by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Apr 9, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Adrian Fontes has proven himself to be good at two things during his tenure as Arizona’s Secretary of State: losing in court and throwing tantrums. It’s really unfortunate. The state’s top election official is not supposed to be taken to court on a regular basis—especially for, you know, his repeated attempts to undermine election integrity. And of course, throwing tantrums should be more characteristic of toddlers, not a government official. But Fontes can’t help himself.
In his latest tirade, Fontes joined Hillary Clinton’s old consigliere Marc Elias on Democracy Docket to whine about President Trump’s recent executive order to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. Toward the end of the discussion, Elias asked Fontes about the multiple lawsuits against his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which he lost to us and Arizona Republican lawmakers. As has become all too common with our Secretary of State, he responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He attacked our organization and degraded our 15,000 activists and donors.
Yes. That’s right. The top election official in our state, who is supposed to remain unbiased and simply do his job to protect election integrity, lashed out against us and told people not to donate to us because we won our lawsuit against him and his illegal EPM.
Ummm…news flash, Mr. Fontes. One of the reasons our donors support our cause is to stop government officials like you from circumventing the law. So, when we win, they feel good because their money was put to effective use.
But we shouldn’t expect someone with such low character as Adrian Fontes to understand that. After all, this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use the power of his office to attack and intimidate organizations like ours that participate in the election process…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Staff Reporter | Mar 9, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled against the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) produced by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
Judge Lacey Gard reversed and remanded a lower court decision dismissing the case, Republican National Committee, et al. vs. Adrian Fontes, et al., last summer. Gard ruled the EPM fell under the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a “plain reading” of the statute contrary to what the lower court ruled. Gard also dismissed Fontes’ arguments for his right to not comply with the APA because the APA and EPM statutes conflict.
“[The APA] unambiguously states that all agencies are subject to the APA’s rulemaking procedures unless ‘expressly exempted,’” stated Gard. “The APA and EPM statutes impose duties on the Secretary that may require him to begin promulgating the EPM earlier, but they are not inconsistent, do not directly conflict, and do not create impossible barriers to complying with both.”
Gard further ruled Fontes violated the APA by not allowing public comment on the proposed EPM for the full 30 days, instead only opening up review for 15 days.
Gard noted at the end of her ruling that she wouldn’t address other claims by the Republican National Committee challenging eight specific provisions of the EPM, since she arrived at the conclusion that Fontes’ promulgation of the 2023 EPM failed to “substantially comply” with requirements set forth by the APA for the rulemaking process.
The Republican Party of Arizona (AZGOP) sued Fontes over the EPM last February, along with the Arizona legislature leadership at the time (Senate President Warren Petersen and then-House Speaker Ben Toma) and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. In a statement on Thursday’s ruling, the AZGOP claimed the appeals court found the EPM to be unconstitutional.
AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda said the ruling confirmed the extent of the unlawfulness of Fontes’ EPM in the Thursday statement. Swoboda characterized Fontes and his EPM as an attempt “from the radical left to illegally assume control” of Arizona elections.
“This opinion from the court shows just how much Secretary Fontes and his allies in the Governor’s and Attorney General’s offices overreached in their partisan efforts to hijack our elections through this blatantly political manual,” said Swoboda. “As we have highlighted to the court, the most-recent elections manual contained many provisions that ran utterly contrary to Arizona law, giving the Democrat machine a clear advantage at the ballot box for years to come.”
Beyond the lack of compliance with APA, GOP leaders’ objections to the Fontes EPM concerned conflicts with state election law: accepting voters who declared themselves noncitizens on juror questionnaires; allowing voters who failed to submit or couldn’t achieve verification of their Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC); allowing first-time, federal-only voters to provide only an ID and not DPOC for mail-in voting; not requiring county recorders to check federal databases for citizenship reviews; restricting public review of voter signatures on mail ballots; allowing Active Early Voting List voters to receive ballots outside the state for certain elections; requiring denial of early ballot challenges received prior to the return of an early ballot; and allowing out-of-precinct voters to cast provisional ballots.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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 | Aug 17, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
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…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Staff Reporter | Aug 8, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
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.
