by Corinne Murdock | Mar 6, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The state is facing a lawsuit filed Monday over an alleged violation of state law with the early ballot signature verification process outlined in the secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual (EPM). The plaintiffs requested special action relief due to an alleged lack of an equally plain, speedy, and adequate legal alternative remedy for their grievance.
Statute requires that envelope signatures match those on the voter’s registration record. If not, the county recorder must contact the voter and confirm that the voter personally completed and signed the early ballot affidavit.
However, the current EPM — written by Gov. Katie Hobbs in her former capacity as the secretary of state — instructs county recorders to validate early ballot affidavits if they determine the signature matches any signature in any election-related document available to them. The lawsuit argued that the EPM’s allowed materials aren’t legally considered “registration records” and therefore not lawful comparative references for conducting signature validation.
“[T]he signatures encompassed within the EPM’s errant instruction cannot be used either to effectuate the registration of an individual or to lawfully amend an existing registration,” stated the lawsuit.
Arizona law doesn’t explicitly define the term “registration record.” However, the lawsuit argued that the natural understanding of the term relates to a document effectuating or amending voter registration that contains voter-supplied information required by federal and Arizona law, as well as a signed certification attesting to the provided information.
“A properly executed and submitted registration form, as may be amended and updated by the registrant from time to time, ‘constitute[s] an official public record of the registration of the elector,’” stated the lawsuit. “Accordingly, the ‘record of the registration of the elector — i.e., her “registration record,” consists of the complete and facially valid federal and state forms submitted by that individual, and any amendments thereto made by the submission of new forms, an early ballot request form, a response to an Active Early Voting List notice, or a provisional ballot envelope.”
Citizens may register to vote using forms provided by the federal or state government; both forms require full name, residential address, date of birth, a government-issued ID number, political party affiliation if applicable, and a signed, sworn attestation of eligibility (including U.S. citizenship). An Arizona voter registration form also requires telephone number, location of birth, occupation, father’s last name or mother’s maiden name, age, proof of citizenship, and statements affirming residency, status of any other existing registration, and any absence of disqualifying felony conviction.
The lawsuit stated that the named defendant, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, has gone beyond his lawful jurisdiction and gone against statute by upholding Hobbs’ EPM. Fontes refused to heed lawmakers’ requests to reject Hobbs’ EPM earlier this year.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), a nonprofit social welfare corporation specializing in limited government that includes election integrity; Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, a Virginia-based nonprofit social welfare corporation specializing in election integrity; and Dwight Kadar, a Yavapai County resident and elector.
AFEC President Scot Mussi told AZ Free News that Hobbs’ EPM essentially rewrote state law to make invalid voting easier.
“The current election procedures manual adopted by the Secretary of State has rewritten state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots,” said Mussi. “The result is a process that invites questionable methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process. It’s time for the courts to bring this illegal EPM practice to a halt.”
Early ballot voters aren’t required to prove their identity through documents or additional personal information, like a birthdate or Social Security number. The sole validator for early ballot voters is the affidavit form signature on the exterior of the envelope housing the ballot. By signing the affidavit form, a voter attests under penalty of perjury that he has not voted and will not vote in any other jurisdiction, that he has registered to vote in the correct county, that he understands that multiple voting is a felony, and that he personally voted the ballot enclosed and signed the affidavit.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Jan 22, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Tuesday, lawmakers asked Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to reject the Election Procedure Manuals (EPM) drafted by Governor Katie Hobbs when she was the secretary of state, per recent court decisions.
The dubious EPMs were the 2019 and 2021 versions drafted by Governor Katie Hobbs during her service as secretary of state. Court decisions in Brnovich v. Hobbs, McKenna v. Soto, Leach v. Hobbs, and Leibsohn v. Hobbs declared that these EPMs weren’t in line with state law.
In a joint statement issued Tuesday, State Reps. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15) and Alex Kolodin (R-LD03) insisted to Fontes that the court decisions merited review of the EPMs. Parker chairs the House Committee on Municipal Oversight & Elections, and Kolodin serves as the vice chair.
“Recent Arizona court decisions give us serious concerns about the lawfulness of former Secretary Hobbs’ 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM,” said Parker and Kolodin. “Arizona law purports to authorize the EPM to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency in voting procedures throughout the state. But we question whether these mandates have been followed. We hope Secretary Fontes more fully evaluates where the prior Secretary overstepped her bounds and look forward to hearing how those errors will be corrected.”
Parker and Kolodin asked Fontes to include them in the stakeholder input process. They asked Fontes whether he would disregard Hobbs’ 2021 draft EPM; if he believed the 2019 EPM followed and carried the enforcement of state statute; and for his supplementation of any guidance, statements, emails, or directives that Hobbs or her agents gave to county election officials concerning the 2022 General Election not written in the 2019 EPM.
The duo also asked Fontes for copies of any and all drafts of the 2023 EPM, as well as communications regarding third-party input or proposals. They set next Tuesday, Jan. 24, as their deadline.
Brnovich v. Hobbs ruled that the 2021 draft EPM failed to meet statute deadline. McKenna v. Soto and Leach v. Hobbs determined that the 2019 EPM language added onto statute language and was therefore impermissible. Finally, Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruled that Hobbs’ electronic registration process for signature gathering was deficient and non-compliant with state statute.
When former attorney general Mark Brnovich rejected the 2021 draft EPM over concerns later confirmed by court decisions, Hobbs insisted that his grievances had no merit.
It appears that Fontes wouldn’t disregard Hobbs’ EPMs, regardless of court decisions. Fontes supported the Arizona Supreme Court decision upholding the 2019 EPM in McKenna v. Soto.
“This effectively shifts the burden from the petitioner (voter) to the government, maximizing all voters’ voices in the process,” stated Fontes. “This is a MASSIVE WIN for voters!”
Fontes also told his GOP opponent in the secretary of state race, Mark Finchem, to read the EPM last September.
Fontes’ office didn’t issue an immediate public response to the request letter. However, he did advertise an upcoming panel with Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Jun 20, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A superior court judge rejected Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s complaint against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ election manual last Friday because he filed it too close to ongoing elections.
Yavapai Superior Court Judge John Napper expressed concern that siding with Brnovich would disrupt this year’s elections.
Napper acknowledged that Hobbs’ 2021 Elections Manual and Procedures (EPM) required editing and revision. However, he declared that Brnovich’s refusal to work with Hobbs on the proposed EPM didn’t mean that Hobbs didn’t fulfill her lawful duties, noting that Brnovich had from October 1 to December 31 to work on the EPM with Hobbs, as prescribed by statute.
“The parties’ failure to properly work with one another to improve the Secretary’s initial draft of the EMP [sic] does not mean she failed to perform a ministerial or discretionary act requiring a mandate from the Court,” wrote Napper. “At this point in the game, there is no mechanism for the Court to assist the parties in constructing an EMP [sic] which complies with A.R.S. § 16-452 within the timeline of the statute. The Complaint was filed far too late for this to occur without disrupting elections that have already begun.”
That doesn’t mean that Hobbs’ latest EPM will be used in current elections. Napper noted that election officials are following the EPM from 2019 since it was submitted and approved properly by both the governor and attorney general.
Hobbs celebrated the ruling. She characterized Brnovich’s complaint as “an attempt to rewrite the election rules” for political gain. Brnovich didn’t issue a public statement on the ruling.
Hobbs’ criticism paralleled those of opponents to her 2021 EPM, who argued that she was incorporating certain changes — such as allowing certain votes to be cast at the wrong precinct — to benefit her gubernatorial campaign.
Brnovich filed his complaint against Hobbs for the 2021 EPM at the end of April.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
.
