Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Let’s begin with a story. It is Tuesday, March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day. It also happens to be the Democrat Presidential Preference Election Day. CoVid 19 is in full force so many voters that day chose to drop of their mail in ballots at a polling location. One of the polling locations was the Westside Church of God on Bethany Home Road just east of 83rd Avenue.

One of the favorite haunts of paid petition circulators is any place that is hosting an event or where people visit on a regular basis, such as a grocery store. For the same amount of time and effort they can maximize the number of signatures they can collect.

At least one was standing at the Westside Church of God location on March 17th. When people showed up to vote or to drop off their mail in ballots they were asked to sign one and/or both of two petitions. One petition was for a candidate for a local school board and the other petition was…wait for it…for my opponent. Many people signed that day. Here are the two petitions with a total of 20 challenged signatures that were the subject of my court challenge.
























I contended in court that Mr. Alexander, although he signed the backs of the petitions, did not collect the signatures or witness the signatures. In fact, Mr. Alexander appears to have signed the backs of those two petitions. I think it is fair to say it is his signature when compared to his signature on the Candidate Statement of Interest form presented here.
































We were able to make contact with several of the petition signers. To protect their privacy, I will not refer to them by their names.  For the sake of brevity I am offering the relevant portions of only 2 of the 3 witnesses’ telephonic testimonies from an official transcript. I have never met them and do not know them. They agreed to testify of their own volition when asked to do so by my attorney.

I personally think their testimonies would have been more compelling if they had been able to appear in court in person. That was not able to happen because of CoVid 19 and proved to be disadvantageous to us.

Clark Attorney (CA): “…You’re a Glendale resident; are you not?”

Witness #1 (W1): “Yes, I am.”

CA: “…do you recall signing a petition sheet for a candidate for the – for a Glendale Council race?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you remember the name of that individual?”

W1: “No, I do not.”

CA: “…was it for a council race?”

W1: “Yes, it was for city council.”

CA: “Did you sign more than one petition for a city council race?”

W1: “No, not for the city – I just signed one for city council. There was another one that I signed for, that was for a school board; I believe it was.”

CA: “Were you sent a petition sheet with your signature on it?”

W1: “Yes.”

CA: “Did you review that petition sheet?”

W1: “Yes. I did.”

CA: “Did that appear to be the petition sheet that you signed?”

W1: “Yes, it was.”

CA: “Did that petition sheet – did it have a photo of an individual on the upper left corner?’

W1: “Yes, it did.”

CA: “Was the person whose photo was on that petition sheet, was he the one you signed for?”

W1: “No.”

CA: “Now, in terms of the person who you saw on the petition sheet that was sent to you, that bore your signature, do you ever remember seeing that individual at that time?”

W1: “No at all.”


Clark Attorney (CA): “Do you recall signing a candidate petition sheet for a candidate for Glendale City Council?”

Witness #2 (W2): “I do recall.”

CA: “When was that approximately?”

W2: “I think St. Patrick’s Day, so it was the 17th.”

CA: “…have you seen a copy, since that time, of the petition sheet you signed?”

W2: “I have, yes.”

CA: “Did you recognize your signature on that petition sheet?”

W2: “Yes, I did.”

CA: “And on that petition sheet did you see a photo of a man in the upper left corner, for where the candidate goes?”

W2: “Yes.”

CA: “Do you ever recall seeing that man before?”

W2: “No, I don’t.”

CA: “In terms of who was present when you signed on St. Patrick’s Day, I take it that means that that man was not present?”

W2: “Yeah.”

CA: “So, in other words you’re certain that he was not the circulator?”

W2: “Yes, I am.”

The Superior Court judge in her oral ruling at the end of the hearing that day stated, “The Court also has heard the testimony of the three people who testified here at this hearing. They indicated they were qualified electors. They indicated that they did sign the petition, and the Court does find that their testimony fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the circulator improperly verified these signatures, and so those 20 signatures at issue, the Court finds to be valid.”

The only question that needs to be asked and answered is, why didn’t Mr. Alexander testify on his behalf that he did circulate and witness those signatures? It would have put to rest all speculation about his being the circulator or not.

I suspect, although I cannot prove,  it was because Mr. Alexander’s attorneys did not know exactly what my witnesses would say and in not knowing, they advised him not to appear that day in case he was called upon to answer questions that he would not have been able to answer truthfully.

There is one more element to this tale of petitions and petition circulators and that will be the subject of my third and final blog on this issue.

*Please accept my apology if the graphics do not appear lined up correctly. No matter what adjustments I make it doesn’t seem to help the situation.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.