Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cv-00369/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cv-00369-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julieta Bencomo, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Phoenix Union High School District No. 

210, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-90-00369-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before this Court is Maricopa County’s Motion for Hearing or Conference. 

(Doc. 121). In that Motion, Maricopa County notified the Court that it inadvertently 

violated the Amended Consent Decree entered in this action and sought guidance on how 

to proceed. (Id.). This Order provides that direction. For the following reasons, the Court 

orders Maricopa County to hold a special election for the at-large seats on the Phoenix 

Union High School District Governing Board on Tuesday March 11, 2025.

BACKGROUND

In 1990, minority, voting-age citizens residing in Phoenix Union High School 

District (“PUHSD” or “District”) sued Maricopa County, among other defendants. (Doc. 

111 at 2). In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged that Arizona election law, A.R.S. § 15-427(A),

as applied in PUHSD to require at-large elections, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965. (Id. at 2). The parties settled the case by entering a consent decree (“Original 

Consent Decree”), over which this Court has jurisdiction. (Id.). Pursuant to the Voting 

Rights Act, the parties submitted the Original Consent Decree to the Department of Justice 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 7
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for its approval and pre-clearance subject to Section 5. (Id. at 15). 

The Original Consent Decree, as amended by the parties and approved by this Court 

in 2021 (“Amended Consent Decree” or “Decree”), requires that the two at-large seats “be 

elected together in a single race through a two-seat ‘limited voting’ system, whereby each 

voter will be entitled to cast only one vote for the candidate of his or her choice for the two 

at-large seats at stake” and that the election shall be held in the same years as presidential 

elections. (Id. at 7, 9). In its Motion for Hearing, Maricopa County informed the Court 

that, despite this requirement, it had printed ballots for the November 5, 2024 election with 

instructions directing voters to vote for up to two candidates for the PUHSD Governing 

Board election. (Doc. 121 at 3). By the time Maricopa County became aware of the 

mistake, voters on the Active Early Voting List had already received their ballots and 

commenced voting. (Id.). 

Prior to the November 5 election date, the Court made the four candidates parties to 

this lawsuit for purposes of arriving at an appropriate remedy. It also ordered Maricopa 

County to inform the United States Department of Justice of this matter and provide the 

Department relevant materials, so the Department could intervene if it wished to do so. 

After consultation with the parties, the Court found no pre-election remedy practical and

postponed action pending the results of the election to determine whether curative 

measures were necessary. The Court thus enjoined the canvass of the election but did not 

enjoin the counting of the ballots and set a post-election briefing schedule, requiring all 

those wanting to file proposed remedies to do so by Tuesday, November 26, 2024.1 

Voters cast 222,719 votes in the election for the PUHSD Governing Board.2 The 

difference in votes between the third- and second-place candidates, the latter of whom won 

a seat on the Governing Board, was only 1,979 votes. See id. Despite the mistake, about 

1 The “official canvass of each precinct or election district” is the “result printed by the 

vote tabulating equipment, to which have been added write-in and early votes, when 

certified by the board of supervisors or other officer in charge.” A.R.S. § 16-622(A). 

2 See Maricopa County: Election Results, Phoenix UHSD #210-GBM-4yr (Vote for 2), 29 

(Dec. 5, 2024), https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:6081b5b7-3b36-4467-bec3-

718850c0ed3c/Unofficial%20Final%20Results%2011-18-24.pdf. 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 7
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79 percent of the voters selected only one candidate on their ballots. See id.

3

 However, at 

least 44,605 voters selected two candidates on their ballots, and thus cast ballots in 

violation of the Decree. Given the closeness of the race, that number of ballots cast in 

violation of the Decree is sufficient to prejudice the election. See id.

4

 

ANALYSIS

No party contests the jurisdiction of this Court, nor does any party contest the 

continuing validity of the Amended Consent Decree. No party expressed any position with 

respect to the Amended Consent Decree other than to “urge the Court to continue [its] 

enforcement.” (Doc. 145). Further, the United States Department of Justice declined to 

intervene in the matter or to recommend any remedy. (Doc. 142). The Amended Consent 

Decree states that this “Court’s jurisdiction extends to the consideration and disposition of 

all issues relating to alleged voting rights violations by defendants in or with regard to 

PUHSD.” (Doc. 111 at 2-3). Here, Defendant Maricopa County’s administration of the 

election for the PUHSD Governing Board violated the Decree. As such, this Court has 

jurisdiction over this action and over the parties involved, and, as required by the Amended 

Consent Decree, this Court exercises the authority to fashion relief in accordance with the 

terms of the Decree.

Nevertheless, the candidates who prevailed in the election request that the Court 

exercise extreme care before upsetting the results of the election. See Sw. Voter 

Registration Educ. v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The right to vote is 

fundamental, but a federal court cannot lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election.”);

see also Mont. Chamber of Com. v. Argenbright, 226 F.3d 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(“[T]he voiding of a state election is a ‘drastic if not staggering’ remedy.”) (citation 

omitted); see also Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Comm., 849 F.2d 1176, 1180 

(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Gjersten v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 791 F.2d 472, 478 (7th 

Cir. 1986)); see also Election Integrity Project Cal., Inc. v. Weber, 113 F.4th 1072, 1096-

3176,538 ÷ 222,719 = 0.7925; undervotes ÷ ballots cast = percent of voters who voted 

for only one candidate

4 222,719 − 176,538 − 1,576 = 44,605; ballots cast – undervotes – overvotes = votes 

for two in violation of the Decree

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

97 (9th Cir. 2024).

To be sure, such care is appropriate and required. But the same cases cited by the 

proponents of immediate canvassing also note that “[e]lection irregularities that are so 

‘pervasive [that they] undermine[] the organic processes of the ballot’ violate the 

fundamental fairness principles inherent in the Due Process clause.” Election Integrity,

113 F.4th at 1096 (quoting Soules, 849 F.2d at 1184); see also Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 

1218, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding invalidation of an election appropriate where “a 

pervasive error . . . undermines the integrity of the vote” or “significant disenfranchisement 

. . . results from a change in the election procedures.”); see also LaChance v. Cnty. of 

Cochise, 553 P.3d 176, 184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). 

In this case, the ballot violated the law governing the election by allowing each voter 

one more vote than they were permitted. The law restricting voters to one vote is an

election limitation designed to protect minority voters within PUHSD. Maricopa County’s 

mistake resulted in 44,605 illegitimate votes being cast when only 1,979 votes would 

distinguish a winner from a loser. Such a fundamental and potentially consequential error

“undermines the organic processes of the ballot” itself and cannot be allowed to stand,

regardless of the good faith of Maricopa County in committing it. The mistake simply 

makes it impossible to declare, with any confidence, who the winners of a legally 

conducted election would be or that the mistake was not consequential. None of the cases 

cited by the parties urging the Court to authorize the canvass of the present election involve 

such a situation. And, any effort to characterize this error as “garden variety” in light of 

the actual election results are, to put it mildly, unpersuasive.

Further, any federalism and state sovereignty concerns are overridden here by the 

crucial concern of voting rights protections under national law, which resulted in the

Decree in the first place. Moreover, the Decree was entered and recently renewed at the 

request of Maricopa County among others. There is no doubt that Maricopa County failed 

to comply with the Decree while being bound by it, and thus concerns that this Court might 

be coercing an unwilling state entity or voting population in the conduct of its elections are 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 4 of 7
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mitigated. This is further demonstrated by Maricopa County’s willingness to take whatever 

steps are necessary to correct its error. 

Some of the candidates argue that the Court can ignore the failure of Maricopa 

County to comply with the process required by the Decree because its purpose was to 

protect Black and Hispanic voters, and Hispanic candidates received the two highest vote 

totals in the recent election. The Court, however, also finds this argument less than 

persuasive. It is undoubtedly true that the Decree was entered to protect minority voters 

and minority candidates within the geographical boundaries of the PUHSD. But, as it must,

the Amended Consent Decree establishes the required processes for voting in the at-large 

elections in neutral terms, even though it was designed as a protection to minority 

candidates. The Court thus may not ignore the required voting processes simply because 

Hispanic candidates were the two highest vote getters. Such action would present

constitutional questions or, at the least, significant questions about the scope of the term 

“minority” with regard to the present demographics of the PUHSD which no party has 

briefed. The Court need not address these or significant other questions when no party 

here challenges the validity of the present Amended Consent Decree. 

It is likely, as some of the parties point out, that a special election will have a lower 

voter turnout than the general election, and the Decree does schedule the at-large elections 

to occur in the year that coincides with presidential elections—perhaps to enhance voter 

turnout. (Doc. 111 at 9).5 As the results of the recent general election demonstrate, 

however, more voters in a fatally flawed election, at least in this instance, do not help 

determine who would have won the election had it been lawfully conducted. Nor do they 

demonstrate that the error was harmless. Therefore, in fashioning a remedy for the 

County’s failure, prioritizing the date of the election over compliance with the law does 

not provide electoral integrity. 

5 Historically, voter turnout in Maricopa County for special elections is significantly lower 

than turnout for general elections. (Doc. 150 at 7). The average turnout for the 2020 and 

2024 PUHSD Governing Board at-large contest election was 72 and 70 percent, 

respectively. (Id.). The average turnout rate for the 13 special elections held between 2018 

and 2024, inclusive, was 33 percent. (Id.). 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A special election provides a remedial measure to cure unfixable flaws in the recent 

election. It will occur as soon as reasonably possible after the election date indicated in 

the Decree. The earliest eligible date for the election is Tuesday, March 11, 2025. That 

will be the date set for the special election. The four candidates qualified for the November 

5, 2024 election by filing a sufficient number of nominating petitions and need not 

requalify. As such, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors need not timely comply 

with the advance-notice requirements of A.R.S. §16-205(A) or the advance-call 

requirements of A.R.S. § -226(A). To replicate the election as nearly as possible, those 

four candidates’ names shall be placed on the ballot. No other persons may stand as 

candidates.

The Court also considered canvassing the vote in light of the burdens on the 

candidates. However, the Amended Consent Decree explicitly obligates this Court to 

supervise and enforce “the implementation of the remedies set forth [in the Decree].” It 

goes without saying, however, that no candidate need put effort into the special election 

should they choose not to do so. 

Further, Maricopa County proposes to conduct the ballot by mail pursuant to A.R.S. 

§§ 16-204 and 16-409. (Doc. 150 at 4). This is acceptable to the Court. The election by 

mail will allow Maricopa County to mail a ballot to every eligible voter in the PUHSD. 

Voting involves minimal disruption. The voter need merely vote and return the ballot by 

mail. The process allows every voter in the PUHSD who wishes to make the minimal 

effort to do so, to vote in the manner designed to protect minority populations in their board 

representation. 

Pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, the Court orders the current office holders to 

continue to hold their PUHSD, at-large Governing Board seats until the special election 

occurs. See Ariz. Const. art. XXII, § 13 (“The term of office of every officer to be elected 

or appointed under this Constitution or the laws of Arizona shall extend until his successor 

shall be elected and shall qualify.”).

Under the present circumstances, the Court finds that a special election is the only 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

principled way to remedy Maricopa County’s violation of the Decree. No perfect remedy 

exists. Nevertheless, the number of votes cast in violation of the Decree is more prejudicial 

than holding a special election with lower voter turnout.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED permanently enjoining a canvass of the November 5, 

2024 election for two at-large members of the Phoenix Union High School District 

Governing Board. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Maricopa County hold an all-mail, special 

election for the at-large seats on the Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board 

on March 11, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the four candidates who qualified for the 

general election—Francisco Pastor-Rivera, Aaron Marquez, Deborah Cross, and Aiden 

Ramirez—are the candidates for the special election.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the current office holders continue to hold their atlarge seats on the Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board until the special 

election occurs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Phoenix 

Union High School District arising in the district court proceeding from this matter shall 

be paid and/or reimbursed by Maricopa County. 

Dated this 12th day of December, 2024.

. 

Case 2:90-cv-00369-GMS Document 151 Filed 12/12/24 Page 7 of 7