The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled against provisions of Arizona’s 2023 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) on Tuesday.
The EPM, drafted and passed under Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, was challenged in court earlier this year by the public policy nonprofit, Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC).
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill ruled that Fontes’ 2023 EPM contained speech restrictions that violated the Arizona Constitution, as well as misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
Ryan-Touhill ruled that the EPM’s provisions on speech were unnecessary, vague, overbroad, and serving as universal prohibition on conduct.
“The EPM’s language has restricted what the Secretary finds acceptable regarding behavior, both speech and acts. Our state constitution guarantees a right to speak freely and is only restricted for an abuse of that right,” wrote Ryan-Touhill. “[M]any of the prohibitions listed in the EPM are free speech and protected by both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. What, for example, constitutes a person communicating about voter fraud in a harassing manner? Or, for that matter, ‘posting’ a sign in an intimidating manner? How does a person either do this behavior — whatever it means — or avoid it? And what content printed on a t-shirt might be offensive or harassing to one and not another? What if the t-shirt says, ‘I have a bomb and I intend to vote!’? Where does the Secretary draw the line?”
Ryan-Touhill highlighted 13 instances of “problematic language” within Fontes’ 2023 EPM in her ruling:
[N]o electioneering may take place outside the 75-foot limit if it is audible from a location inside the door to the voting location.
Any activity by a person with the intent or effect of [ ] harassing, [ ] (or conspiring with others to do so) inside or outside the 75-foot limit at a voting location is prohibited.
The officer in charge of elections has a responsibility to train poll workers and establish policies to prevent and promptly remedy any instances of voter intimidation.
The officer in charge of elections should publicize and/or implement the following guidelines as applicable:
The inspector must utilize the marshal to preserve order and remove disruptive persons from the voting location.
Openly carrying a firearm outside the 75-foot limit may also constitute unlawful voter intimidation, depending on the context.
Aggressive behavior, such as raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker.
Using [ ] insulting [ ] or offensive language to a voter or poll worker. Disrupting voting lines.
Following voters or poll workers coming to or leaving a voting location, including to or from their vehicles.
Intentionally disseminating false or misleading information at a voting location. . . .
Directly confronting, questioning, photographing, or videotaping voters or poll workers in a harassing [ ] manner, including when the voter or poll worker is coming to or leaving the polling location.
Asking voters for “documentation” or other questions that only poll workers should perform.
Raising repeated frivolous voter challenges to poll workers without any good faith basis, or raising voter challenges based on race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion or disability.
Posting signs or communicating messages about penalties for “voter fraud” in a harassing or intimidating manner.
Judge Ryan-Touhill assessed that the EPM’s provisions modified the criminal intent and effect of crimes outlined by Arizona laws against harassment and voter intimidation or threats.
“The Secretary has no authority to change a mens rea, regardless of the objective of the language,” said Ryan-Touhill. “Moreover, neither law allows for a subjective belief of the alleged target of the crime but rather focuses upon the acts of the criminal (e.g., force, violence, infliction) or the victim (‘a reasonable person’).”
AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a press release that he was happy to see the court protect Arizonans’ First Amendment rights within elections.
“The judge correctly realized that certain portions of Secretary Fontes’ illegal and radical manual were nothing more than a brazen attempt to destroy the integrity and transparency of state elections,” said Mussi. “Secretary Fontes and his team of leftwing ideologues must conform the entire manual to state law as is their statutory duty.”
The court ordered the sections of the EPM containing speech restrictions to be unenforceable.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
On Friday, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and the ‘Make Elections Fair’ political committee. The group is challenging the initiative to place open primaries, ranked choice voting, and the elimination of public funding in partisan elections on the November ballot as a single item. The AZFEC, along with three co-plaintiffs, is contesting the constitutionality of The Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, on the basis that it violates the Arizona Constitution’s “Separate Amendment Rule,” which prohibits multiple constitutional amendments from being combined into a single ballot measure.
In a press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club explained, “If placed on the ballot and approved by voters, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act would radically change how Arizonans select and approve candidates for public office, essentially copying the California voting system.”
Broken down under the premise of the “Separate Amendment Rule,” the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act constitutes twelve separate amendments according to the AZFEC. The act touches three disparate areas of Arizona election law, directly amends four different sections of the Arizona Constitution, and adds an entirely new section, whole cloth.
🚨 BREAKING: We just filed a lawsuit against the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (which would essentially copy the California voting system) because it contains multiple separate constitutional amendments in violation of the Arizona Constitution. 🧵https://t.co/SZdu3h3aRV
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 26, 2024
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in the release, “In their rush to undermine the will of Arizona voters for future elections, the special interests that drafted this measure ignored our laws and our Constitution. This egregious disregard for law and order exudes arrogance from these parties and should disqualify their measure from the November ballot.”
In the text of AZFEC’s complaint, attorneys for the organization cited, “Article XXI, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which states that “[i]f more than one proposed amendment is submitted at any election, the proposed amendments shall be submitted in such a manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately.” They added that, in past precedence, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld that “the purpose of the single-subject rule is to eliminate the ‘pernicious practice of “log-rolling,'” whereby voters are ‘forced, in order to secure the enactment of the proposition which [they] consider[] the most important, to vote for others of which [they] disapprove[],’” the process of packaging a proposition the voters might support with others they may not.
As detailed in the release, even the drafter’s website readily acknowledged that the initiative included multiple amendments in the no longer online section: “Initiative Language” by presenting the amendments in four distinct categories in a format showing each issue as a “Current Problem” and a solution labeled “MAKE IT FAIR.”
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB V. STATE OF ARIZONA and ADRIAN FONTES §104 ( About Page, MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR ARIZONA, https://www.makeelectionsfairaz.com/about (last visited July 24, 2024).ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB V. STATE OF ARIZONA and ADRIAN FONTES §104 ( About Page, MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR ARIZONA, https://www.makeelectionsfairaz.com/about (last visited July 24, 2024).
In the complaint, the plaintiffs appeal for relief in the form of a declaration from the court that the initiative is in violation of the Arizona State Constitution, and a request for a mandamus order to compel Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to carry out his “nondiscretionary duty to comply with the Separate Amendment Rule set forth in Article XXI, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution.”
As reported by the Arizona Mirror, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act has already been the subject of a legal battle between the Make Elections Fair Arizona political action committee and Arizona Legislative leaders, House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, regarding the descriptive language of the initiative on the November 2024 ballot.
The description in question reads, in part, that the proposition, “would amend the Arizona Constitution to: 1. Allow for the use of voter rankings at all elections held in this state to determine which candidate received the highest number of legal votes,” continuing to break down the revisions to the primary election and general election procedures.
Attorneys for the PAC complain in the lawsuit, “By beginning with the changes the Initiative permits regarding the use of voter rankings, the adopted analysis improperly amplifies those permitted changes and improperly understates the Initiative’s required changes to the primary-election procedures.” They suggest that this is misleading.
This should be especially alarming since the number of voters who haven’t provided proof of citizenship and cannot be confirmed as citizens has increased by over 32% since last October in Maricopa County. Arizona law requires that voter registrants must provide documentary proof of citizenship. However, these federal-only voters are allowed to register to vote in federal races because a Supreme Court decision from 2013 held that federal law does not allow states to ask for documentary proof of citizenship in federal races such as for Congress and the U.S. Senate. And that may even extend for presidential electors (the issue being litigated right now). For federal races, voters only need to attest to being a citizen by checking a box on the federal voter registration form and signing the form. Only a little over 10,000 votes determined the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in Arizona, yet over 26,000 federal-only voters are currently registered to vote in Maricopa County.
The AFL letter went to all 15 Arizona County Recorders as a reminder of their obligation “to remove foreign citizens” from their voter rolls. It outlines additional tools the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has available, as codified by Congress under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and 8 U.S.C. § 1644, to assist county recorders in their legal obligations to ensure only U.S. citizens are registered to vote.
According to the letter, Arizona law requires recorders “to consult ‘relevant federal databases to which the county recorder has access to confirm information obtained that requires cancellation of registrations,’” per A.R.S. § 16-165(K).
While it’s a state and federal crime for foreign nationals to register to vote, just making something illegal doesn’t prevent bad actors from breaking the law like other crimes. In fact, under the Trump administration, ICE indicted 19 foreign nationals for voting in the 2016 election illegally.
Since Arizona is a border state, why wouldn’t county recorders in Arizona want to make sure they are utilizing every possible tool to prevent foreign nationals from accessing a ballot in our election? And what more can they do to protect our voting rights and ensure citizens’ votes aren’t effectively neutralized by a foreign national illegally casting a ballot?
AFL brilliantly provides a path by using federal statutes, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and 8 U.S.C. § 1644, that require DHS to provide the information. It isn’t hard for DHS to get this information through its Person Centric Query System (PCQS) database. As the letter explains:
“[The PCQS database] allows agency employees to look up individuals and quickly and easily verify their citizenship status using only a name and date of birth. This means that, right now, DHS can answer all of your inquiries about the citizenship status of all presently registered voters and all persons attempting to register to vote and do so at no cost. You already have the authority to submit citizenship inquiries about registered voters to DHS, and you can demand immediate responses from DHS.”
There is no additional cost to the taxpayers, and we can protect the voters! Where is the “Sign My County Recorder Up” button for doing his or her job?
There’s another level of required scrutiny that’s also not happening in Arizona, and that’s where the Attorney General comes into play. AFL states that per state law, county recorders are “required to send ‘to the attorney general a list of all individuals who are registered to vote and who have not provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship’” so that the Attorney General may fulfill her obligation “to use all available resources to verify the citizenship status of the applicant[s].’”
Don’t hold your breath that this will happen under the current Maricopa County Recorder regime anytime soon! Stephen Richer’s attorneys replied to AFL’s letter, refusing to take any action.
When asked, he usually shrugs off the concern about foreign nationals on the voter rolls, arguing that federal-only voters are concentrated on college campuses, as if that somehow makes it OK. He’s even gotten to the point of challenging Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk for questioning any voter in Arizona not needing to provide proof of citizenship to vote:
BLUF: Arizona had a documented proof of citizenship law for all voters, but that was invalidated by US Supreme Court in 2012 (Arizona v. ITCA) because it conflicted with federal law. Therefore only applies to state voters.
Longer:
We've done this before a few times… But…
— Stephen Richer—MaricopaCountyRecorder (prsnl acct) (@stephen_richer) July 8, 2024
He also says federal-only voters have lower turnout than average voters, so there is nothing to worry about….
Hi. This is the correct in terms of the fed only voters who participated in the 2020 GE in Maricopa County.
Few points looking at above:
1) It is ILLEGAL to vote in federal elections in all 50 states if you are not a U.S. Citizen. These names are public records. In Arizona,…
— Stephen Richer—MaricopaCountyRecorder (prsnl acct) (@stephen_richer) April 16, 2024
Except the public doesn’t know how many federal-only voters cast ballots, as the number is not reported in the official statewide canvass by the Arizona Secretary of State.
While the current Maricopa County Recorder has published in his campaign communications that he thinks documented proof of citizenship should be required to vote in federal elections, adding that it’s not “an undue burden,” he stated that it’s the job of Congress to change the law.
Hi Stacey!
Great question. Yes, we do count "Fed only" ballots. As does every county in Arizona. Because it is required by federal law.
Hope it helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
Stephen
— Stephen Richer—MaricopaCountyRecorder (prsnl acct) (@stephen_richer) June 18, 2024
This is true. That would certainly help!
In the same campaign email, he stated that he supports Speaker Johnson’s proposal, the SAVE Act, which would require documented proof of citizenship to register to vote for federal elections. Still, he’s never come out on his award-winning X account to support the SAVE Act or Speaker Mike Johnson’s bold support of this game-changing legislation to secure our elections.
Here’s my friendly reminder that this is the same Recorder who was accused of using public resources to advocate against additional security measures for voting by mail. So, he’s certainly not averse to going out of bounds when fighting for or against a policy he favors.
Former President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “I have always had a horror of words that are not translated into deeds, of speech that does not result in action.”
The Maricopa County Recorder’s latest rebuff of AFL’s letter to take steps that clearly aren’t an undue burden on his office to keep the voter rolls clean, his lack of transparency on the issue of federal-only voters’ voting habits, his constant diminishing of concerns from the public, and his lack of public support for the SAVE Act certainly screams the loudest when it comes to where he truly stands on the issue.
If only there were someone who could provide a Diet Coke explainer video to show the current Recorder why Maricopa County citizens deserve election administration in which every possible effort is made to prohibit foreign nationals from accessing a ballot to cast a vote in our elections, maybe we would have a better chance at that “Sign My County Recorder Up” button functioning in Maricopa County.
Photo from the Maricopa County Recorder video published on X here.
Merissa Hamilton is the founder and chairwoman of the nonpartisan nonprofit organizations Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and Strong Communities Action, also known as EZAZ.org, which are focused on making civic education and action as easy as pie. She’s an elected Member at Large of Congressional District 1 for the Arizona Republican Party and previously ran for Mayor in 2020. Merissa is also the Director of Integration and Policy at The R.O.A.R. PAC, which is on the mission of restoring our American Republic.
Obviously, it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote. The real question is whether voters must prove their citizenship prior to voting. This discussion has culminated in the U.S. House passing the SAVE Act earlier this month. But with near unanimous Democrat opposition, a federal proof of citizenship requirement has stalled in Congress.
As both a border and swing state, Arizona is center stage in this national discussion. Even Elon Musk chimed in by sharing an image of our voter registration form that clearly states “proof of citizenship” is not required to vote.
However, Arizona has done far more than any other state to tackle the issue of illegals voting.
In Arizona, if someone registers without proof of citizenship, they are registered as a “Federal Only Voter” and they receive a different ballot with only federal races. This means that: 1) we know exactly who and how many have registered without proof; and 2) they don’t get to influence any of our state or local elections.
In all 49 other states, proof of citizenship is not only not required, but they are all blended onto one list, and they get to vote in every election. So those states have no idea who or how many there even are! Their problem could be far bigger, and they would never know it.
In a letter addressed to the county recorders of Arizona, America First Legal, on behalf of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona wrote to remind the recorders of their legal obligation to scrub the voter rolls of any foreign nationals prior to the November 2024 General Election pursuant to 2022’s House Bill 2492, which was penned by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, said in a press release, “With the General Election quickly approaching, Arizonans still have serious concerns about the integrity of their votes – and for good reasons.”
🚨 We've officially put county recorders on alert: Failure to adhere to their responsibilities under the law may result in legal action. https://t.co/C6kKGKXn9l
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 17, 2024
He added, “It is unconscionable why any county would fail to clean its voter rolls to ensure that only American citizens are able to vote in U.S. elections. We intend to follow through with aggressive litigation should any of these elections’ officials ignore our request for strict compliance with state and federal laws. Arizonans deserve no less.”
HB2492, passed in 2022 and signed into law by then-Governor Doug Ducey enhanced the legal guardrails of the Arizona voter registration process, ensuring that proof of citizenship is required to ensure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections. The law, one of two recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requires that these county officials “shall record the efforts made to verify an applicant’s citizenship status.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of election integrity in Arizona, stating that voters who register without proof of citizenship will be rejected.
The law further established the consequences should they fail to do so, notably “if the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections fails to attempt to verify the citizenship status of an applicant … and the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections knowingly causes the applicant to be registered and it is later determined that the applicant was not a United States citizen at the time of registration, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections is guilty of a class 6 felony.” According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the letter provides three arguments for the county officials to consider:
“First, that state and federal law prohibit foreign nationals from voting or registering to vote. No foreign national is authorized to register to vote in or to vote in state or federal elections, regardless of immigration status; and that there are severe immigration-related consequences for any violations. According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, there are 35,273 registered voters in the state as of April 2024, who failed to provide proof of citizenship.
Second, that state and federal law impose requirements for counties to conduct voter list maintenance and remove foreign nationals from voter rolls. Arizona law requires counties to perform monthly list maintenance to confirm the citizenship of federal-only voters, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires list maintenance to ensure the removal of ineligible voters. The Arizona Attorney General is also required by law to verify proof of citizenship of these voters.
Finally, that county recorders have access to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to verify citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls – and DHS has a legal obligation to provide such information. These tools, enacted by the U.S. Congress, have existed for decades, along with provisions to initiate legal action should DHS fail to comply.”
The letter singed by James Rogers of the America First Legal Foundation concludes with a request that by the close of business on July 23rd, the county recorders confirm tha they have “(1) Submitted a request to DHS for citizenship confirmation of all federal-only voters registered in your county; (2) Submitted the list of your county’s federal-only voters to the Attorney General; and (3) Posted the number of federal-only voters registered as of January 2, February 20, April 1, and July 1, 2024, on the county recorder website.”
It finally warns that should any of the county recorders fail to do so, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona may take legal action to compel them to do so.
