By Matthew Holloway |
The campaign supporting Proposition 318 filed a campaign finance complaint with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on Monday, alleging an opposition website copied its name and visual presentation while failing to disclose who paid for the site.
The two-page complaint accuses the unidentified operators of ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote of violating Arizona campaign disclosure requirements and attempting to mislead voters about the November ballot measure.
The complaint compares the opposition site with the Yes campaign’s ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote, including screenshots showing similar turquoise, pink, black, and white branding and versions of the phrase “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona.” La Sota alleged the opposition site copied the Yes campaign’s “trade dress” and selected a web address closely resembling the campaign’s own domain.
“In addition, the website address itself is meant to mislead,” La Sota wrote in the complaint.
According to the complaint, the opposition site uses ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote, while ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.com redirects visitors to the same website. The Yes campaign operates ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote.
“The group I chair has existed since June,” La Sota wrote. “What these fraudsters obviously did was go to our website and copy our trade dress and even our name, and intentionally found a website address that was as close to ours as possible.”
The complaint alleges that the opposition website does not identify a person or organization that paid for it.
Under A.R.S. § 16-925, a person other than an individual who makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fundraising solicitation must include the words “paid for by” followed by the name of the person making the expenditure. Electronically delivered advertisements are required to make the disclosure clearly readable.
Arizona campaign finance law defines an “advertisement” as information or materials, excluding nonpaid social media messages, that are published, displayed or otherwise placed in a communication medium for the purpose of influencing an election. A “ballot measure expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates support for or opposition to an identified ballot measure.
“The only conceivable way that there would be no disclosure requirement would be if a single individual person was behind this shameful effort,” La Sota wrote. He added that publicly available registration information did not reveal the identity of the person who registered the domain.
Whether the website violates state campaign finance law has not been determined. The identity of its operator and the amount spent to create or maintain the site were not established in the complaint.
La Sota also cited A.R.S. § 16-905, writing that registration and campaign finance reporting requirements could apply depending on how much money has been spent on the effort.
Arizona law requires an entity to register as a political action committee when its primary purpose is influencing an election, and it crosses the applicable contribution or expenditure threshold. The Secretary of State lists the adjusted threshold for the 2025-2026 election cycle at $1,500.
The complaint also cites A.R.S. § 16-1006, which makes it unlawful to use specified corrupt means to influence an elector and prohibits deceiving an elector into voting for a different measure than the voter intended. A violation is a class 5 felony.
La Sota acknowledged in the complaint that the Secretary of State does not have criminal enforcement authority and cautioned against broad application of the statute because of its potential effect on protected political speech.
“Obviously this statute must be used with the utmost caution because it could easily be turned into a weapon against protected speech,” La Sota wrote. “But this is about as compelling a case under this statute as I have seen given the obvious attempt to defraud voters.”
The Yes campaign separately said it is asking Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate whether the opposition website violates state consumer protection laws. The campaign did not include a separate Attorney General complaint among the materials provided to AZ Free News. Its Monday press release described the campaign finance complaint as filed with the Secretary of State and said the campaign was “asking the Attorney General to investigate.”
The campaign announced the complaint during an event at the Arizona State Capitol, where it also named Christine Jones and former Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit as honorary co-chairs of the Yes on 318 campaign. State Senate President and Republican Attorney General nominee Warren Petersen, Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Andy Biggs, and Republican Secretary of State nominee state Rep. Alex Kolodin also voiced support for the measure in the campaign announcement.
“Arizona parents should not have to wonder whether a political website is deliberately deceiving them or who is hiding behind it,” Petersen said. “Attorney General Kris Mayes must immediately investigate these allegations and determine whether Arizona’s campaign finance and consumer protection laws were violated.”
The campaign also released a 39-second advertisement titled “Pretending”, which places screenshots of the Yes and No websites side by side and draws a comparison between the dispute over the opposition site and the campaign’s arguments concerning transgender participation in female sports. The advertisement ends with a disclosure stating that it was paid for by Protect Girls Sports in Arizona, received zero percent of its funding from out-of-state contributors and was not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Proposition 318, referred to voters by the Legislature as HCR 2003, would amend Arizona law governing student athletics.
According to the Secretary of State’s official ballot language, the measure would require public schools, private schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on biological sex as recorded at birth and would prohibit males from participating on female teams. It would also prohibit schools and athletic associations from authorizing individuals to use private spaces, including restrooms, that are not designated for that individual’s sex.
Current Arizona law applies the athletic-team designation requirements to public schools and private schools whose teams compete against public schools. Proposition 318 would broaden the statute to additional schools and athletic associations and expressly add restrictions governing restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private athletic spaces.
A “yes” vote would enact those changes beginning Jan. 1, 2027, while a “no” vote would maintain current Arizona student-athletics law, according to the Secretary of State.
“Today we celebrate sports for all, as we begin the campaign to protect both girls’ sports and the right for everyone to participate,” Jones said Monday. “Prop 318, the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act will designate sports Male – Female – Co-Ed, ensuring fairness for females, and the opportunity for everyone to play.”
The complaint urges Fontes to take action on the alleged disclosure violations and ensure transparency surrounding the opposition website. La Sota asked the secretary to give the matter his “utmost attention,” writing that voters should not “unwittingly lose their vote on this ballot measure.” As of publication, no determination that a campaign finance violation occurred had been announced.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
