Arizona Supreme Court To Review Clean Elections Commission’s Authority To Demand Repayment



October 17, 2026

By Matthew Holloway |

The Arizona Supreme Court agreed Thursday to review whether the Citizens Clean Elections Commission can determine that the secretary of state incorrectly certified candidates’ qualifying contributions and order repayment of public campaign funds on that basis.

In the order, the justices granted review of two questions in Lombardo v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission. The court ordered the parties to submit simultaneous briefs by Monday, Oct. 19, at 4 p.m., and will consider the case on an expedited basis without oral argument.

Risa Lombardo and Duwayne Collier, the Green Party nominees for governor and secretary of state, are challenging the commission’s authority to demand repayment amid an investigation into whether they properly qualified for public campaign financing.

In September, Lombardo and Collier alleged that the threat of repayment obligations had effectively halted their campaigns and burdened their free speech rights. Their lawsuit also challenged the commission’s authority to revisit their qualification for public funding after certification by the secretary of state. At that point, the commission had directed Executive Director Thomas Collins to investigate further without issuing a repayment order.

The Supreme Court’s first question asks: “Does the Citizens Clean Elections Commission possess legal authority to determine that the Secretary of State’s certification of qualifying contributions was incorrect?”

The second asks: “If yes, does the Commission have the authority to order repayment of funds on that basis?”

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer signed the two-page order. It limits review to those questions and contains no ruling on the underlying allegations or express directive halting the commission’s investigation.

The candidates contend that the secretary of state and county recorders have authority to determine whether they collected sufficient qualifying $5 contributions. Their attorney, Timothy La Sota, has argued that the threat of repayment interfered with their campaigns and that relief after the election would come too late.

The litigation reached the state Supreme Court after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian dismissed the candidates’ lawsuit. Julian concluded in her ruling that the challenge was premature because the commission had not completed its investigation or issued a repayment order.

“Plaintiffs’ challenge is to the basis for a repayment order that has not and may never be issued,” Julian wrote. “That claim is not ripe for this Court’s review.”

The judge said the administrative process could establish the facts and allow the commission to determine whether enforcement was warranted before judicial review.

The Court of Appeals declined special action jurisdiction on Oct. 6. Lombardo and Collier then sought Supreme Court review through a special action petition that the clerk docketed as a petition for review.

The Supreme Court considered the petition and responses from the commission and its executive director, Thomas Collins, before granting limited review.

The underlying investigation includes allegations that qualifying-contribution records were falsified. La Sota has disputed the accusations, characterizing them as conspiracy theories.