By Ethan Faverino |
America First Legal (AFL) has filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court challenging the official ballot language prepared by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for Proposition 144. The lawsuit argues the description violates state law by failing to provide voters with a neutral and accurate summary of the election integrity measure.
The lawsuit asks the court to require the Secretary of State’s Office to revise the ballot language before early voting begins in October.
Proposition 144, referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature, would amend the Arizona Constitution to require proof of citizenship to register and vote, require voter identification for all forms of voting, prohibit foreign money from being used to influence Arizona elections, and affirm the authority of the people and the Legislature to enact election laws while clarifying the legal standard for court challenges involving those laws.
According to AFL’s complaint, Arizona law requires the Secretary of State to provide voters with an impartial, objective, and accurate description of ballot measures.
The organization alleges the current description fails to meet those standards by omitting major provisions of the measure, inserting political commentary, and making unsupported claims about its legal effect.
One of the lawsuit’s primary claims is that the official ballot language does not mention Proposition 144’s citizenship requirements, which AFL describes as the measure’s central purpose.
The complaint notes that while Arizona law allows for a 50-word descriptive title, Secretary Fontes allegedly used only about 28 words and did not reference the amendment’s provisions requiring citizenship to register to vote.
“Free and fair elections start with an honest ballot,” stated James Rogers, Senior Counsel at America First Legal. “Secretary Fontes had one job here: tell Arizona voters the truth about what’s on their ballot.”
The lawsuit also challenges language describing the measure’s prohibition on foreign election spending. The official “yes” vote explanation states that the provision is “similar to prohibitions that already exist in federal law.”
AFL argues that statement is misleading because federal law does not prohibit foreign money from being spent to influence ballot measures, and contends Proposition 144 would close that gap.
Additionally, AFL disputes the ballot language stating that the measure would “lower the legal standard for judicial review of election laws, making it harder to challenge election laws in state court.”
The organization argues that Proposition 144 contains no such language and that the statement represents a speculative legal conclusion rather than a neutral explanation of the amendment’s text.
“Arizona law requires official ballot language to be impartial, accurate, and free from advocacy,” added Rogers. “Secretary Fontes’s description of Proposition 144 fails all of these requirements. AFL will fight in court to ensure that every voter in Arizona gets the truth before they cast their ballot. That is what the law demands and what democracy requires.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
