Harris won on a technicality. Despite the written laws and the intent of the
legislature to prevent petition tampering including the exclusionary rules
followed by Helen Lehr, the city was ordered to remove ONLY the lines Harris
altered because the affidavit on those petitions was found to be phrased
incorrectly. The wording used on the affidavit was not able to support the law
the legislature passed. Ironically, it was the sample affidavit the legislature
itself provided that was at fault (the sample affidavit was not written by the city
clerk or the city attorney).
The truth is Harris was cited by the court as having altered
those lines and knowingly changing addresses he knew were wrong which is why in
its conclusion the court wrote:
“But this argument was based on the
incorrect assumption that Harris’s affidavit contained the language required by
§19-112C. Had Harris’s affidavit complied with subsection C his alterations as
found by the trial court would have rendered false every affidavit attached to a
signature page containing an alteration, invalidating those signatures. Because
those affidavits did not so comply however Harris’s alterations of the signers’
information outside their presence, although a violation of §19-112A, do not render
the affidavits false, or do not invalidate the unaltered signatures on the
attached signature pages.”
Harris v. City of Bisbee,
et al. 2 CA-CV 2007-0160; page 17, line
24.
Nobody targeted Mr. Harris, no one tried to entrap him and no vendetta was at work. Helen Lehr and the city only attempted to follow the direction of the legislature.