Palominas school district won’t change

Ruling says majority of all voters was needed to pass measure

By Katie Evans
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, Dec 31, 2008 - 05:11:30 am MST

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

SIERRA VISTA — Palominas will remain an elementary school district.

At an order to show cause hearing Monday, Arizona Superior Court Judge Stephen Desens “joined his brethren in Maricopa and Pima counties in declaring that the statute regarding unification required that a majority of registered voters in the affected school districts were required to pass the unification, not a majority of those voting in the election,” said Deputy County Attorney Candy Pardee in an e-mail announcing the decision.

In a judgment document, Desens wrote that “the number of voters voting in favor of the unification proposition did not constitute a majority of the qualified electors in the (Palominas) school district and, therefore, unification did not pass.”

The ruling came as a result of an election challenge filed by Gene Brust, a former Palominas Elementary School District superintendent, at the request of current superintendent Lee Hager.

In the challenge, Brust said that Laws 2005 (First Regular Session), Chapter 191, section 4(D) states that “if a majority of the qualified electors in the school district fails to approve the unification, the school district shall not become a unified school district.”

While a majority of those who voted approved the unification, with 2,748 voting in favor and 1,909 voting against it, the complaint said a majority of the registered voters did not vote in favor of it, meaning the unification, based on Brust’s interpretation of the law — which has now been agreed with by Desens — did not pass.

Hager, who couldn’t file the challenge because he is not a resident of the district, said he felt it was important to get a ruling sooner than later after hearing of similar challenges in other Arizona counties. “My concern was, had we gotten down the road on this, begun talking about bonding and raising taxes ... it would have at the very least wasted a bunch of people’s time,” he said. “At the very most, wasted a bunch of people’s money.”

Pardee — who said at the time the challenge was filed that she read the law the same way as Brust — said what makes this an interesting case is, because she agreed with the judge’s ruling, there would be no appeal in this case.

“Nobody’s going to be able to appeal it, so it will never go beyond the superior court level,” she said. “I guess we’ll never know from any higher level court if we’re all accurate or not.”

Herald/Review reporter Katie Evans can be reached at 515-4611 or by e-mail at katie.evans@svherald.com.

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Gene wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Well, I did vote during the last election and am perplexed by the fact that the national voting average is ?65%? at best? So, what else in AZ voting should I be aware of that couch potatoes are teh ruling factor? Whether taxes go up or down (this is for everything, not just the school issue) should depend upon those of us willing to exercise our rights to vote, not the lazy ones who watch tv all day, yet still feel they have a right to vote.
With this crazy sort of law... who would be our governor, president, whomever? "

Palominas Paul wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Brenda, READ! Palominas doesn't want to build a HS. The voters in Palominas did not pass "unification!" Laws/Statutes are not written for 5th graders, they are written for adults! After reading the "comments" I am sore afraid we have precious few adult commentators who read the SVH. Further, we have precious few able to express themselves as adults.
This shows the total failure of our public sewers, my name for these miserable excuse for schools.
If you want to meet the most poorly educated in our society attend a teachers union meeting.
They are well versed in greed! "

Brenda wrote on Jan 2, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Once again our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves!! Maybe we should not pass anything until it is capable of being understood by a 5th grader. Who writes these cryptic laws? How do they get past the literary police?
I think the folks in SV would be happy that Palominas wants to build a High School to help alleviate the population at Buena. SV is going to need to expand or build another High School soon. The Palominas district has to bus children to Bisbee, Tombstone or SV. Ga$ co$t$. "

Paul Poog wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Apparently "scooter" is in in the same league as "Wait" who is unable to either read or understand the ARS which is applicable to school district consolidation. These Arizona Revised Statutes were enacted by the legislature. READ the applicable statute prior to pontificating about the law.
You will look far less foolish that way. DEMOCRATS take no heed you look foolish no matter what you do since you never either read or understand the applicable statutes! BTW "scooter" look up "spent" and "spend." It is never too late learn! "

Scooter wrote on Jan 2, 2009 2:48 PM:

" Whether the ballot initiative was right or wrong, it appears we have a double standard when it comes to voting here in Arizona.

In November, the voters of Arizona rejected Arizona Proposition 105 - Majority Rules which would have required a majority of the registered voters to approve an initiative that would increase taxes or spent state funds. The voters spoke and they said that it was wrong to count those who don't choose vote as "no votes."

Apparently in Arizona that logic does not apply when we are talking about education. "

Robert Lynch wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:21 PM:

" The "school consolidation" ballot items in Cochise County were all originated by the "education hustlers" in Phoenix. Few voters understood that if those passed there would be massive property tax increases to build a new high school. Uninformed voters such as "Wait" believe vast expenditure is "progress."
We were saved by an alert Palominas school official and a Superior Court Judge Steve Desens who reviewed the applicable ARS.
Thank heavens "Wait" is not running the Palominas District.
These "consolidations" are heaven for school administrators.
I voted "NO" and I thank those who did not vote since theirs to was a "NO!" "

good idea wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:49 AM:

" The local unification issue aside, what you really have is a registered voter who does not vote a ballot is actually voting by staying home on his couch. His non-vote is actually a no vote. Then there is the fact that the registered voter list is faulty, with as much as 25% inaccurracies: dead people, people moved away. Perhaps this concept should be applied to overrides too, then all no voters can just stay at home. "

Paul Arnold wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:55 AM:

" "Wait" is a banner argument for requiring both literacy and a minimum intelligence in order to be an elector. "Wait" obviously is incapable of understand the simplest ARS. He wants what he wants when he wants it. He does not know that he was voting for a massive tax increase to build a high school. Further, his ill considered vote and raving about "progress" would take away our students right to choose from three existing high schools. "Wait" is also oblivious to the fact this whole unification scheme is from a power mad Phoenix clique. "

I am alive wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:34 PM:

" I didn't vote. In other words just the people that happened to vote in this election, should have a say? At least it failed. "

azdave wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:59 AM:

" R.I.P. to this misguided proposition. Those who voted for it had no concept of how financially non-viable it was, or how limited the educational opportunities for our students would be if it had been implemented. "

wait wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:15 AM:

" you're kidding me, right? The voters of Palominas voted to unify, and because some kook, who opposes progress, challenges a poorly written statute, the will of the people is nulified? What a backwards place we live in. How could it ever be that a "majority of registered voters" will approve something - do we know if these "registered voters" still live here, are they alive? It seems an impossible test, and therefore it should pass or fail based upon a majority of people who actually vote. But that makes too much sense. "