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.”
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.
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.
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are free, fair, transparent, and lawful. As the top election official in our state, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes should be working every day to ensure this happens. And he should be providing an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that gives impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law.
This shouldn’t be that hard…or controversial.
But Adrian Fontes took it upon himself to produce one of the most radical EPMs in Arizona’s history. In fact, several of the “rules” in his EPM even go as far as to criminalize activity that is protected under the First Amendment—creating an unconstitutional chilling effect on protected political speech. Apparently, Adrian Fontes hasn’t read the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.
Because of this illegal EPM, we sued him. And last week, a Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in our favor, finding that Fontes’ EPM contains speech restrictions that violate the Arizona Constitution, misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
So, how did Fontes respond? Did he realize the error of his ways? Will he now properly understand his role and amend the EPM to align with the law? No. Instead Adrian Fontes has responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He’s resorted to maligning our organization in the media…
Speaking with KTAR’s Jim Sharpe and Jayme West last week, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes openly attacked the Arizona Free Enterprise Club after the group successfully fought to strip away rules from the 2023 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). The very next day, AFEC President Scott Mussi responded.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, 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.
ICYMI: A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge has ruled that certain portions of Secretary Fontes’ radical Elections Procedures Manual violated Arizonans’ First Amendment rights. https://t.co/HwhZi45sXk
Fontes began by immediately mischaracterizing the lawsuit from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club saying, “First and foremost, I’m going to break a rule and talk about pending litigation. Usually I don’t, but this is important and this manual, the Elections Procedures Manual is promulgated by the Secretary of State every two years. And the rules that are in question right now are guidelines basically for elections workers, for election administrators across the state. And they do in this section particularly help to protect them and voters from harassment and intimidation, specifically using language like blocking the entrance to a voting location. Also, following voters or poll workers coming or leaving voting locations, including to or from their vehicles.
This is some of the language that we put in there, which was also in the 2019 manual, by the way, that the Free Enterprise Club wanted to block and they have now blocked. It is as if the Free Enterprise Club wants voters to get followed to and from their vehicles to polling locations. It is as if the Free Enterprise Club is okay with this.
Check this, they had this blocked by the judge too, intentionally disseminating false or misleading information at voting locations. So is the Free Enterprise Club want people to be lied to?”
We applaud the court’s protection of Arizonans’ First Amendment rights during the exercise of their sacred privilege to vote in free and fair elections. Secretary Fontes and his team of leftwing ideologues must conform the entire manual to state law as is their statutory duty.
Jayme West asked, “But that’s free speech, right? Yeah.”
Fontes answered with a rebuke to the First Amendment, “Is it when you are inside of the 75-foot zone? Look, not all speech is protected. Every American knows this. You can’t yell fire…” he began to quote a classic legal fallacy.
As Reason’s Emma Camp cited, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff, wrote, “Anyone who says ‘you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre’ is showing that they don’t know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history. This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations.”
Host Jim Sharpe put the conversation back on track though, “You’re not allowed the electioneer within those 75 feet.”
“That’s exactly right.” Fontes said. “But what the Free Enterprise Club is doing is chipping away at a long established statutes. They’re chipping away at our ability to help the folks out there in our 15 counties regulate the behavior during election seasons. They basically want someone to be able to come up and scream and yell at voters as they’re standing in line to vote.”
West pushed back on the Secretary though, “But not necessarily about the election or electioneering. I mean you could just be yelling at somebody, right? It doesn’t have to be about the specific election itself right?” Fontes began to argue with her, “Is that how we want our voters to be treated? “ “No, I’m just saying not…” she began when Fontes cut her off. “That’s why I have…” But West continued, “not considered electioneering.”
Fontes continued saying, “…why I’m going to fight like heck to make sure that we have peaceful processes so that our voters are treated with dignity during this incredibly important point in time. Because here’s the deal, you have to stand in line in some circumstances and because the regulation is that you have to be in line, the government is forcing you to be in that line. You should be protected while you’re in that line to vote.
He then directly attacked the Arizona Free Enterprise Club claiming, “So the Free Club is basically saying, we want chaos, we want lies. We want people to be able to block entrances to voting locations. That’s what the Free Enterprise Club is saying. By asking for this order, I’m going to fight tooth and nail against this nonsense. So the next steps, as you asked, we have the capacity to appeal. Our lawyers are working on it right now. I’m going to protect every voter. I don’t care if you’re in Sun City, east Mesa or in Holbrook. I’m going to do everything I can to make this process peaceful and reasonable.”
The very next morning, Sharpe and West invited Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scott Mussi to answer Fontes’ bold-faced politically-driven attack.
“Jim, Jamie, thanks for having me on this morning. These claims being made by Secretary of State Fontes are just outrageous, and it’s ridiculous that he’s attacking and maligning our organization, our 15,000 supporters and activists throughout here in the state of Arizona. Our donors, who he made veiled attacks saying that people should stop supporting our organization because of this ruling. We filed this lawsuit because simply put, Adrian Fontes included language in his Election Procedures Manual that exceeded its statute and was unconstitutionally overbroad. It constrained speech rights.
He’s citing things that simply, there’s already statutes and we didn’t challenge any specific statute. We challenged the language in the procedures manual itself and the language in the manual cannot rewrite state law, cannot create new laws, and there’s laws against the things that he’s describing. The things that we sued over are things dealing with speech constraints where he included vague language that’s undefined that could be used against people that are trying to simply engage in their First Amendment rights at poll locations.”
Sharpe asked Mussi, “So would you be okay with some of the provisions in the Election Procedures Manual that you’ve asked to have removed if they were worded in a more precise manner?”
Mussi replied, “The section of the Election Procedures Manual that we sued over included, again, as I mentioned before, vague language if it’s drafted in a way that’s consistent with what state law is or what statute is. And again, for example, he’s talking about blocking people. That’s against state law. You can’t do that. And that goes beyond even what’s really to an election. For example, nobody could show up at your guys’ radio station and block your ability to go to your vehicle. There’s already statutes against harassing other people. You can’t do those things. But that’s not what is Election Procedures Manual in the section that we were challenging does. Again, it includes language that says that if you raise your voice or say things that are offensive and these things are undefined, and if these things are enforced, you can be not only kicked out of the polling location, but you can be prosecuted.
The irony of all of this is that in the public ranting that Adrian Fontes is engaging in, where he is raising his voice, something could say or engaging a language that many people could find offensive, especially when he’s maligning our organization. Ironically, it could be used against him to kick him out of a polling location. It is bizarre. I think that the judge was correct. I would encourage everybody to read the ruling that the judge issued yesterday or earlier this week outlining this because it’s very clear these terms that he included in the Election Procedures Manual are overly broad. They infringe on people’s constitutional rights to engage in the election process.”
West sought some clarification from Mussi asking, “I asked him, I said, is it just an issue of it being the language being too broad? But he said that specifically your organization, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, wants to make it okay to harass voters waiting to cast ballots at polling places.”
He answered, “And again, those comments and claims are outrageous and only vindicates that we were correct in filing this lawsuit.”
“We’re not just talking about just some individual. He is the top election officer here in the state of Arizona who’s now again, maligning and attacking our organization, our 15,000 activists and supporters throughout the state of Arizona. And we’re supposed to believe that he’s not now going to use this vague language that he included in the Election Procedures Manual to impinge on people’s First Amendment rights to engage in the political process.
And again, just based on his own behavior, he violated his own guidelines within his Election Procedures Manual. Or it could be interpreted that way. And that’s the problem because somebody does have a First Amendment right. If Adrian Fontes wants to show up at a polling location and complain that he lost a lawsuit to the Free Enterprise Club and say the same mistruths and lies that he said on your radio program, he does have a First Amendment right to do that.”
When reminded of the 75-foot barrier for electioneering under the law by Sharpe, Mussi added, “That’s correct. That’s another thing too that he said was factually wrong. He was talking about people. It’s against state law to go within the 75-foot parameters and election area. The Election Procedures Manual can’t change any of those statutes. And we weren’t challenging statutes. We were challenging this vague and overbroad and unconstitutional language that he included in the Election Procedures Manual.”
According to KTAR, Fontes said that his office plans to appeal the ruling and is hoping to expedite the request citing the general election being just three months away. In her scathing ruling, Judge Touhill called the EPM provisions “overbroad” and “unenforceable.”
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.
