12 Nov 14th-Nov 20th, 2024 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | felonies are supposed to be entered into the database with the code “F6.” Those with class 6 undesignated offenses go into the database with a “U” code. After being contacted by New Times, Funari said in a statement, the Superior Court conducted a review of the September convictions list. That review found 27 cases for which the wrong code was entered. An additional 630 class 6 undesignated convictions from September were entered correctly into the system. In response to those errors, Funari said, the Superior Court will conduct “addi- tional training of our court staff on coding class 6 convictions” and make “program- ming changes to our case management system that will provide quality control over the way in which class 6 convictions are coded.” Additionally, the court “will be conducting an audit of our case manage- ment database going back to July 1, 2022, to ensure that all class 6 convictions have been properly coded. We will work with the Clerk’s Office to provide updated reports to the Secretary of State’s Office regarding any person who has been improperly included on the Felon Voter report.” “The Judicial Branch apologizes to any citizens who have been negatively impacted by this,” Funari’s statement concluded. In at least six cases found by New Times, however, a coding error is not the problem. In those cases, records show the court accepting a defendant’s guilty plea to a class 6 undesignated offense. However, in the sentencing orders for those cases, the charge had been transposed to a class 6 felony. One of the defendants in those cases is a client of Craig Rosenstein of Rosenstein Law Group. Unaware of the discrepancy in the sentencing order error, he filed a motion to restore his client’s voter registra- tion, which the court denied on procedural grounds. Contacted by New Times with information about the difference between the plea and sentencing order, Rosenstein said he’ll need to file a nunc pro tunc motion to correct the latter. That may fix the problem in the long run, but it wouldn’t be resolved before Nov. 5. “Our client is, at this point, resigned to the fact that they’re not going to be able to execute their fundamental right to vote and is frustrated,” Rosenstein said a few days before the election. What happens now? It’s unclear what, if anything, the Secretary of State or Maricopa County Recorder’s Office could have done to restore voter rights before Nov. 5. Spokespersons for both responded to questions from New Times noting that their agencies are statu- torily required to strike the names they’re given from the voting rolls. “Our office cannot provide legal advice, but we encourage voters to seek legal guidance on this matter,” wrote recorder’s office spokesperson Taylor Kinnerup. “However, in most cases, a voter can simply re-register, attesting that they meet the registration requirements.” The registration deadline for this elec- tion passed nearly a month before New Times revealed the issue, however. According to Darrell Hill, the policy director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, that left affected voters “stuck between a rock and a hard place.” “As a person who’s even a trained lawyer,” Hill said, “it’s not really clear to anyone how to respond to such a notice when the court gets it wrong.” It’s also not clear how long it will take the Superior Court to complete its audit or how it will notify officials in other agencies that manage voter registration. In general, attor- neys say, correcting clerical errors with the court is an unnecessarily involved process. Nava remembers having to file motions with the court when a sentencing order specified the wrong amount of jail time for a client. “It’s very aggravating,” he said. Rosenstein now needs to do the same thing to correct his client’s listed offense, which is only the first task in restoring his voting rights. “To err is human. Humans make mistakes,” Rosenstein said. “But the diffi- culty in fixing mistakes is problematic.” Unfortunately for impacted voters (or should-be voters), the legal system grinds slowly. That means people such as Kelly could only sit back and watch the results come in, knowing that — through no fault of their own — their ballot wasn’t among them. “I thought this was concluded, this is what I had to do,’” Kelly said of her court case. “Then it’s like, ‘Bam, here you go. You’re being punished again when you shouldn’t be.’” Sloppy Screw-up from p 11 A spokesperson said the office of Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is aware of the records mistakes in reports sent by the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Maricopa County Clerk of Court. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0)
