by Daniel Stefanski | Dec 21, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona Republicans scored a significant victory in court over the state’s top elections official.
On Thursday, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma championed a recent court ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney over contested provisions within the 2023 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). According to a release issued by the Arizona House of Representatives, “the court sided with Speaker [Ben] Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen in their legal challenge, declaring that the Secretary overstepped his authority and infringed on the Legislature’s exclusive lawmaking powers.”
Speaker Toma released a statement in reaction to the decision, saying, “This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and today’s decision reaffirms that foundational principle. Secretary Fontes attempted to overstep his authority, but the court recognized these actions for what they were – unlawful and unenforceable. I am proud to have led this fight to protect the constitutional role of the Legislature and to ensure that Arizona’s election laws are upheld as written. It’s a win for all Arizonans who value fair, transparent, and accountable election policies.”
President Petersen said, “A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.”
In a comment to AZ Free News, Petersen added, “We’re disappointed that the judge delayed the effective date of the AEVL provision but everything else was a big win. We will continue to do all we can to secure our elections and boost voter confidence.”
Arizona House Republicans shared that the court ruling “invalidated multiple provisions in the EPM, including:
- A rule altering how voter registrations are managed for non-residents, in violation of Arizona statutes.
- A rule excusing errors in circulator registrations, undermining strict compliance requirements for initiatives and referendums.
- A rule limiting the role of county Boards of Supervisors during the canvassing process and improperly allowing the Secretary to exclude county results from the statewide canvass.”
While this past election cycle has come and gone, Fontes will have one more opportunity to fashion an EPM before the next one, and he has Democrat allies in Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes to potentially rubberstamp his schemes yet again. Arizona legislative Republicans are awaiting the next installment of the EPM to ensure that any out-of-order provisions will be quickly discovered and challenged in court to protect the integrity of Arizona elections.
Fontes dropped the current EPM just before the statute-mandated deadline of December 31, 2023, after securing approvals from Hobbs and Mayes. For the first time since 1978-1979, Democrats controlled the top three statewide offices in Arizona (Governor: Bruce Babbitt, Attorney General: John LaSota, Secretary of State: Rose Mofford). One of the most significant consequences of securing this power trifecta is the ability to negotiate, craft, and green light the state’s Elections Procedures Manual without initial interference from opposing political voices, as required by law every two years.
At the end of January, Petersen and Toma filed a challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court over Fontes’ EPM, which has been ongoing up until (and through) this week’s decision.
When the EPM was published at the end of last year, Governor Katie Hobbs, who preceded Fontes, said, “Partisan politics should have no role in how we run our elections. This EPM builds on the 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM from my tenure as Secretary of State and will ensure dedicated public servants from across the state will have the guidelines they need to administer free and fair elections. Together, we can protect our democracy and make sure every Arizonan has the opportunity to have their voice heard.”
As Secretary of State, Hobbs was required to finalize the EPM in 2021, but a divided government shared with Republican Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich stymied the quest to secure a green light for the manual. Hobbs and Brnovich were also mired in an ongoing political feud, which resulted in legal bar charges that the Secretary of State brought against the state’s top prosecutor and several of his attorneys. After receiving Hobbs’ updated manual, Brnovich sued the SOS “to compel her production of a lawful EPM.” Brnovich alleged that “the SOS failed to provide the Governor and Attorney General with a lawful manual by October 1, 2021, as required, and instead included nearly one-hundred pages of provisions not permitted under the EPM statute.” The challenge from the former Attorney General was rendered unsuccessful, and the state was forced to revert to the previous cycle’s EPM (2019) to govern the 2022 races.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Dec 11, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Another election has come and gone, and unsurprisingly, Arizona is yet again the butt of national jokes for taking weeks to process ballots and tabulate votes. While some in the corporate media still attempt to defend our vote counting circus, most everyone is in agreement that big changes are needed. It doesn’t take being an election expert to recognize that states with far greater populations, who also experience large rates of early voting, somehow get their votes counted on election night or near to it.
It’s a fix that is long overdue, yet for over five years the reform has continued to run into a political meatgrinder at the state Capitol. Since 2019, our organization, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, has supported, championed, and authored bills to ensure we get results on election night. And while Democrats in the legislature have been an obstacle to reform (they have universally opposed any reforms geared toward getting faster results), they have not been the only impediment to fixing the problem.
The real culprit is opposition from county “election officials,” or more precisely, their taxpayer-funded lobbyists. For years, our so-called election experts have worked overtime to stop any reasonable reforms to Arizona’s mail-in voting system. Their tactics are incredibly disingenuous. When people express their frustration about the glacier pace of vote counting, they clap back (usually with dripping condescension) that their hands are tied by existing law. But when lawmakers introduce bills to change those laws, those same election officials send their army of lobbyists down to the Capitol to fight reform at every turn…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Nov 25, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
An election reform plan to accelerate ballot processing and speed up official returns has been proposed by Maricopa County Supervisor Thomas Galvin. Galvin once defended Maricopa County’s botched elections but now asserts that procedural changes would make it possible for 95% of an election’s votes to be counted on election night.
The Supervisor believes that although it took over eleven days for all Arizona voting precincts to report their unofficial results in the 2024 election, Arizona can avoid future criticism by enacting what he dubs his 95/1 plan.
In a statement to The Center Square Galvin said, “Although the tabulation of early ballots and election day ballots were done in accordance with state law and within the normal timeframe of previous elections, there is growing concern from the public about the time it takes for Arizona to tabulate ballots and call contested races.”
“Since election day, I’ve had productive conversations with Republican leaders at the Arizona Legislature who agree sensible and practical changes are needed to speed up processing while also protecting the integrity of the early voting system that most Arizonans utilize.”
Galvin’s proposal would advance the current cutoff date for early ballot drop off to early polling places. At present, the law sets the deadline as the Friday prior to an election. In addition to the moving the cutoff date, Galvin proposes to close the emergency voting windows on the Saturday and Monday before Election Day, but allows the use of in-person voting. He has also proposed the use of government buildings to host polling locations.
He added in the statement, “By moving up the cutoff date for early ballot drop offs, using government buildings to host polling sites, and eliminate emergency voting for the Saturday and Monday prior to the election while allowing folks to vote in person, we can significantly speed up the process and have nearly 95% of ballots tabulated by election night.”
Galvin concluded, “I urge the Arizona Legislature to make my ‘95/1 Plan’ a top priority in 2025 and look forward to working with county and state leaders on these important reforms.”
In a post to X, Galvin directly called upon Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs to “work with the Arizona Legislature to make my “95/1 Plan” a top priority in 2025,” adding that “Arizona voters & elections workers deserve this reform.”
Pima County Supervisor Democrat Rex Scott expressed support for the proposal writing in a post, “I am grateful to my colleague @ThomasGalvin for putting these timely ideas forth. We may be from different parties and represent different counties, but we share the same concerns. When the new Legislature convenes in January, his proposals should be given serious consideration.”
Fellow Maricopa County Supervisor Mark Stewart also stood beside Galvin’s proposed reforms in a statement to X, “I stand with my colleague @ThomasGalvin in emphasizing the importance of efficient and transparent elections in Maricopa County. This is a standard we must meet, as anything less undermines public trust. I look forward to collaborating with my fellow supervisors @DebbieLesko, @KateMcGeeAZ , and Steve Gallardo, as well as our state legislators and governor, to advocate for legislation ensuring election results are finalized promptly after walk-up tallies are complete. Arizona can and should resolve election delays—our voters and the nation deserve a process that reflects both competence and integrity.”
When asked by KJZZ if she would support the proposal, Hobbs replied that she would veto any changes to the early voting deadline. “My line in the sand has been and will continue to be anything that makes it harder for Arizonans to vote is a no for me, and that includes the flexibility that we have with early voting.”
Galvin rejected the notion that moving the deadline would disenfranchise Arizona voters saying, “I think this would just have to be a shift in behavior among Arizona voters,” Galvin said. “But I think Arizona voters are very smart and will shift their behavior and react accordingly.”
Responding to concerns regarding emergency voting, Galvin said, “If you do want to vote in person before Election Day, you have to do it that weekend, but it has to be for emergency reasons and you have to sign a piece of paper attesting that you have an emergency,” he said. “It’s called emergency voting, so I just want to transition emergency voting to full in person.”
The idea to shift voting locations to government buildings proposed by Galvin actually mirrors a recommendation cited by KJZZ from Hobbs’ election task force in 2023. That recommendation led her to sign an executive order which authorized the use of state buildings for polling centers.
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 | Oct 25, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
If you can’t get people to like your ideas, change the system. That’s the clear agenda behind the Prop 140 scheme that seeks to bring ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries to Arizona. And there’s no more hiding it.
At a recent news conference organized by the Prop 140 campaign, Kimber Lanning—founder and CEO of a group called Local First Arizona that wants to build “equitable” systems for Arizona’s businesses—let the mask slip. Lanning revealed that when other states have adopted the reforms included in Prop 140, they have been able to move forward on transformational ideas like climate action plans and providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
Wait. Aren’t ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries supposed to lead to more moderation in the government? That’s what the backers of Prop 140 continue to push. But since when did climate action plans and special benefits for illegal immigrants become moderate?
Therin lies the true motivations behind Prop 140. Liberal billionaires from Colorado and others states around the country are pouring millions and millions into Arizona to pass this initiative in an effort to turn Arizona blue. They envision a system anchored around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries will put them in charge of the political and policy agenda here in Arizona.
And in their zeal for power and control, they don’t even recognize the underlying hubris and irony of their entire campaign…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Sep 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
American elections were once comparatively modest affairs. They were conducted in the autumn every fourth year, beginning about Labor Day until Election Day, when everyone voted.
We went to a designated polling place and cast our confidential votes under the watchful eyes of fellow citizen volunteers. The ballots were transported under strict chain-of-custody procedures to be counted by election officials.
Accommodations were made for those physically unable to vote, but most Americans didn’t regard voting as especially onerous. We were grateful for the privilege and willing to overlook minor inconveniences. There were racial and gender barriers to voting for too long, but those are now thankfully corrected.
Elections are the process, in our democratic republic, by which we choose our governing officials. But they also play an important role in ensuring the unity of citizens by providing a process for fairly reconciling our differences.
Americans have always had strong, often contrasting opinions about how they should be governed. It once took a catastrophic war to resolve our differences but normally elections serve well to determine our way forward. Ideally, all sides get their say, nominate the best candidates they can find and then we vote. The results are conclusive and binding until the next election.
Customs change, rules evolve, and elections today look very different than a few decades ago. Yesterday is never going to come back, but it’s worth remembering that not all changes represent progress. Our elections could use a thorough overhaul.
Campaigns simply last too long. The presidential campaign is now continuous, with candidates beginning to compete by the previous Inauguration Day.
As one result, campaigns have become horrendously expensive. They are endurance contests in which the most successful fundraiser is favored. Insiders can’t get enough of the “horse race,” but ordinary citizens become bored. Considerations of ongoing policy decisions are filtered through their possible effect on the campaigns and the ever-present polls.
Perhaps this extended attention could be justified if the result was more carefully examined and higher-quality candidates. But recent elections have featured generally weak choices. This year’s candidates are widely considered to be laughingstocks, the least qualified candidates in memory. Each is fortunate to have the other for their opponent.
More importantly, Americans have lost faith in the integrity of our election processes. Fully one-third of all Americans believe Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020. In another poll, 81 percent believe democracy to be threatened.
“Not my President” buttons sprouted after Trump’s surprise victory in 2016, and left-wing pundits freely disputed the legitimacy of his presidency. Four years later, rule changes attributed to the COVID lockdowns resulted in looser security procedures and widespread suspicion of fraud. Almost half of Americans and a clear majority of Republicans believe fraud may have been extensive enough to alter the result of the elections.
This level of distrust is toxic to a government “of the people.” Whether or not you believe fraud is widespread, “innovations” like vote counting long before election day, poorly monitored drop boxes, ballot harvesting, slipshod or absent identification procedures, citizenship verification by affirmation only, and voter rolls puffed up by automatic registration at welfare offices leave many non-partisan observers skeptical. Election officials deny any problems and brand those with honest doubts as “deniers.”
The gaping hole in our defense against slipshod practices is bulk-mail voting. There is no possible way we can mail out millions of unsolicited ballots to poorly maintained voter rolls, addressed to people who presumably once lived there, and then count all the ballots that are mailed back and pretend we have a reasonably secure system.
Signature matching, far from perfect, is our main defense against cheating. Yet no signature can possibly assure the vote inside was made without undue influence by a mentally competent person for whom the ballot was intended.
Reliable data is unavailable for logistical reasons, but in a recent survey about one-fifth of bulk-mail voters admitted to some illegal behavior in their handling of the mailed ballots – and those were the ones willing to admit it.
Your precious vote only counts if it is not canceled by fraud. We need Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
