Thankfully, common sense prevailed at the April 2 Town Council meeting regarding the proposal for the town to not defend itself in the referendum petition lawsuit. The proposal was irrational, absurd to the extreme and an utter waste of the council’s time.

If ROT’s claims in the lawsuit are so factual, iron-clad and legally sustainable, no one should object to the town defending itself. If ROT didn’t follow the statutory requirements for completing the petitions, shame on ROT — and they, not the town, are the ones who did not properly “represent the people” who signed the petitions. If the town clerk provided ROT with improper forms or invalidated the submitted petitions when they should not have, the judge can rule accordingly. 

Multiple speakers at the council meeting opined that the town defending itself indicates the town is not standing with the citizens, not obeying the will of the voters, not valuing and respecting the voters, not representing the people and disrespecting the voters and stifling their right to voice their opinions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The town defending itself is simply what any rational-thinking and acting entity or person would do if they were sued. If the petitions and signatures are ruled valid, voters will get their chance. If not, then they won’t — and shouldn’t – per the laws of Arizona.

I echo Tammy Bell’s comments on the agenda item: let each side present their evidence and let the judge decide. ROT will then have had its day in court. What are supporters of the proposal afraid of — both sides presenting their evidence and it being judged, according to the law, in a public court?

Given all the recent talk about “only four votes,” residents should be very concerned this proposal was denied by only four votes.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.