Judge dismisses lawsuit that challenged Gilbert bond election

Judge gavel and law books in court, law and justice background concept with copy space
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman ruled for the town of Gilbert in Jim Torgeson's lawsuit challenging the $515 million town streets, transportation and infrastructure bond. (Courtesy Adobe Stock)

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman ruled for the town of Gilbert in Jim Torgeson's lawsuit challenging the $515 million town streets, transportation and infrastructure bond. (Courtesy Adobe Stock)

The town of Gilbert will be able to move forward with the sale of bonds aimed at improving the town’s infrastructure after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge dismissed a resident’s lawsuit challenging the vote.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman ruled for the town Dec. 20 in its motion to dismiss Jim Torgeson’s lawsuit, which claimed the town infringed on his free speech rights when it removed at least 57 of his anti-bond signs before ballots were mailed out. The town argued the signs violated state law by not having Torgeson’s name on them as having paid for them.

The judgment was silent on the signs’ legality and the actions of the town in removing them, but Adleman’s ruling agreed with the town’s assertions that the suit was filed too late and that his complaint did not support contesting the election.

The $515 million streets, transportation and infrastructure bond question passed in November by 0.4%, 164 votes.

Torgeson’s suit argued the town’s actions in removing the signs swayed the outcome of a close election. Adleman’s ruling included a footnote that the outcome of the ruling meant the court did not have to address that, but did note that “this election was not so close as to trigger a mandatory recount” under state law.


Torgeson filed the lawsuit Nov. 22, a week after Town Council accepted the canvass on a 5-2 vote, with Laurin Hendrix and Aimee Yentes dissenting. The court agreed with the town’s assertion that state law dictated that a challenge to election procedure, such as with Torgeson’s lawsuit, had to come before the election, not after the outcome had been decided.

The court also ruled that Torgeson’s complaint did not rise to the level of an “offense against the elective franchise” as the town agreed to stop removing signs, returned the removed signs and that Torgeson had replaced all of them by Oct. 8, two days after Maricopa County had mailed the ballot to voters.
By Tom Blodgett

Editor, Gilbert

Raised in Arizona, Tom Blodgett has spent more than 30 years in journalism in Arizona and joined Community Impact Newspaper in July 2018 to launch the Gilbert edition. He is a graduate of Arizona State University, where he served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication from 2005-19 and remains editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet.