by Matthew Holloway | Feb 3, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Courts across Arizona will host statewide oath reaffirmation ceremonies for legal professionals on Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, as part of Arizona Rule of Law Day, officials with the Arizona Supreme Court and county court systems announced.
The events, scheduled simultaneously in all 15 Arizona counties, will invite attorneys and other legal professionals to reaffirm their Oath of Admission in local courthouse ceremonies. The reaffirmation ceremonies represent a formal recommitment to upholding the rule of law and administering justice.
The statewide celebration coincides with several milestones in American history, including the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on Feb. 12, and Arizona’s 113th statehood anniversary on Feb. 14.
In announcing the ceremonies, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer said renewing the oath on these historic dates underscores the importance of the rule of law in American governance. “On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, lawyers across Arizona will come together to renew their oath — a reminder that the rule of law depends on the daily commitment of those sworn to uphold it,” Timmer said. “Reaffirming that oath on February 12, Lincoln’s Birthday, honors our nation’s founding ideals and our shared responsibility to serve justice with integrity and respect for the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Timmer’s remarks will be available for livestream and replay by courts statewide.
As of this report, the Arizona Judicial Branch provided scheduling and location information for ten of the state’s 15 counties.
- Apache County — 11:00 a.m.
Superior Court in Apache County, 70 W. 3rd St. S., St. Johns, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Latham.
- Cochise County — 11:30 a.m.
Cochise County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G, Bisbee, AZ — Presiding Judge David Thorn.
- Coconino County — 11:30 a.m.
Superior Court in Coconino County, 200 N. San Francisco St., Flagstaff, AZ — Presiding Judge Ted S. Reed.
- Graham & Greenlee Counties — 12:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Graham County, 800 Main Street, Safford, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Peterson and Presiding Judge Jeremy Ford.
- La Paz County — 10:00 a.m.
Superior Court in La Paz County, 1316 Kofa Ave., Parker, AZ — Presiding Judge Marcus Kelley.
- Maricopa County — 10:00 a.m.
State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ — Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer and Presiding Judge Pamela Gates. Livestream available.
- Mohave County — 12:00 p.m.
Mohave County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman, AZ — Presiding Judge Steve Moss.
- Pima County — 4:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Pima County, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ — Presiding Judge Danelle B. Liwski.
- Pinal County — 11:00 a.m.
Superior Court in Pinal County, 971 N. Jason Lopez Circle, Building A, Florence, AZ — Presiding Judge Joseph Georgini.
- Yavapai County — 4:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Yavapai County, Historic Courtroom, 120 S. Cortez St., Prescott, AZ — Presiding Judge John Napper.
The reaffirmation ceremonies aim to highlight the central role that legal professionals play in a justice system where laws are applied fairly and equally. The events are being organized jointly by the Arizona Supreme Court, State Bar of Arizona, and courts statewide.
Yavapai County Presiding Judge John Napper said in a statement, “The Yavapai County Superior Court is honored to host this event. It is always important to take time to remember why we do what we do. I encourage all legal professionals to attend and reaffirm their dedication to the rule of law and justice.”
Correction: A previous version of this story listed the incorrect names of the some of the presiding judges. The story has been updated with their correct names.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 5, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
On Tuesday, a judge considered the ongoing matter of Prop 140 in April Smith v. Fontes. The case involves a challenge of the validity of Arizona’s ranked choice voting initiative signatures.
At the end of the hearing, the number of challenged signatures was whittled down from over 40,000 to approximately 38,100 to be reviewed by a special master appointed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge FrankMoskowitz.
Court observers are questioning if the outcome of the case has already been determined in Moskowitz’s mind.
It was evident that there was confusion between the judge and counsels for the plaintiffs, the Make Elections Fair Arizona PAC, and the Arizona Secretary of State on how to determine whether signatures already eliminated by County authorities or the Secretary of State would be present in either the full number of signatures or in “extrapolations.” The extrapolations are created by multiplying a 5% sample by 20 under existing statute to create a “validity rate” that can be applied to the sum total of signatures.
The hearing seemed expressly focused on how much of the evidence of duplicate signatures the court should exclude from consideration, rather than as the Supreme Court directed in Mussi v. Fontes, to “determine whether the exhibits prove any duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence.”
Judge Moskowitz appeared more concerned with determining how many exhibits do not prove duplicate signatures, saying, “They’re done. It’s over. It doesn’t matter if the remaining 31,000 or whatever it is are in fact duplicates and maybe double counted, maybe not give ’em credit and say they weren’t double counted. If you can get 4,800 that were double counted, it’s over,” describing what he expects to see in a brief from Make Elections Fair PAC.
Attorney Daniel Arellano, representing Plaintiffs April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian pushed back against this notion saying, “First of all, I just to be clear, I mean these all sound like categorical arguments to me, which I think are precisely what the Supreme Court said not to do. I’ve not seen briefing of this issue. There’s a preview of it. (…) I’ve not actually seen any legal argument on this, but as I listened to this argument here today, judge, I think, again, I forget if it’s Leah v. Hobbs or Leah v. Reagan, but one of the two definitely says that we get to invalidate signatures for reasons other than, in addition to, and outside of the 5% sample. And so if the premise of the committee’s argument is that it is, we have to go with what the county hasn’t validated because that is already multiplied times 20, and we can’t invalidate anything in addition to or separate from that. That is I think a proposition that the Supreme Court has squarely rejected.”
He added, “I think the point is I don’t think we can use this as an avenue to foreclose line by line review of the 38,000 signatures.”
But Judge Moskowitz was quick to retort: “No, I understand that. But even if I said yes, clear and convincing all 38,000, it says proceed accordingly. And my proceed accordingly is my next step is going to be how do I know of whatever number is of duplicates hasn’t been already invalidated. How do I know this signature hasn’t already been invalidated? And I think that would be in the proceed accordingly part of the Supreme Court’s order.”
However, the order from Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer made the court’s priority clear, “The trial court must continue with determining whether the initiative is supported by a sufficient number of qualified signatures. This determination should be made as expeditiously as possible to provide the parties and the public certainty.”
In a thread posted to X, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) paraphrased a comment from the organization’s President Scot Mussi, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In a press release the organization cited from the evidence presented that:
- When the Prop 140 Committee submitted their signatures to the Secretary of State, around 250 people had signed five or more times.
- One individual had signed 15 times.
- All those signatures were included in the final tabulation by the Arizona Secretary of State.
In a status update hearing held late on Wednesday, it was determined that Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly will lead the signature verification effort as court-appointed Special Master. During the meeting, Judge Moskowitz again referred to a possible stopping point for the signature review, asking Arellano, “Not to be looking at this for one side or the other, but there is a number of 4,800. And the only reason I say that number is because it’s the lowest number we’re talking about. But if that 4,800 number of duplicates is reached um… Does he stop if he knocks out whatever that number is 4,800 of duplicates? So you don’t get to your 33,000 something, something number Mr. Arellano? Does he just stop?”
Arellano, representing the plaintiffs, responded that the Special Master should be checking in with attorneys from both sides “periodically,” however, he added, “We’ve not set that up as any particular kind of benchmark. Nor do I know that we’d be comfortable doing so, since it sort of sets that up as like a goal of sorts.”
The signature checking effort is expected to run through September 16th with a hearing to discuss legal briefs from both sides on Friday.
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.
