- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Leach v. Reagan
Leach v. Reagan
Leach v. Reagan ↗
CV-18-0230-AP/ELArizona Supreme Court (Ariz.)1 entry
Filing Date
Document
Type
08/29/2018
Arizona Supreme Court Allowed Clean Energy Constitutional Amendment to Go on General Election Ballot
Plaintiffs' appeal denied and trial court judgment affirmed.
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 <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2018/08/27/arizona-clean-energy-proposal-backed-tom-steyer-approved-november-ballot/1114184002/">found</a> on August 27 that the backers had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Decision
Leach v. Reagan ↗
CV2018-9919Arizona Superior Court (Ariz. Super. Ct.)3 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
08/01/2018
–
Decision
07/19/2018
Complaint filed.
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.
Complaint