by Matthew Holloway | Nov 3, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court handed a sound defeat to Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and a victory to the America First Legal Foundation and Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, known as “EZAZ.org.” The court ruled on Thursday that Fontes’ office is ordered to immediately provide a full list of all individuals who registered to vote in the state of Arizona without providing the proof of citizenship required under the law, a total of approximately 218,000 people as previously reported by AZ Free News.
The ruling obliterated Fontes’ response to EZAZ.org’s demand for transparency, which claimed, “We fear, especially based on SCF’s filings, that its true desire here is not to keep watch on government actions — which our public records laws are designed to facilitate — but instead harass and intimidate voters in the midst of an election and whose rights Secretary Fontes has already vindicated before Arizona’s highest court.”
The court found that the testimony of Professor Robert Pape, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago who suggested with Fontes that “producing the list of 218,000 voters to EZAZ.org would expose those individuals to the risk of harassment and violence,” was “focused on political violence trends nationally and contained no analysis of such trends in Arizona.” They found further that, “Pape admitted on cross-examination that he conducted no research specific to Arizona. Professor Pape offered little more than speculation that a release of the requested information would lead to violence or harassment and, again, only based this opinion on national statistics.”
Finally, the court laid the claims about potential political violence to rest writing:
“The credibility of Professor Pape’s testimony and report was further diminished by what appeared to be gratuitous political bias in his report and in his testimony. The Professor’s opinions regarding general political violence focused almost entirely on allegations of past and anticipated prospective violence from only one side of the political spectrum, and only related to former president Donald Trump.”
The ruling concludes, “They failed to identify any specific threats of violence or harassment from EZAZ.org, and Ms. Hamilton’s unrebutted testimony established that EZAZ.org does not condone violent or harassing behavior and carefully screens its members and volunteers to ensure that persons who do condone or participate in such behavior do not participate in the organization.”
In a statement, America First Legal described the ruling saying, “The court found that Secretary Fontes ‘provided inconsistent testimony on this point’ and that ‘[h]is testimony suggested that he lacked detailed familiarity with the AZSOS’s efforts with regard to the issue and with regard to the records in the possession of the AZSOS related to the 218,000 individuals.’ The court’s order requires Secretary Fontes to produce the list of 98,000 individuals that he has along with any other personally identifying information that he has about the 218,000 individuals.”
James Rogers, America First Legal Senior Counsel, celebrated the ruling saying, “A majority of Arizonans no longer trust the election system of our state. One of the reasons is the lack of transparency from our state’s elected officials. When Secretary Fontes discovered the glitch that allowed 218,000 individuals to register without providing proof of citizenship, he should have immediately shared the list of affected individuals with Arizona’s county recorders, who are in charge of verifying the citizenship of voters. Instead, he has jealously guarded the list, refusing to share it with anyone. This suit was about restoring transparency and ensuring that county recorders can do their jobs by verifying the citizenship of voters. It is unfortunate that Secretary Fontes so aggressively opposed our common-sense efforts to help restore trust in our state’s election system.”
“This was a case we never should have needed to file,” said Rogers.
EZAZ.org’s Merrissa Hamilton wrote in a post to X, “FONTES = 0; TRANSPARENCY = WINNING! Despite AZ Secretary Adrian Fontes’ best efforts to falsely paint @AZHouseGOP @AZSenateGOP as homicidal maniacs (totally unhinged argument not remotely grounded in reality), while he’s also actively preventing Recorders from having access to do their jobs …
The Honorable Judge Blaney ruled in our favor in requiring Fontes to release to EZAZ.org the 98k voters impacted by the MVD ‘glitch’ causing voters to not have proof of citizenship on record.
Our only intent has always been to ensure the Recorders and Legislative leadership can do their jobs! And legal voters are enfranchised with confidence that their government is following the law in the operation of the elections!
Now that will happen! And the reputation of our happy, hardworking volunteers at EZAZ.org is restored!”
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 | Oct 28, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick responded to a formal complaint against him to the Commission on Judicial Conduct from Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ) regarding comments he’s made while campaigning for retention in the 2024 Election. Justice Bolick summarized his response in three words before addressing it more fully: “Bring it on.”
In a press release, SOSAZ claimed that Justice Bolick’s comments at a campaign event covered by Politico violate “several provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.” The group suggested that his speech at a Pentecostal Church in Sun City stating he would continue “fighting for conservative principles,” while standing near a cardboard cutout of President Donald Trump, breached public confidence in his “independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”
The activist group wrote, “SOSAZ’s written complaint asserts that Justice Bolick’s active campaigning at a Republican Party event violates several provisions of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges ‘should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.’ Justice Bolick’s appearance and comments at this Republican Party meeting certainly do not meet this standard, and we should expect better of our judges, especially those sitting on the state’s highest court.”
Speaking with KJZZ, SOSAZ Executive Director Beth Lewis told the outlet, “It’s not impartial and judges really do need to act with impartiality at all times.”
“Bolick has politicized the courts. It’s also been shown in his decisions, which are directly related to our work at Save Our Schools Arizona,” Lewis claimed. “His ideologically-based decisions have directly impacted our ability to fund our schools for many years.”
SOSAZ is running an extensive “do not retain” campaign against retaining Justice Bolick and fellow Justice Kathryn King. Bolick and King are the only two Supreme Court Justices facing retention votes this year. According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions.
In an email statement obtained by AZ Free News, Bolick responded to SOSAZ’s complaint:
“A political organization that is opposed to my retention as an Arizona Supreme Court justice has reportedly filed a judicial ethics complaint against me. My response: Bring it on.
I have spent much of my career as a lawyer and judge defending and protecting free-speech rights. I am glad to have the chance to stand up for my own and other judges’ free-speech rights.
Judges necessarily enjoy fewer free-speech rights than others. But we have the right to forcefully defend ourselves against an unprecedented campaign to replace judges solely for political reasons.
In doing so, I adhere meticulously to judicial ethics rules. Judges cannot endorse candidates for office, and I do not (not even my wife). Judges cannot ask for money to support their campaigns, and I do not. Judges may not talk about pending cases or issues that may come before the Court, and I do not. In short, we are forced to ‘campaign’ with one arm tied behind our backs. Our opponents have no such restraints.
The rules do allow us to speak at partisan events, although we cannot serve as party officers and cannot endorse candidates. That is no problem for me, as I have been a registered independent for more than two decades and am the only independent to ever serve on the Court. Since the campaign to remove Justice Kathryn King and me from the Court, I have spoken at both partisan and nonpartisan events.
During the retention campaign, I feel like I spend half my time defending against liberal critics over judicial opinions they do not like, and the other half against conservative critics of opinions they do not like. My colleagues and I were ‘censured’ by the Maricopa County Republican Party executive committee for voting against their wishes in election cases. As a judge committed to the rule of law, I see criticisms from both sides as a badge of honor.
The group’s news release makes clear this is about politics, not judicial ethics. Its executive director, Beth Lewis, tweeted that her vote against me was ‘personal,’ ‘gleeful anger,’ and ‘revenge.’ Filing a judicial ethics complaint for ‘revenge’ is an abuse of process.
But I hope they will pursue it even after the election because we need a clear precedent protecting the free-speech rights of judges to defend themselves, and I will be proud to have my name in the caption.
-Clint Bolick
One minor factual correction in the complaint: I was the last justice appointed to a five-member Court, which later was expanded to seven.”
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 Daniel Stefanski | Oct 9, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
After a lengthy court battle, a ballot measure involving a major change to Arizona’s elections system will be considered by voters in the upcoming November General Election.
Late last week, the Arizona Supreme Court finally dismissed the challenge to Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act. The court simply released its decision order, promising an explanation later. All the justices on the court supported the ruling.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which spearheaded the challenge to the legal validity of the proposition, was disappointed in the result from the court. Scot Mussi, the President of the conservative organization, said, “We are disappointed in the ruling of the court on this matter. Our organization proved that the special interest groups attempting to hijack Arizona’s elections systems lacked the minimum number to qualify for the ballot to even be considered by voters in November. The special master in this case also ruled that 99% of the signatures in question should be disqualified. The committee behind the measure was aware of the duplicates, yet they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.”
Sarah Smallhouse, Chairperson of the Make Elections Fair Committee, said, “The Make Elections Fair Committee is thrilled with our latest victory for Prop. 140 before the Supreme Court. 32 days from now we will celebrate again when all Arizonans are liberated from the grip of partisan primary elections. It’s time to move forward. It’s time for open primaries in Arizona.”
“Our opponents engaged in blatant attempts to manipulate the system, undermining the democratic process with misleading tactics. This deliberate misconduct was rightfully rejected by the courts, ensuring that Arizona voters were not disenfranchised. The court’s decision upheld the integrity of our elections and protected the right of every voter to have a fair and transparent choice,” said Chuck Coughlin the campaign treasurer.
According to the Make Elections Fair PAC, Prop 140 would do the following if it is approved by Arizona voters: “Eliminates taxpayer funding for partisan elections; All candidates can run and will appear on the same ballot; Same signature requirements for all candidates; No funding for Partisan Presidential Primary unless unaffiliated voters are included; Every voter can participate in every election.”
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has a different perspective on the ballot measure. In a press release, the Club stated that Prop 140 would do the following if enacted:
- “Allows one politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race
- Would result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot
- Would force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates and others that do not
- Will increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
A couple of Arizona political parties weighed in on the official inclusion of Proposition 140 for voter consideration. The Republican Party of Arizona posted, “ACTION ALERT The awful California style Ranked Choice Voting measure DISGUISED as an ‘open primary’ will appear on AZ ballots. We need EVERYONE to join us on the NO ON PROP 140 campaign to Save Arizona.”
The Arizona Libertarian Party agreed, writing, “The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no!”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Oct 1, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and State Senator Ken Bennett filed amicus briefs in defense of a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) ballot initiative with the Arizona Supreme Court last week.
Bennett served as the secretary of state from 2009 to 2015. He filed his brief jointly with Helen Purcell, the former Maricopa County recorder who served nearly 30 years.
Richer said in his filing for Smith v. Fontes that the votes should be counted for RCV, or Prop 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act” — regardless of the existence of a disqualifying number of duplicate signatures gathered — because the “election has already begun” and, he says, state law prohibits the prevention of counting votes cast.
“Hiding the results or attempting to prevent the vote from being tabulated is an inequitable result,” said Richer. “And it is at odds with Arizona public policy that demands government transparency. Not counting the vote does not mean it did not happen.”
Richer said all arguments concerning the initiative’s qualifications to be on the ballot were rendered moot after the deadline passed to certify and print the ballots.
“To be resolved with a high degree of certainty may not be currently possible given the election time constraints,” said Richer. “The issue has now, at least partially, gone to the people. The Recorder believes there is benefit to allowing the vote to occur, and assuming it is otherwise constitutional, to count.”
Richer stated that his office had already printed over 21,500 different ballot styles and mailed many of them out to in-state residents as well as military and overseas voters, some of which have been returned: over 1,100 out of about 8,500.
“Recorder submits that once the ballots are printed, the time for signature challenges must end,” said Richer.
Richer also said that state law prohibits the destruction of any public record of a vote, and that Maricopa County’s tabulation machines would tabulate the votes returned.
The recorder noted that state law does allow for courts to enjoin the certification and printing of ballots, but not the power to enjoin the counting of votes.
“[I]f the voting tally is a public record, the Recorder does not see how Maricopa County can either destroy it or fail to release it,” said Richer.
Similarly, Bennett and Purcell argued that their combined expertise on elections made it clear that timeliness in elections takes precedence over validity.
Bennett and Purcell cited court precedent in their argument of mootness regarding the challenge to Prop 140’s validity. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes instructed county election officials to include Prop 140 on their ballots printed in late August.
“Courts have consistently upheld the principle that pre-election challenges must be resolved before the ballot printing deadline,” said the pair. “[And] as a practical matter, invalidating Prop 140 after voting has already begun would result in electoral chaos and damage voter confidence in the efficacy of their votes.”
That ballot printing deadline occurred a day after the Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court for review, citing the exclusion of evidence pertaining to 40,000 duplicate signatures. The exclusion of those contested signatures reduce petition signatures to what is below the total required to qualify for the ballot.
Though the Maricopa County Superior Court did find that nearly all of the 40,000 signatures were duplicates, the court ruled that the state constitution didn’t allow for those votes cast on Prop 140 to be ignored. That ruling led to the appeal which the Arizona Supreme Court now considers, and with which Richer and Bennett disagree.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 27, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Two of Arizona’s Supreme Court justices are facing a fight for their future tenure on the bench.
This November, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to retain two key votes on the state’s high court, Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King. Both justices have demonstrated a consistent standard for standing on the principle of the law, not politics, though their stances have often angered outside interests – including the groups now attempting to remove them from the court.
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This is Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Earlier this year, Bolick and King drew the ire of progressive groups after their votes in a controversial abortion case. The group helping to lead the efforts to oust the two justices, Protect Abortion Rights Arizona, posted on its website, “Arizonans need a fair judiciary that will protect our rights. This year, Arizona voters will decide whether to vote out two of the Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the total, 160-year old abortion ban.”
In an op-ed published in The Arizona Republic this past May, Bolick explained his vote on the abortion case. He wrote, “Serious commentators, liberal and conservative, who actually read the decision (which I encourage voters to do), agree it is solidly grounded in law. We had before us not a question of policy, or even of constitutionality, but simply whether the Legislature in 2022, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, restored an earlier abortion restriction. After careful analysis, we concluded it did.”
The high-profile justice continued: “I cannot count the number of cases in which I have voted against my policy preferences. One example is when Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed nearly two dozen conservative bills over a budget dispute with the Legislature. They were passed again, then challenged by the Arizona School Boards Association. We struck them all down because they were passed unconstitutionally as part of the budget rather than as standalone bills.”
The case that Bolick was referring to in his piece was Arizona School Boards Association v. Arizona. The plaintiffs had challenged four budget reconciliation bills – HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819. The court unanimously decided that the bills were void in part because of they violated the title requirement, and that SB 1819 was entirely void because it violated the single subject rule. Justice Bolick factored into the decision of the court, yet King recused herself. According to the court, the Arizona constitution “requires that appropriations beyond the scope of the general appropriations bill ‘shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.’”
As the court wrote in its conclusion, “We respect the role of the legislature in the discharge of its constitutional duties, including in its budgetary processes, and we heed our constitution’s fundamental premise that the division of powers necessarily impels judicial restraint, particularly in the realm of lawmaking. But this Court’s constitutional duty to interpret and apply the constitution requires us to invalidate a law if it infringes the constitution. Thus, today we do not intrude upon the legislature’s unique constitutional authority; instead, we merely exercise our own such authority to interpret, apply, and enforce the Arizona Constitution’s command that the legislature’s acts comply with the title requirement and the single subject rule.”
Judicial Independence Defense PAC has taken the side of Bolick and King, working to convince enough voters to retain these two justices in the upcoming fall election. The group warns that these retentions have been grossly politicized, and that Arizonans will pay the price if Bolick and King are removed from the bench. The PAC states, “From the federal level on down, we’ve seen politics creep its way into the judicial branch. But our courts should be independent, and in Arizona they have been. According to published media reports, out-of-state liberal groups like the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes have budgeted $5 million to take over Arizona’s Court and defeat Justices Clint Bolick and Kate King. If they succeed, liberal Governor Katie Hobbs will get to choose their replacements, giving liberals a majority on the Arizona Supreme Court for the first time.”
These cautionary words from the Judicial Independence PAC echoes what Bolick also penned in his aforementioned op-ed. Bolick said, “The groups opposing us need a serious civics lesson about the role of the courts. Nowhere in their materials will you read about the importance of an independent judiciary in protecting our free society. Instead, they think we should decide cases based on the ‘will of the people.’ How do we determine that? Commission a poll? Convene a focus group? Simply assume the Legislature always reflects the will of the people?”
Bolick answered his questions with a quote from the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, saying, “As Justice O’Connor put it following her retirement, ‘the judiciary should not respond to public opinion in its individual decisions,’ but instead should be ‘accountable to the public for its constitutional role of applying the law fairly and impartially.’ That is what the iconic image of the scales of justice is all about.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
