This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh

‘Our leaders want our money, but not our vote. They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.’

Officials in the Arizona town of Payson have decided to borrow $70 million and use it for various projects they want, and they’ve called it an “emergency,” a move that deprives residents of a constitutional time frame to oppose it, simply because they think that interest rates might go up.

And they might. Or they might not.

But the maneuver has triggered a lawsuit against the city, its officials and their actions.

According to case brought by the Goldwater Institute, the bond sale was described as an “emergency” in order to prevent residents from having an opportunity to organize a referendum and opposition.

“That’s illegal, and the Goldwater Institute is seeking immediate relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the bond sale closes and it’s too late,” the organization reported.

“The Arizona Constitution and statute guarantee the popular right of referendum: that is, voters’ rights to refer a bill, ordinance, or resolution to the ballot and vote on it.”

City officials used a “narrow exception” that allows for “emergency” actions, “where immediate government action is necessary to preserve peace, health, or safety,” the organization reported.

But in this case, “no such emergency exists … and the town cannot bypass democratic accountability and impose $70 million of debt on Payson taxpayers without giving them a say.”

The city’s “purported ’emergency’ is a sham: the only ’emergency’ is the council’s desire to immediately sell the Obligations to secure the best, available [sic] economic terms therefor,’” the institute explains.

“That is not an emergency.”

“In fact, even the town’s own staff admitted during a presentation on the bond measure that they have ‘no ability to predict interest rates,’ that the bond market has been consistently favorable throughout the past year, and that recent presidential elections (the supposed reason for anticipated rate increases) have seen bond rates increase, if at all, by at most 0.6–0.8 percentage points.”

The lawsuit is on behalf of resident Deborah Rose, who opposes the spending schemes.

“Our leaders want our money, but not our vote,” she explained. “They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.”

The case is in Gila County Superior Court.

Actually, the “Arizona Constitution guarantees the right of referendum: the right of Arizonans to circulate petitions and refer bills, ordinances, and resolutions for a popular vote. It’s a cornerstone of democratic accountability in Arizona, and it means that the people—not politicians—have the last word in state and local government,” the institute reported.

The case accuses the city of trying to close on the bonds by the end of the month.