PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





William Miller, Richard Autry and Joanne McKenzie recall, Arizona City Sanitary District, Arizona (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Recall
RecallBanner.jpg
Historical recalls
Recall news
Recall laws
William Miller, Richard Autry and Joanne McKenzie were recalled from their positions on the board of the Arizona City Sanitary District in a recall election that took place on May 18, 2010.[1] The recalled officials contested the recall in court, but they lost their case.[2]

Election results

William Miller recall:

  • William Miller: 542 (45.2%)
  • Roger Heth: 662 (54.8%) Approveda

Richard Autry recall:

  • Richard Autry: 506 (42.3%)
  • Donald Dolven: 691 (57.7%) Approveda

Joanne McKenzie recall:

  • Joanna McKenzie: 521 (43.5%)
  • Louis M. Champa, Sr.: 678 (56.5%) Approveda

Background

Those who sought the recall were upset that the sanitary district had filed a lawsuit against the Arizona City Golf Course, a private golf course. The lawsuit was an attempt to end a contract that began in 1979 under which the golf course received free treated wastewater for its ponds. According to Miller, Autry and McKenzie, the sanitary district had spent $9.3 million since 1979 complying with the terms of that contract.

Recall organizers were concerned that the lawsuit could jeopardize the economic viability of the Arizona City Golf Course. Other businesses in the area, they said, depend on the golf course. Therefore, they believed, hurting the golf course could have a cascade effect on other businesses in the community.

Lawsuit

The recall targets sought to have the results of the May 18 recall vote overturned. The basis for their belief that the election results should be discarded is that when a recall was attempted against them in 2009, although election officials declared the 2009 election invalid, the election did take place and state law says that subsequent recalls are not permitted on the same politician during the same term of office unless those seeking the recall pay, in advance, for the administrative costs of holding the second recall. This did not happen in the case of the 2010 recall vote.[1] The recall targets lost their case in court, and the election results stood.[2]

See also

References