AZGOP Lawsuit Accuses Hobbs Of “Blatant Overreach” For Orders On Ballot Drop-Off Locations
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party has filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court against Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs challenging the constitutionality of her Executive Orders 2023-23 and 2023-25. The orders designated state-owned facilities, including those managed by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), as ballot drop-off locations and ordered state authorities to make voter registration forms available and process them respectively.
Republicans, under AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda, stated that the new orders rip away authority held by county recorders and other local election authorities.
In the text of the lawsuit, the AZGOP argues, “Governor Hobbs unlawfully exercised her office by attempting to establish voting locations, drop-off locations for completed ballots, and make ADCRR and ADJC, as well as other state agencies, de facto public assistance agencies, which is outside her lawful authority.” They note, “The Arizona law is clear on who can distribute and accept voter registration forms and completed ballots: (1) public assistance or disabilities agencies as defined by statute; or (2) a location/agency as designated by a county recorder (or designee of a county recorder) or justice of the peace. The Governor is nowhere included in this clear line of authority. The same is true for determining voting locations.”
In a statement provided by the AZGOP to AZ Free News, Swoboda wrote,
“Governor Hobbs’ actions represent a blatant overreach of her authority and a direct violation of the separation of powers established by our Constitution. The responsibility for designating voting and ballot drop-off locations, as well as handling voter registration, lies squarely with the Legislature and county officials, not the Governor. These executive orders undermine the trust Arizonans place in their electoral process, and we will not stand by as our constitutional rights are trampled.”
Political commentator George Behizy observed Thursday, “Similar measures were taken in Michigan by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who designated various state agencies to do the same.” He added, “Hobbs’s orders blatantly violate Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the US constitution which clearly states, ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]’ The constitutional delegates ALL election oversight to the state legislatures. It doesn’t grant the executive any power to delegate random government departments as vote registration sites or ballot drop-off locations.”
The US Constitution as referenced by Behizy states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing(sic) Senators.”
A state Governor or Secretary of State’s ability to enact such measures remains unadjudicated and was the subject of the 2020 Election challenge Texas v. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania which the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most controversial historic decisions, declined to hear. The case divided the states with twenty supporting Texas’ claim, twenty supporting Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and six states undecided.
The Texas complaint similarly revolved around three major points:
- “Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
- Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
- The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.”
Should the case be taken up by the Arizona Supreme Court and adjudicated, it could serve as a basis for a federal ruling to settle the question nationally that was left ambiguous in 2020.
Matthew Holloway is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.