225 W. Madison St. Phoenix AZ 85004 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Pursuant to Rule 8(d), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, the Clerk's docket shall show notice has been given; that, xx NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed on December 15, 2020. \closed) (copy en« CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF CASH BOND was filed on (copy enclosed) BY: Staci Burk, Pro Per Plaintiff 3 Plaintt ‘Attorney for Maricopa County, Attomey for Defendant SSoneiman PLS, Atoey for Defendant SePEWimer LLP -Atomey for Defendant CONFORMED COPY FURNISHEDStaci Burk Address Protected an OES 1S PH 3 staci@asu.edu (480) 343-4518 . a P Plaintiff CEPUTY PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF ARIZONA STACI BURK, a single woman, ) ) Plaintiff. ; vs. } DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as) cv2020-01869 Governor of the State of Arizona, and KA’ iE} ) ) NOTICE OF APPEAL GATES, STEVE GALLARDO, collectively ) in their official capacities, ADRIAN ) FONTES, in his official capacity, DOES I-X. ) 7 (Election Challege) Defendants. ) } (Before Hon. Kevin White) ) } 4 100 ) ) } po Plaintiff Staci Burk hereby notices her appeal tothe Arizona Supreme Court, pursuant to ARS. 16-672, AR-S. 16-673, Equal Protection and Due Process (denial of her right to vote and participate inthe political process), this Cours decision and order of December 15,2020, the final judgment attendant thereto and the underlying decisions and orders issued the same day. CONFORMED COPY FURNISHED MD10 a 2 13 “4 15 16 Py 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15% day of December, 2020. _ BA Staci Burk ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed this 15th day of December, 2020 with: Hon, Kevin White inal County Superior Court 1971 N. Jason Lopez Circle Building A Florence, AZ 85132 (520) 866-5400 COPIES e-served consistent with court order allowing e-service in this case to; Brett Johnson (bwiohnson@swlaw.com) [Colin P. Ahler (cahleri@swlaw.com) (dflinu@swlaw.com) {Ian R. Joyce (jjoyee@swiaw.com) ‘Attomeys for Governor Doug Ducey Snell & Wilmer LLP (One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 382-6000 Thomas P. Liddy (liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov) Emily Craiger (craigete@meso.maricopa.gov) Joseph I. Vigil (vigili@meao.maricopa.gov) Joseph J. Branco (braneoi@meao.maricopa.gov) Joseph LaRue (larue\@mcao.maricopa. gov) /Maricopa County Attomey’s Office 225 West Madison Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 /Attomeys for Maricopa County /Roopali H. Desai (024295) D. Andrew Gaona (028414) ‘Kristen Yost (034052)COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 rdesai@cblawyers.com agaona@cblawyers.com kyost@eblawyers.com Attomeys for Defendant Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs ey AAttachment AIN THE SUPERIOR COURT PINAL COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA Date: 42/15/2020 ‘THEHON KEVIN D WHITE, oy seit Nina hata Rose Mar — S1190¢vz02001869 Plaintift(s), “ RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State; and DOES I-X, Defendant(s). ee “The Court has reviewed and considered the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and the Response filed by Plaintiff. In addition, the ‘Court has also considered the oral arguments of cocnees the Notice of Filing, fled on December 14, 2020 by the Secretary of State and Plaintiff's Response to it. Good cause exists to grant the Motions to Dismiss on multiple separate and independent grounds raised by the moving parties, including the following: L_ PLAINTIFE Is NOT AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS ELECTION CONTEST, Plaintiff by her own admission was not registered to vote for the 2020 general election. She therefore does not qualify to contest the election under ARS. § 16-672(A)(1) because she was not an “elector” of the state ‘and county in which she resides. She jacks standing to challenge an election in which she did not vote ‘and could not vote. Page 1 of 4© ° _ Pl x : T vy. ‘The Secretary of State completed the canvass of the election and declaration of result ‘on November 30, 2020. See hitpsillazsos. govisites/defaultfiles/2020_General_State_Canvass.pat. The five day statute of limitation set by A.R.S. § 16-672 began to run on that date. The fifth day, therefore, fell on Saturday, December 5, 2020. Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on Monday, December 7, 2020, 7 days after ‘completion of the canvass. Plaintiff, however, did not verify the original Complaint as required by ARS. § 16-673(B) She filed an ‘Amended Complaint the next day on December 8, 2020 that was verified. ‘As noted by all of the Defendants, failure to file a Complaint by the statutory deadline is a jurisdictional defect that is fatal to the action. See, Smith v. Bd of Directors, Hose Dist No.1 Pinal Cty, 148 Ariz. 598, 599 (App. 1986)(Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's dismissal of election contest filed 2 days after statutory 5 day deadline set by QRS. 16-673); see also Donaghey v. Attomey General, 120 Ariz. 93, 95 (1976)(Court notes that Arizona Courts have held that the requirements as to time within the election contest must be brought are regarded as mandatory , and unless strictly complied with, the Court is without jurisdiction ‘to proceed.). Plaintiff failed to file the original Complaint within the five day statutory time frame. Plaintiff contends that “the Court should apply according to A.R.S. § 1-243(A), which provides for excluding Sundays from time computation.” Plaintiff's Response to Motion er Dismiss, p. 6, 1-8. Even following A.R.S. 1-243(A) and excluding Sunday from counting, the original Complaint was not filed within five days. Ce Nerdiote, as noted above, the original Complaint falled to comply with A.R.S. $16- 675, The subsequent Amended Complaint fled the next day was certainly not fled Sithin the five day statute of limitations. The Amended Complaint would not relate back weithe date ofthe original defective Complaint for purposes of application of the stave « Irsations set by ARS. §16-673. Allowing jurisdictionally defective compiaints to be coat by subsequent untimely amended complaints would eviscerate the legislative carota that such actions be filed within 5 days and permit parties to circumvent the ‘trong public policy supporting prompt resolution of election cases. I, LACHES WARRANTS DISMISSAL ‘(As contended by the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, ae oaival ig also appropriate on the separate and independent ground of laches. ft Wis case, Plaintiff waited until 35 days after the election and seven days after certification of the election to file her first Complaint (albeit a defective one as noted above). As well ae oe inthe Mofions to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of Stale and Mericopa Coun fatomey’s Office, Plaintiff's delay wes unreasonable and highly prejudicial. Good cause therefore exists to dismiss the ‘Complaint based on the ground of laches. IV. PLAINTIEE's FAILURE TO TIMELY JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ALSO CALLS FOR DISMISSAL Page 2 of 4Good cause is also present for dismissal based on Plaintif's failure to timely join indispensable parties in this case. On December 14, Plaintiff fled what she has labeled "Corrected Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Emergency Injunctive Relief” together with a Motion for Leave to Amend. The proposed amendment to the Complaint seeks to add who she now effectively concedes are indispensable parties: the Biden Electoral College Voters, the Pinal County Supervisors and the Pinal County Recorder. Plaintiff has yet to formally join Joe Biden the candidate whose election she seeks to set aside. Fourteen days have passed since the canvass of the vote was completed and 7 days have passed since she filed her original Complaint. Her failure to timely join these indispensable parties in the context of an election case, particularly one filed as late as this one, warrants dismissal on this separate and independent ground. ‘The Court notes that the requested amendment to the Complaint, if granted, would be flagrantly untimely under A.R.S. 16-672 and would only bolster the case for dismissal based on laches because of the significant additional delay and prejudice it would cause. Based on the grounds noted above and other good cause stated by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's. Office, IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. ITS FURTHER ORDERED denying the pending Motion to Amend the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the ‘evidentiary hearing set for December 16, 2020 and rescinding the Court's order regarding disclosure of exhibits. Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Cure Status as an Elector” at 3:53 p.m. on December 14, 2020. In the Motion she reiterates what she explained in closing argument: that she mistakenly plead that she was @ “qualified elector” when she meant to plead that she ‘was an “elector.” This is an issue that would technically call for yet another mendes complaint. Her request to “cure” by taking notice of what she meant has been done; the Court has given due ‘consideration to her explanation and notes that whether she plead she was a qualified elector” or an “elector” would not change the Court's ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. The Court finds no just reason for delay and enters this final judgment as to all claims and parties and finds that no further matters remain pending, pursuant Rule 54(C), except for any request for costs or ‘Motion for attorney's fees, pursuant to Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4X) and (g). The Court makes this finding for purposes of permitting an immediate appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Dated this 15" day of December, 2020 Kevin D. White Judge of the Superior Court Page 3 ofMallodidistributed copy: 12/18/2020 MARICOPA ATTORNEY CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION jimailt mari JUDGEWHITE Page 4 of 4‘apspa0, 22 vt reo a= ing © e Ruling From: Staci Griffin-Burk (stacigrffinburk@yahoo.com) To: _ jhancock@courts.az.gov Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 01:46 PM MST Hi Judy, Ihave not received a copy of Judge Whites ruling from the court. Apparently the other parties and the media received it. Do you have an ETA as to when it will be forwarded by the Court? Thank you. Staci Page tot apie yoo comietedersi2-sreaym"© © rsa nsonorsiors IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PINAL COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA Date: 12/15/2020 THEHON KEVIN D.WHITE By Judd Adminiratve Assistant: Rose Marquez STACI BURK Plaintit(s), NOTICE i AMENDING DISTRIBUTION LST OF DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the ‘Secretary of State; and DOES I-X, Defendant(s). ITISHEREBY ORDERED amending the distribution list on the minute entry Ruling on ‘Motion to Dismiss previously filed this date, December 15, 2020 at 8:18 a.m. to include the following: STACI BURK staci@asu.edu BRETT JOHNSON/COLIN AHLER cahler@swiaw.com ROOPALI DESAI MARICOPA ATTORNEY liddy@mcao.maricopa.gov branco@mcao.maricopa.dov laruei@mego.maricopa.gov Page 1 of 2e @ nsaonntera0r CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION Malledidistributed copy: 12/15/2020 STACI BURK ‘staci@asu.edu BRETT JOHNSONICOLIN AHLER com cahler@swiaw.com ROOPALI DESAI If MARICOPA ATTORNEY liddy@mcao.maricopa.gov ‘branco@meao.maricopa.gov rer a CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION Ni: JUDGEMHITE Page 2 of 2Attachment BIN THE SUPERIOR COURT PINAL COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA Governor of the State of Arizona; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State; and DOES I-X, Date: 12/15/2020 THE HON KEVIN D WHITE, By Judicial Administrative Assstant Rose Marquez ) STACI BURK } $11006Vv202001869 Plaintiff(s), ) = } RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as } ) ) ) Defendant(s). The Court has reviewed and considered the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and the Response filed by Plaintiff. In addition, the Court has also considered the oral arguments of counsel, the Notice of Filing, filed on December 14, 2020 by the Secretary of State and Plaintiff's Response to it. Good cause exists to grant the Motions to Dismiss on multiple separate and independent grounds raised by the moving parties, including the following: 1. PLAINTIFF IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS ELECTION CONTEST BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION WHEN SHE FILED HER COMPLAINT Plaintiff by her own admission was not registered to vote for the 2020 general election. She therefore does not qualify to contest the election under AIRS. § 16-672(A)(1) because she was not an “elector” of the state and county in which she resides. She lacks standing to challenge an election in which she did not vote and could not vote. Page 1 of 4Ul PLAINTIFF FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIED WITH A.R.S. 16- 673 WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SET BY A.R.S. 16-672 The Secretary of State completed the canvass of the election and declaration of result ‘on November 30, 2020. See https://azsos.govisites/default/files/2020_General_State_Canvass.pdf. The five day statute of limitation set by A.R.S. § 16-672 began to run on that date. The fifth day, therefore, fell on Saturday, December 5, 2020. Plaintif filed her original Complaint on Monday, December 7, 2020, 7 days after completion of the canvass. Plaintiff, however, did not verify the original Complaint as required by A.R.S. § 16-673(B). She filed an Amended Complaint the next day on December 8, 2020 that was verified. As noted by all of the Defendants, failure to file a Complaint by the statutory deadline is a jurisdictional defect that is fatal to the action. See, Smith v. Bd of Directors, Hosp. Dist. No.1 Pinal Cty, 148 Ariz. 598, 599 (App. 1985)(Court of Appeals affirmed trial court’s dismissal of election contest filed 2 days after statutory 5 day deadline set by A.R.S. 16-673.); see also Donaghey v. Attormey General, 120 Ariz. 93, 95 (1978)(Court notes that Arizona Courts have held that the requirements as to time within the election contest must be brought are regarded as mandatory , and unless strictly complied with, the Court is without jurisdiction to proceed.). Plaintiff failed to file the original Complaint within the five day statutory time frame. Plaintiff contends that "the Court should apply according to A.R.S. § 1-243(A), which provides for excluding Sundays from time computation.” Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss, p. 6, |. 1-8. Even following A.R.S. 1-243(A) and excluding Sunday from counting, the original Complaint was not filed within five days. Furthermore, as noted above, the original Complaint failed to comply with AR.S. §16- 673. The subsequent Amended Complaint filed the next day was certainly not filed within the five day statute of limitations. The Amended Complaint would not relate back to the date of the original defective Complaint for purposes of application of the statute of limitations set by A.R.S. §16-673. Allowing jurisdictionally defective complaints to be cured by subsequent untimely amended complaints would eviscerate the legislative mandate that such actions be filed within 5 days and permit parties to circumvent the strong public policy supporting prompt resolution of election cases. Il. LACHES WARRANTS DISMISSAL As contended by the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, dismissal is also appropriate on the separate and independent ground of laches. In this case, Plaintiff waited until 35 days after the election and seven days after certification of the election to file her first Complaint (albeit a defective one as noted above). As well detailed in the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of State and Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Plaintiff's delay was unreasonable and highly prejudicial. Good cause therefore exists to dismiss the Complaint based on the ground of laches. IV. PLAINTIFF’s FAILURE TO TIMELY JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ALSO CALLS FOR DISMISSAL Page 2 of 4Good cause is also present for dismissal based on Plaintif's failure to timely join indispensable parties in this case. On December 14, Plaintiff filed what she has labeled “Corrected Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Emergency Injunctive Relief* together with a Motion for Leave to Amend. The proposed amendment to the Complaint seeks to add who she now effectively concedes are indispensable parties: the Biden Electoral College Voters, the Pinal County Supervisors and the Pinal County Recorder. Plaintiff has yet to formally join Joe Biden the candidate whose election she seeks to set aside. Fourteen days have passed since the canvass of the vote was completed and 7 days have passed since she filed her original Complaint. Her failure to timely join these indispensable parties in the context of an election case, particularly one filed as late as this one, warrants dismissal on this separate and independent ground. The Court notes that the requested amendment to the Complaint, if granted, would be flagrantly untimely under A.R.S. 16-672 and would only bolster the case for dismissal based on laches because of the significant additional delay and prejudice it would cause. Based on the grounds noted above and other good cause stated by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the pending Motion to Amend the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the evidentiary hearing set for December 16, 2020 and rescinding the Court's order regarding disclosure of exhibits, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Cure Status as an Elector” at 3:53 p.m. on December 14, 2020. In the Motion she reiterates what she explained in closing argument: that she mistakenly plead that she was a “qualified elector” when she meant to plead that she was an “elector.” This is an issue that would technically call for yet another amended complaint. Her request to “cure” by taking notice of what she meant has been done; the Court has given due consideration to her explanation and notes that whether she plead she was a “qualified elector” or an “elector” would not change the Court's ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. The Court finds no just reason for delay and enters this final judgment as to all claims and parties and finds that no further matters remain pending, pursuant Rule 54(C), except for any request for costs or Motion for attorney's fees, pursuant to Ariz.R.Civ.P. 54(f) and (g). The Court makes this finding for purposes of permitting an immediate appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Dated this 15" day of December, 2020 Kevin D. White Judge of the Superior Court Page 3 of 4Mailed/distributed copy: 12/15/2020 MARICOPA ATTORNEY liddyt@mcao.maricopa.ov craigere@meao.maricopa.qov vigili@mcao.maricopa.gov bran Jmcao.maricopa.gov larue(@meao.maricopa.gov CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION Ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov OFFICE DISTRIBUTION: JUDGEMHITE Page 4 of 4Yahoo Mall Ruling ‘2ns(z0, 212 PM Ruling From: Staci Griffin-Burk (stacigrifinburk@ yahoo.com) To: _ jhancock@courts.az.gov Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 01:46 PM MST Hi Judy, | have not received a copy of Judge Whites ruling from the court. Apparently the other parties and the media received it. Do you have an ETA as to when it will be forwarded by the Court? Thank you. Staci nipsifmail yahoo coma/folders2t. Page totFiled on 12/1/2020 2:02:40 PM. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PINAL COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA Date: 12/45/2020 By Jus Adminstrative Assistant: Rosie Marquez STACI BURK $1100CV202001869 Plaintiff(s), NOTICE te AMENDING DISTRIBUTION LIST OF THE MINUTE ENTRY RULING ON MOTION, DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as To DISMISS: Governor of the State of Arizona; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State; and DOES I-X, Defendant(s). ee IT IS HEREBY ORDERED amending the distribution list on the minute entry Ruling on Motion to Dismiss previously filed this date, December 15, 2020 at 8:18 a.m. to include the following: STACI BURK staci@asu.edu BRETT JOHNSON/COLIN AHLER bwiohnson@swlaw.com cahler@swiaw.com ROOPALI DESAI rdesai@cblawyers.com MARICOPA ATTORNEY liddy@mcao.maricopa.gov craiger@mcao.maricopa gov vigili@mcao.maricopa.gov branco@meao.maricopa.gov laruei@mcao.maricopa.gov Page 1 of 2Filed on 12/15/2020 2:02:40 PM. CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION Ca-civilmailbox@mcaomaricopa.gov Mailed/distributed copy: 12/15/2020 STACI BURK staci@asu.edu BRETT JOHNSON/COLIN AHLER bwiohnson@swlaw.com cahler@swlaw.com ROOPALI DESAI tdesai@cblawyers.com MARICOPA ATTORNEY liddy@mcao.maricopa.gov ‘craiger@mcao.maricopa.cov vigili@meao.maricopa.gov branco@mcao.maricopa.gov laruei@mcao,maricopa.cov CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION Ca-civilmailbox@mcaomaricopa.gov OFFICE DISTRIBUTION: JUDGEMWHITE Page 2 of 2