Attorney General Mark Brnovich won’t challenge or appeal the pending ruling in the Arizona Republican Party’s (AZGOP) lawsuit to declare no-excuse, mail-in voting as unconstitutional.
Solicitor General Brunn (Beau) Roysden pledged in a court filing to honor the ruling, whatever that may be. The AZGOP filed with the Mohave County Superior Court last Tuesday after the Arizona Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to the AZGOP. The AZGOP then refiled their case with the Superior Court earlier this month.
“[The State of Arizona] agrees to be bound by the outcome of this litigation, including any appeals, with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief requested,” stated Roysden.
17 defendants were named in the lawsuit: all 15 county recorders, the State of Arizona, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
🚨ALERT: The Arizona Republican Party filed a second lawsuit to end the state’s 30-year long no-excuse mail-in voting system, claiming that it violates the state constitution. Their first lawsuit on the same issue was dismissed by the AZ Supreme Court. https://t.co/yb80UcmmN1
— Democracy Docket (@DemocracyDocket) May 18, 2022
In their initial complaint totaling nearly 60 pages, the AZGOP claimed that Hobbs prevented enforcement mechanisms for valid signature verification by not adding those procedures to the Election Procedures Manual (EPM). Additionally, the party claimed that Hobbs lacked legal authority to implement drop box voting.
The AZGOP insisted that Hobbs’ actions were only possible due to a “longstanding deviation” from election procedures outlined in the Arizona Constitution. According to the party, Arizona’s no-excuse, mail-in voting system violates the constitution because several provisions direct voting to take place at the polls.
“Stated simply, Arizona’s ‘early voting’ statutes — which provide for the ‘absentee’ or ‘no-excuse mail-in’ voting — violate the Arizona Constitution, in whole or in part,” claimed the lawsuit. “[I]n-person voting at the polls on a fixed date is the only constitutionally permissible manner of voting.”
The AZGOP requested that the judge compel Hobbs to include the signature verification guide in the EPM, remove mentions of the drop box in the EPM, and cease enforcement of absentee voting laws.
However, should the courts decide that no-excuse, mail-in voting doesn’t violate the state constitution, the AZGOP requested a definitive explanation as to how the constitution permits absentee voting.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Thursday, three GOP groups intervened in a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new law requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Republican Party of Arizona (RPAZ), the Mohave County Republican Central Committee, and the Gila County Republican Committee intervened to challenge the plaintiffs: two activist organizations advocating for progressive policies, Mi Familia Vota and Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).
In their motion to intervene, the GOP groups asserted that voter ID preserved election integrity.
“[T]he question for this Court is not whether Movants have an interest in maintaining an ‘unconstitutional’ law. The question is whether Movants have an interest in preventing a federal court from enjoining a valid law that increases voter confidence and promotes election integrity,” read their motion.
Both Mi Familia Vota and LUCHA received help from one of the top lawyers for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: Russiagate hoax lawyer Marc Elias.
In a press release, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel defended the new Arizona law as common-sense policy. She added that the law would hold Democrats accountable for their “underhanded election tactic” of rejecting voter ID.
“American elections should be decided by American citizens: full stop. When it comes to non-citizens voting, Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game because their radical ideas won’t win on an even playing field,” said McDaniel.
Democrats argued that requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote was unconstitutional and against federal law.
Today, @dougducey signed HB2492. The bill creates new, illegal barriers for voters and will lead to costly litigation.
The Governor had an opportunity to stand up for voters, election officials, and taxpayers. He failed.
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) March 30, 2022
However, legal experts like former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould clarified that the Constitution never empowered non-citizens with the right to vote. Gould toldArizona Daily Independent that the Constitution actually excludes non-citizens.
“Of course, non-citizens have never had a right to vote under the Constitution, and so it is absurd to argue that HB2492 takes away a legal, constitutional right to vote from anyone,” said Gould. “Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is a neutral, reasonable, non-discriminatory restriction that operates to exclude one group: non-citizens.”
If the new law withstands legal challenges, it wouldn’t go into effect until 2023.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A federal judge has been asked to award damages to the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party and her husband for fighting a Congressional subpoena which seeks detailed data from four phone numbers assigned to the couple’s T-Mobile business account, including records of calls to and from their medical patients.
Last week Kelli and Michael Ward filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to block a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack in Washington DC. The subpoena demands T-Mobile turn over records for the period of Nov. 1, 2020 to Jan. 31, 2021 from an account in the name of Mole Medical Services P.C., a company owned by the Wards.
The Feb. 1 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court seeks a court order declaring the Committee’s actions in issuing the subpoena violated federal law and Arizona law. It also seeks an order quashing the subpoena and enjoining T-Mobile from releasing any data to the Committee.
According to the Feb. 1 lawsuit, T-Mobile’s Legal and Emergency Response Team sent an advisory to Mole Medical Services after receiving the Jan. 19 subpoena. T-Mobile intended to comply with the subpoena on Feb. 4 unless provided proof by Feb. 2 of the filing of a motion for protective order, motion to quash, or other legal process “seeking to block compliance.”
The Committee has not commented on what drew their attention to the Wards or to their phone records, but the subpoena demands detailed records of incoming and outgoing calls—including call duration and associated phone numbers—as well as metadata, or call data records.
The lawsuit and motion to quash argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent places the burden on the House Select Committee to justify the need for the information being sought. Instead, the subpoena is so broadly written that it substantially infringes on “the right to privacy” guaranteed under Arizona state law, the lawsuit argues.
The Wards were among the 11 Republicans whose names were listed on the 2020 General Election ballot as Arizona’s electors for then-President Donald Trump. Both also signed an “alternate” slate of Arizona electors which they hoped could be used on Jan. 6, 2021 instead of the 11 electors for now-President Joe Biden.
The lawsuit concedes Kelli and Michael Ward use their business account phones for personal calls, including political communications, but argues that the data which would be disclosed by T-Mobile does not relate to a sufficiently important government interest between the Wards and the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol.
In addition, two of the four phone numbers associated with the targeted T-Mobile account are used by the couple’s children, according to the lawsuit. “Congressional investigators cannot possibly have any legitimate investigative interest in invading the personal privacy rights of the Wards’ children,” the filings state.
Several arguments against the subpoena center on the Wards’ work as medical professionals which is provided state and federal privileges of medical privacy and physician-client communications. The Committee has not addressed how it would limit the use or disclosure of confidential patient information that might be revealed if T-Mobile releases the demanded data, the lawsuit argues.
Kelli Ward is a practicing Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who practices medicine exclusively in the field of medical weight loss. She uses a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant videoconferencing system for telemedicine visits with her patients, although there are times she relies on her Mole Medical phone to speak with patients, the lawsuit states.
Michael Ward is also a practicing Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who serves as medical director for an air ambulance company. He actively practices emergency medicine in Arizona, mostly in the Lake Havasu City area where the couple live in Mohave County.
“In certain circumstances, Michael Ward gives the Phone Number to patients to follow up on their questions, the status of their condition, and the state of the improvement of their health,” the lawsuit states, adding that the same number serves as a point of contact for Ward’s work for the air ambulance, which involves calls from emergency medical technicians and paramedics about patients.
The lawsuit which also names Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) in his official capacity as the Committee’s chairman calls into question whether the subpoena was properly issued by the Committee due to quorum issues as well as a House rule which requires the Committee’s members to “authorize” a subpoena.
The case has been assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. Each defendant will have 15 days to file a response once served with the Wards’ complaint and summons.
