Description: Challenge to constitutional amendment initiative that would required 50% of all electricity sales to come from renewable energy.
-
Leach v. Reagan
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/29/2018 Order Download Plaintiffs' appeal denied and trial court judgment affirmed. Arizona Supreme Court Allowed Clean Energy Constitutional Amendment to Go on General Election Ballot. On August 29, 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a trial court judgment allowing the “Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Amendment” to be placed on the general election ballot. The amendment would require that electricity providers generate at least 50% of annual sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The plaintiffs had contested the validity of the ballot initiative and had asserted that the backers of the ballot initiative had not obtained enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. After a five-day trial, the court found on August 27 that the backers had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. -
Leach v. Reagan
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/01/2018 Ruling Ruling issued. On August 1, 2018, the court issued a ruling. The ruling reportedly said that the initiative could not be challenged on the basis of the identity of its backers and that there would not be a line-by-line review of signatures but indicated that the challengers could proceed with their challenge on other issues. 07/24/2018 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 07/19/2018 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Arizona Ballot Initiative Requiring That 50% of Electricity Come from Renewable Sources. On July 19, 2018, eight individuals filed a lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court challenging the legal sufficiency of a constitutional amendment initiative known as the “Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Amendment,” which would require that electricity providers generate at least 50% of annual sales of electricity from renewable energy sources. The plaintiffs asserted that the initiative petition should not be placed on the ballot because it was circulated and submitted by an improperly registered entity that, among other things, failed to mention the California entity—Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action—that the plaintiffs alleged was the actual sponsor of the initiative. The plaintiffs also contended that employment of circulators of the petition was improperly conditioned on the number of signatures obtained, that the petition lacked sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot, and that the petition was substantively defective and circulated under false pretenses.