by Matthew Holloway | Sep 24, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Friday that nearly 98,000 Maricopa County voters whose citizenship documents got caught up in a coding error will be allowed to vote full ballot in November. Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer had moved to have them relegated to voting ‘Fed Only’ in November.
The court received several amicus briefs from voters and organizations across the political spectrum arguing against the move, including the Arizona Republican Party; the League of Women Voters of Arizona; Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen and Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly; as well as the Carlos Apache Tribe, Living United for Change in Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona, Mi Familia Vota, and the ACLU of Arizona.
The Republican Party of Arizona (AZGOP) filed an amicus brief Thursday calling upon the court to intervene and prevent the removal of 98,000 voters from the rolls whose registrations were potentially endangered by a controversial clerical error by state officials.
On Tuesday, Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes announced that 97,000 inividuals would be impacted by an error that could prevent them from voting in state-level elections such as state legislative races, initiatives, and referenda. The error affects voters who were issued an Arizona driver’s license prior to October 1, 1996. The figure represents over 2.5% of the state’s total registered electorate. The outlet noted that a technical issue reportedly caused the error which has been resolved, however, the status of those affected is unclear.
In a statement published Thursday the AZGOP announced:
“Today, the Republican Party of Arizona filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Supreme Court supporting the preservation of voter rights in the case involving nearly 100,000 voters whose registration statuses were jeopardized by a state government clerical error.
The AZGOP urges the court to protect voters from sudden disenfranchisement and argues that the requested relief from Petitioner Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer violates both state and federal law.
The AZGOP’s amicus brief notes the importance of adhering to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which prohibits systematic voter removals within 90 days of a federal election, and argues that the removal of voters based on this clerical error violates due process and the U.S. Constitution. The AZGOP maintains that any action taken to correct these registration issues should not result in the disenfranchisement of voters who have long participated in Arizona’s elections without issue.”
Gina Swoboda, AZGOP Chair said in a statement:
“Regardless of any outcome on this matter, all of these voters will receive a Federal Only ballot which permits them to vote for President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. Congress. The only question before us is if these voters, who have possessed an Arizona driver’s license since before October 1996, should be denied the right to vote for their representatives in the Arizona legislature, county, school board, and ballot measure contests.
Our brief makes it clear: nearly 100,000 Arizona voters should not be penalized for a mistake made by the government. We will not stand by as voters are disenfranchised, especially so close to an election. The law requires that any changes to voter registration or eligibility must be handled carefully and in accordance with federal and state law. Rushing to disenfranchise voters now would not only be illegal but would severely undermine confidence in our elections.”
In a lengthy post to X, Richer justified his lawsuit saying:
“My office discovered this issue last week, and we have been working with the Governor’s Office, the Secretary’s Office, the MVD, and the Attorney General to fix this moving forward. The number is about 97,000 registrants across the state. All of these people have attested under penalty of law that they are U.S. citizens. And, in all likelihood, they almost all U.S. Citizens. But they have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship. Moving forward (2025 onward), everyone agrees we need DPOC for those voters for them to vote a full ballot. But the Secretary and I have different opinions on what the law requires for the November 5, 2024 General Election. It is my position that these registrants have not satisfied Arizona’s documented proof of citizenship law, and therefore can only vote a ‘FED ONLY’ ballot.”
In the text of the amicus brief, the AZGOP argues that the declaratory judgment requested by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer would stand in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Arizona’s Free and Equal Elections Clause, as well as the National Voter Registration Act. The party’s legal team explained, “It is difficult to imagine state action that would impose a more ‘severe’ burden on the right to vote than abruptly informing an individual who has lived and voted in Arizona for decades—and previously voted in all elections, state and federal—that they must suddenly prove that they are a U.S. citizen in the handful of days remaining before Arizona’s October 7 voter registration deadline if they want to vote in state elections this year.”
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer writing for the majority ruled:
“In sum, Richer has not established that the county recorders have statutory authority to remove the Affected Voters from being able to vote in the upcoming 2024 General Election for federal offices and with respect to matters on an Arizona ballot. This is particularly true under the present facts, where a state administrative failure permitted the Affected Voters to be registered without confirming that they provided DPOC when they received their driver’s licenses and where there is so little time remaining before the beginning of the 2024 General Election.”
She continued, “Arizona law provides that ‘[w]hen the county recorder obtains information pursuant to this section and confirms that the person registered is not a United States citizen,’ the county recorder is to initiate a process to cancel a registration that includes sending the person notice that the person’s registration will be canceled in thirty-five days unless the person provides satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(10). Although challenges are pending to various aspects of the statute, subsection (A)(10) recognizes the right of any voter to notice and an opportunity to contest any determination of a voter’s ineligibility. A county recorder can therefore proceed with respect to individual voters under § 16-165(A)(10) as long as the provision’s due process requirements are followed… Regardless, we are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests. Doing so is not authorized by state law and would violate principles of due process.”
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 AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 14, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Arizona voters should be able to have complete trust in their elected officials to conduct themselves honorably, ethically, and lawfully in every matter concerning our sacred elections.
Too bad Secretary of State Adrian Fontes never got the memo.
In the midst of firing off baseless attacks against our organization after a court ruled in our favor against his radical Elections Procedures Manual, Fontes found a new way to violate the ethics of his office…and maybe the law.
Last week, in an unexpected, politically motivated, and potentially unlawful use of taxpayer dollars, Fontes filed a brief at the Arizona Supreme Court in an effort to ensure that votes for Prop 140 are counted in the November General Election—regardless of its eventual legality.
Think about that for a moment. By filing this brief, Adrian Fontes—the top election official in our state—unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Prop 140. In short, this means that for Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona adopts a California-style election scheme that includes ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. But that shouldn’t come as much of surprise…because it’s exactly what he’s been working for…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Katarina White | Sep 9, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
Throughout history, we have witnessed the horrors that unfold when societies dehumanize entire groups of people. In the era of slavery, Black people were considered less than human—mere property to be bought, sold, and exploited. During the Holocaust, Jews were labeled as “subhuman” and systematically exterminated. Today, we look back on these atrocities with disbelief and sorrow, wondering how such inhumanity could have ever been justified. And yet, in our current era, we face a similar moral crisis with abortion—a modern-day holocaust where the humanity of unborn children is denied, and their lives can be murdered right up to the moment of birth.
Proposition 139 is not just another policy debate—it is a question of life and death. If passed, this proposition would permit the killing of unborn children until birth. The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that the term “unborn human being” will remain in the ballot language for this proposition. This decision challenges us to face the uncomfortable truth: the lives at stake are not mere “fetuses” or “clumps of cells” but human beings in their most vulnerable form.
The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign, which claims to stand for “truth,” has fought fiercely to exclude the term “unborn human being” from the language of Proposition 139. Why? Because they understand that words matter—words shape perceptions. If voters are confronted with the reality that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, they might see through the euphemisms of “reproductive rights” and “women’s health” to the brutal truth.
Yet, the scientific truth is clear. According to Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed., 1998), “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” From conception, a developing life in the womb carries its own unique DNA—a distinct genetic blueprint that is undeniably human. To deny this is to deny biological reality in favor of a narrative that serves a political agenda.
Consider the parallels. In both slavery and the Holocaust, those in power used language and rhetoric to strip away the humanity of their victims. Slaves were considered property, not people. Jews were referred to as “vermin.” These labels made it easier to carry out heinous acts without facing the moral consequences. Today, the abortion industry reduces the unborn to “fetuses,” distancing from the murderous act of abortion and its reality—the ending of a human life.
Despite this, Dawn Penich, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access, argued that the court’s decision to use the term “unborn human being” would prevent voters from understanding the ballot in a “fair, neutral, and accurate way,” claiming they would be “subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation.” But isn’t it more manipulative to hide the biological reality of what abortion truly involves?
The irony is staggering.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to allow the term “unborn human being” on the ballot forces us to confront what is truly at stake. This is not just a matter of “reproductive rights”—this is about whether we, as a society, will sanction the destruction of human life up to the point of birth.
History has taught us the catastrophic consequences of dehumanization. In every era, from slavery to the Holocaust, society’s refusal to recognize the humanity of its victims has led to unspeakable horrors. Today, abortion stands as the latest chapter in this tragic story—a chapter that will be judged by future generations. Will we turn a blind eye, or will we stand for the truth that every human life, born or unborn, deserves recognition and protection?
As Arizona voters head to the polls in November, they must decide whether they will be complicit in this modern-day holocaust or whether they will choose to defend the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. The fight over language is a fight over truth, and truth, once revealed, compels us to act. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 1, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Arizona, we have a problem. Apparently, the group behind Proposition 140—a ballot initiative aimed to bring California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.
Back in July, the special interests behind the idea to bring jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. Just a couple weeks later, a lawsuit was filed after it was determined that a large portion of their signatures were collected in violation of state law. And late last week, we received some good news. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the signature challenge lawsuit against Prop 140—which was facing a potential deadline due to the printing of ballots—may continue to ensure that the 40,000 duplicate signatures submitted by the Prop 140 committee are examined and removed from the final tally.
Yes, you read that right. The group that supposedly wants to “make elections fair” is content to do so by counting duplicate signatures (i.e. voters that signed more than once). What does that say about the true nature of this initiative?
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 25, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The Arizona Supreme Court may have rendered a significant blow to the future of a key ballot measure for the upcoming General Election.
On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in Smith v. Fontes, which was a challenge over the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (Proposition 140). The court ruled that Prop 140 “will appear on the ballot, assuming ballots are indeed printed in the early morning hours of August 23.” However, the state’s high court projected that if a majority of its justices were to later “disqualif[y] the Initiative, the court should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted.”
The issue at hand involves a challenge to the signatures submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State by the committee supportive of the ballot measure. The parties contesting the submission have argued that there are 40,000 duplicative signatures in the batch, which, if discarded, would bring the initiative under the minimum number required for placement on the ballot.
Proposition 140 is an attempt from the Make Elections Fair PAC to remake the Arizona elections systems through this constitutional amendment on the ballot.
“I am grateful for this thoughtful decision from the Arizona Supreme Court,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “At no time did the trial court judge or the committee in favor of the initiative provide evidence as to why these signatures were not duplicates, but instead relied on a strategy of obstruction to run out the clock. The lateness of this challenge did not have to be the case if the lower court had only adhered to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for all duplicates to be removed from the qualifying count. For any ballot measure – but especially one that would fundamentally transform our elections systems – Arizonans deserve complete confidence that our courts are applying all laws fairly and justly.”
Mussi added, “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 its order, the Court wrote, “There is no statutory directive that a court resolve an election challenge like this one before the ballot printing deadline. Regardless, this Court, and indeed the trial court, has consistently endeavored to resolve initiative challenges before the ballot printing deadline… But the courts’ role is to dispense justice. Courts cannot be forced to rule rashly to meet a ballot printing deadline or provide the parties with certainty.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, this measure “is seeking to enact a California-style election scheme built around ranked choice voting and jungle primaries.” On the other hand, an advocate for the Make Elections Fair Act recently maintained that Prop 140 “represents an opportunity to improve both our elections and our state government.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
