by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 30, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears determined to implement an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions. The EPM is used by election officials throughout the state as the rulebook to conduct and run elections, so it is critically important that every provision in the manual strictly adheres to state law.
Now, fresh off an important legal win over the illegal signature verification process in the EPM, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with the Thomas More Society, is suing Fontes once again—this time over unstaffed ballot drop boxes…
An Illegal Method of Voting
Arizona law establishes four different methods for secure early voting. According to A.R.S. § 16-548(A), an early ballot shall either be:
- Delivered to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
- Mailed to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
- Deposited by the voter at any polling place in the county.
- Deposited by the voter’s agent (family member, household member, caregiver) at any polling place in the county.
Did you catch that? Nowhere in the law does it allow for the use of unstaffed drop boxes. In fact, if you read through Fontes’ EPM, you’ll notice something…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 16, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears to be in a tug-of-war with Governor Katie Hobbs to determine who is worse at their job. It’s been well-documented that since she took office, Hobbs has been off to a rough start with high-profile staff exits, breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” and alienating many Democrats by signing the Republican budget. But over the past eight months, Fontes has been working just as hard in the battle to see who’s more incompetent. Not only has he failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance—leaving 14 Arizona counties in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act—but he rushed through a version of the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is filled with unlawful provisions.
Now, Secretary of State Fontes has been dealt another major blow after a superior court judge ruled against him…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 6, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Last week, a superior court judge ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, enforced an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that ran afoul of voter signature verification law. The problematic EPM in question was crafted by Hobbs in 2019.
The ruling came in the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes. Contrary to the law, Fontes claimed to the court that the term “registration record” was ambiguous and up for interpretation — meaning, he could decide what constituted a valid signature record for the purposes of verifying the validity of a ballot signature. For that reason, Fontes said that the lawsuit against his administration should be dismissed.
Judge John Napper disagreed, rejecting the motion to dismiss last Friday; he stated that only a voter’s signature used to register to vote was valid. Napper ordered Fontes to adhere to the definition of “registration record” for the purposes of signature verification.
“Here, the langu[ag]e of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The statute requires the recorder to review the voter’s registration record. The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity,” wrote Napper. “No English speaker would linguistically confuse the act of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event [….] Applying the plain and obvious meaning of ‘registration,’ the legislature intended for the recorder to attempt to match the signature on the outside of the envelope to the signature on the documents the putative voter used to register.” (original emphasis included)
Fontes petitioned the court to interpret the law to mean that other documents could be included in the definition of “registration record” based on a change of the law from reading “registration form” to “registration record.” Fontes argued that “record” was a more expansive term meant to encompass a greater set of documents than “form.” Fontes also argued that the term was ambiguous and therefore up to interpretation.
Napper rejected these arguments. The judge explained that the term change only expanded the “volume of documents” for signature verification to allow for review of multiple forms comprising a registration record. Napper also declared that the statute wasn’t ambiguous at all.
“That limitation remains the same, documents are part of the ‘registration record’ only if they involved the voter’s ‘registration,’” stated Napper. “[T]he recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope to the voter’s prior registrations (the record).”
Napper also declared that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) correctly defined “registration record,” unlike Fontes and former Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (now governor) per her 2019 EPM. Napper ruled that Hobbs’ 2019 EPM violated the law.
“The 2019 EPM creates a process that contradicts the plain language of A.R.S. §16-550(A),” stated Napper. “Therefore, this portion of the EPM and the instruction from the Secretary do ‘not have the force of law.’”
Napper’s ruling acknowledges a major issue: in the four years of its use, Hobbs’ unlawful 2019 EPM signature verification instruction has carried “the weight of the law.”
Mi Familia Vota also intervened in the case and requested dismissal of AFEC’s lawsuit. They claimed that any real or existing issues with the EPM didn’t matter because Fontes would produce a new EPM this December that could potentially adhere to state law. Napper also rejected this argument. The judge pointed out that those in the executive branch, including Hobbs, have consistently failed to produce a valid EPM, including in 2021.
“While the production of a new EPM is statutorily required, the multiple offices of the executive branch have not consistently adhered to the statute’s dictates,” said Napper. “They were unable to produce an EPM in 2021. This is why the 2019 manual carries the force of law to this day. The Court has been unable to find any authority suggesting a case is not ripe for decision because a government actor may choose a different course of conduct in the future.” (emphasis added)
The case is ongoing, with a status conference scheduled later this month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Aug 26, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are both accessible and secure—where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. It is the duty of the legislature to pass bills that ensure this, the Governor to sign those bills into law, and the Attorney General to enforce those laws.
But the Secretary of State’s role is different. This elected official is supposed to provide an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that provides impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law. But just like his predecessor in this role before him (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), our current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has filled his EPM with unlawful provisions…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 29, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Two Arizona Republican legislators are raising concerns over a draft of the new Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
On July 18, Representatives Jacqueline Parker, the Chairwoman of the Arizona House Committee on Municipal Oversight & Elections, and Alexander Kolodin, the Committee’s Vice Chair, transmitted a letter to Secretary Fontes, highlighting certain issues with the initial copy of the EPM that they had seen from his office.
The lawmakers were grateful that Fontes allowed them to see his draft, and they expressed optimism that “with legislative guidance, the 2023 EPM will not meet the same fate as the 2021 EPM, and that Arizonans will be assured that all drafts, including the final draft presented to the Governor and Attorney General, are legally consistent with Arizona election law.” They called the 2021 saga “both unprecedented and unacceptable,” writing, “Your predecessor’s failure to issue a lawful EPM ultimately led a court to decide that the 2019 EPM was in effect for Arizona’s 2022 elections, rather than an updated, legally compliant 2021 EPM.”
In their letter to Secretary Fontes, Parker and Kolodin identified eight possible violations of Arizona statutes in four chapters of the draft EPM:
– Chapter 1: Early Voting
o “Part I, page 5 moves ‘date of birth’ from required information to additional information that may be provided by a voter to receive an early ballot.”
o “Part I, page 3 allows the County Recorder to send a requested early ballot ‘after 5:00pm the 11th day preceding the election if the County Recorder has sufficient time to do so.”
o “Part I, page 16 requires the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections to supply printed instructions that ‘provide the voter instructions on how to make their intent clear if they inadvertently mark the target area for a candidate or ballot measure.’”
o “Part I, page 18 includes the exclusion of an established Ballot Replacement Center.”
– Chapter 2: Ballot-by-Mail Elections
o “Part I, page 31 refers to ‘precinct with 300 or less registered voters.’”
– Chapter 7: Pre-Election Procedures
o “Part II, page 34 allows the officer in charge of elections to allocate specified duties to any board member as deemed appropriate, including ‘taking appropriate measures to preserve order, prevent voter intimidation, and manage voter lines.’”
– Chapter 8: Election Day Operations
o “Part III, page 8 adds additional examples ‘potentially intimidating conduct’ that supersedes statutory law.”
o “Part III, page 19 adds language that prohibits a challenger from speaking to a challenged voter to ‘prevent harassment and intimidation of the challenger voter.’”
The two Representatives also requested that “future drafts of the EPM contain statutory references for each provision to provide county officials with the statutory source of each EPM provision.” Parker and Kolodin pointed out two sections in the draft EPM where there were no statutory references – as examples to illustrate their issue.
As they concluded their letter to the state’s elections chief, the legislators commented that they “are looking forward to seeing these provisions addressed prior to the EPM’s submittal to the Governor and the Attorney General on October 1, 2023.” They promised to communicate in a timely manner with the Secretary’s Office “about any other concerns that might arise,” and they asked for a written response to their letter by July 25.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
