Russell Pearce's Lawyer Is Full of Bunk

I understand that lawyers need to make a buck, and usually I wouldn't worry about one latching onto Republican state Senate President and recall boy Russell Pearce like a lamprey sucking the blood out of an alligator, but even so, Phoenix attorney Lisa Hauser is a joke. And not a funny one.

Left: Stephen Lemons; Top: lindabentley.blogspot.com; Bottom: Gblaw.com

Russell Pearce (left) and his stooge patrol: Linda "Wrong Way" Bentley of the Sonoran News (top) and legal beagle Lisa Hauser.

Related Content

• Russell Pearce Apologist Linda Bentley's Denial of Guilt Over J.T. Ready
  May 10, 2012
• Andrew Thomas Compares Himself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King in Press Conference
  April 11, 2012
• Federal Lawsuit Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Former County Attorney Andrew Thomas to Proceed; No Immunity, Judge Rules
  April 10, 2012
• Andrew Thomas' Logic "Absurd," Says State Bar Counsel in Final Closing Argument; Disbarment Recommended -- Again -- for Former Prosecutors Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon
  January 31, 2012
• Andrew Thomas' Theories on County Conspiracy (Still) Have Holes
  October 26, 2011

More About

• Russell Pearce
• Lisa Hauser
• Linda Bentley
• World Politics
• U.S. State Politics

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Privacy Policy Cancel Continue

Not that her recent court complaint on behalf of Pearce challenging the certification of recall petition signatures, collected by Citizens for a Better Arizona, doesn't afford some grins.

Instead of the "massive voter registration fraud," alleged by wingnut writer Linda Bentley of Cave Creek rag the Sonoran News, Hauser went after Secretary of State Ken Bennett, big-time, as well as Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne, who works for GOPer and County Recorder Helen Purcell.

I should point out that Governor Jan Brewer, another Republican, has ordered a November 8 recall election, as she was required to do under Arizona statute. Indeed, all the actions taken by the Secretary of State's Office and Osborne are dictated by state law.

The recall committee gathered many more than the required 7,756 signatures from registered voters in Pearce's Legislative District 18 to force a special election. Recently, Osborne re-certified 10,296 signatures as valid. There will be a recall election, as much as Pearce and his allies wish otherwise.

Pearce's anti-recall committee, Citizens Who Oppose the Pearce Recall, pored over the signatures collected, hunting for evidence of fraud.

What did they find? People who signed but whose addresses have changed. Entries in which the handwriting for addresses did not match the signatures (some folks print these, instead of writing in cursive). A couple of petition circulators with niggling problems on their petition sheets.

Zero evidence of fraud. So what's the basis for Hauser's lawsuit?

Hauser's number-one complaint is about the affidavit filled out by each circulator, swearing that, as far as the circulator knew, the signatures on each petition sheet were from qualified voters.

The language of that affidavit, prescribed by statute, is determined by the Secretary of State's Office, not the recall committee. In fact, the Committee for a Better Arizona got the format of the petition sheets from the Secretary of State.

But Hauser argues that the Arizona Constitution mandates that the circulator "make and subscribe an oath on said sheet, that the signatures thereon are genuine."

Hauser alleges the Secretary of State's recall petitions are not in line with the Constitution and, therefore, all the signatures, legitimate or not, are invalid and must be tossed.

This is where I must restrain hysterical laughter. I do so because Hauser's tack is insulting and attempts to disenfranchise fellow citizens, nullifying their legal right to recall Pearce.

Such anti-democratic malarkey, on behalf of a politician who claims he can handily win a recall election in his longtime district, should annoy the public.

It's not the first time Hauser's gone there. Her résumé on the website of her law firm, Gammage & Burnham, notes that she "represented 'Bush for President' before the Broward County [Florida] canvassing board during the 2000 presidential election recount."

Ah, Florida in 2000, when the Repugnants stole the presidential election from Vice President Al Gore and ushered in an era of backwardness and foreign-policy disasters by President George W. Bush.

At least we know what kind of attorney we're dealing with.

Hauser has a couple of other big problems with the recall petitions. She doesn't like the recall committee's statement of the grounds for the recall. She claims it doesn't advise signers that their signatures could result in a recall election.

This, despite the fact that the statement was vetted by the Secretary of State's Office and that "Recall Pearce" was at the very top of the petitions.

Moreover, Secretary of State spokesman Matt Roberts told me, "The petition can say anything it wants at the top."

Recall organizer Randy Parraz observed the same, noting that there's nothing in state statute ordering how the recall statement must read.

"We could have said, 'We don't like Russell Pearce, he has a big nose, and wears Ronald McDonald shoes,'" he scoffed. "As far as telling people when there will be an election, the governor tells them that when it happens."

As dumb as Hauser's line on the recall statement is, she doubles down on her dumbness by asserting that if one of the signatures on a recall petition is deemed invalid, the entire sheet must be tossed.

Both county elections and the Secretary of State's Office disagree, and they are prepared to defend themselves in court over this waste-of-time and waste-of-tax-money lawsuit.

Were Hauser correct (which she is not), that would mean every signature-gathering effort — whether it put a politician or a proposition on the ballot — should be retroactively annulled.

Think about it: If you sign a petition, and the person three lines down has his or her sig scrubbed, why should your signature follow suit? Particularly if you signed properly and are a qualified elector.

The specious reasoning Hauser uses reveals her lawsuit for what it is: a sham, a delay tactic on the part of a politician afraid to face voters.

Fortunately, all of this has to go in front of a Superior Court judge, with Hauser on one side and the Secretary of State's Office, county elections, and the recall committee on the other.