The injunctive hearing for Rose vs Town of Payson is Tuesday, 9/24, at 2:30 pm at 714 S Beeline Highway, the Honorable Brian Chambers presiding. If you attend, we suspect it may be a packed room.  The court has a YouTube channel.  We are uncertain if a ruling will be made that day.  The proposed order, drafted by Goldwater Institute, may be found below.  The court’s YouTube Channel here: Gila County Superior Court Payson – YouTube

Many believe the Rose vs. Town of Payson suit to be a “waste of money.”   We heard the same arguments with Transparent Payson vs. The Town of Payson.  America has a long history of individuals standing for their rights.  Anytime somebody has a legitimate question on the overreach of government, or an unjust system, they should file suit.  Much of modern society directly results from a single person acting against the government.  The dollar cost is secondary.  The idea, the concept of taking the government to task, is priceless.

Rose vs. The Town of Payson is challenging the use of the “emergency” clause.  If the government can use emergencies to get their way, prepare for endless emergencies.  Our group is working on protecting the Voter Protection Act at the local level. Like teeth, you will miss your voter protection(s) when they are gone.  It is always a good use of money to define the roles of government and the attempts to limit citizen’s sovereignty.

To our knowledge, the emergency clause’s use at the local level of various municipalities is not tracked. From March 2023 to August 2024, the Town of Payson (TOP) used the clause five times: twice to repeal voters’ will, twice on taxation issues, and once on bond authorization. Rose has taken the emergency clause issue as a stand-alone issue. We suspect the TOP will file a counterclaim against Rose like our case.

The Rose case has some legs—not because of the use of the clause but because of the reason for using the clause. The issue is the use of the clause for political expediency and creating an argument that falls within its framework.  Council Member Mona saying swimming lessons are a public health emergency is, at best, a stretch and, at worst, an exercise in mental gymnastics to pervert the intent of the clause by redefining words.  Your support and involvement in this case are not just appreciated, but essential for its success.  Please donate to the Goldwater Institute.  Donation | Goldwater Institute

We challenged the use of the emergency clause in our initial filings. The original complaint included Plaintiff Nichols who asserted that element.  The TOP filed a counterclaim against two Plaintiffs.  Ms. Nichols was not part of that counterclaim.  She did not want to take the risk of being subject to fees and costs, so she asked to be dismissed.  That dismissal resulted in the emergency clause issue being dropped from the Transparent Payson suit.  The intimidation by the Town was effective that time.   The Town claims a fiduciary duty to counterclaim but appears to ignore other fiduciary duties.   Goldwater Institute, Vice President for Litigation, Mr. Jon Riches, commented on the potential counter suit.

Additionally, for the town to threaten its citizens seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights in court is beyond the pale, and likewise unlawful, subjecting the town to further legal liability.

Both suits have significant implications for all of Arizona, not just Payson.  We think both could ultimately be decided at the State Supreme Court if the Court agrees to hear them, assuming a resolution is not reached with the new TOP Council.

The matter was recently discussed on KMOG with Counsel for Goldwater Institute, Mr. John Thorpe, taking questions from callers.  Thank you KMOG for your continued community involvement.  The full audio is here.

Payson is gaining national news attention. 

Payson cites swimming lessons to defend emergency $70 million bond sale for pool – Washington Examiner

The Proposed Order