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.
The Arizona legislature approved the Maricopa County transportation tax on Monday along bipartisan lines, 43-14 in the House and 19-7 in the Senate.
The bill, SB1102, would allow voters to decide whether to maintain the current transportation excise tax: Proposition 400, set to expire at the end of 2025. It doesn’t maintain the original reformation desired by Republican lawmakers: a choice to separate roads and commuter rail when it comes to funding. Prop 400 binds the two together as a package deal.
The legislature convened to consider SB1102 after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the version of the bill splitting the Prop 400 question (SB1246) last month.
The 14 House legislators who opposed the bill were State Reps. Neal Carter (R-LD15), Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), Justin Heap (R-LD10), Laurin Hendrix (R-LD14), Rachel Jones (R-LD17), Alexander Kolodin (R-LD03), David Marshall (R-LD07), Cory McGarr (R-LD17), Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Barbara Parker (R-LD10), Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15), Michael Peña (R-LD23), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). The seven Senate legislators who opposed the bill were State Sens. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD02), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), Anthony Kern (R-LD27), J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13), Wendy Rogers (R-LD07), and Justine Wadsack (R-LD17).
The bill’s passage marked a divide among Republican lawmakers as leadership declared it a win. Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD12) said in a press release that the bill would ensure infrastructure development to counter the rising rates of vehicle congestion and travel times on the road while preventing ineffective environmentalist policies.
Sen. Frank Carroll (R-LD28) noted that the bill restricted any level of Arizonan government from restricting the use or sale of a vehicle based on its energy source, and required mass transit to recoup at least 10 percent of costs from farebox revenues beginning in 2027, and then 20 percent by 2031.
Opponents disagreed that the bill constituted a win. Kolodin argued during the floor vote that the bill denied voters true choice. Kolodin estimated that Prop 400’s continuation would halve road funding in order to pay for other commuter projects used by one percent of the population. He noted that SB1102 further bled roads funding by allowing those funds to be used for other projects, like bicyclist paths and sidewalks.
“This bill denies voters of Maricopa County a real choice. It holds road funding hostage in order that the voters, who would otherwise not vote in favor of spending 40 percent of the money of this new tax on transit projects that less than one percent of them use, that they choose to vote for them anyway to get the roads,” said Kolodin. “A tax extension is a tax increase.”
Rogers said the bill constituted a tax far too expensive and weak for her taste.
I voted against this because it’s still a $20 billion dollar tax. And this bill is still full of holes. pic.twitter.com/IZFCiqEM78
Democrats championed the bill as a necessity for achieving equity.
Today, the House passed a #Prop400 extension onto Maricopa County voters. If passed, this critical investment will fund transportation projects bettering our roads, public transit, and highways.
80 percent of Maricopa County jobs are located within 2 miles of light rail or a freeway. Rep. @QuantaForAZ shares how light rail benefited her when she was in grad school and working. pic.twitter.com/wlQlgwHpAv
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) July 31, 2023
State Rep. Marcelino Quiñonez (D-LD11) said that Prop 400 was the “responsibility” of the legislature to pass.
“This is a continuation of something our predecessors have been able to do since the late 1980s. It is our responsibility to continue on good work.” — Rep. @Marcelino4AZ casts his yes vote to send an extension of the Prop. 400 transportation & transit plan to Maricopa voters. pic.twitter.com/3x6MCQpQ5u
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) July 31, 2023
Heap called the bill “disappointing.”
A disappointing day, we had plenty of time to craft a better Prop 400 bill. Thank you to the many great Representives who fought with us and the many citizens to reached out with support and encouragement. Conservatives are happy warriors so it's on to the next fight. pic.twitter.com/GFQ3PzGo1U
— Az State Rep. Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) July 31, 2023
Heap and Jones predicted that the bill’s passage marked a major win for the Democratic Party and the Hobbs administration, one that would carry into the 2024 election.
A majority of Rs did, in fact, give them the club. Bludgeoning incoming. https://t.co/zvFlPqfyW8
— AZ Representative Rachel Jones (@RJ4arizona) July 31, 2023
State Rep. Matthew Gress (R-LD04), who voted in favor of the bill, said it would ensure the restoration of State Route 51 and other critical pavement rehabilitation. Gress said that the 3.5 percent cap on the existing light rail system, a contingency for Hobbs’ approval, constituted a win since it was far less than other proposed rates.
My statement on Prop 400. I voted yes to refer this measure to Maricopa County voters. pic.twitter.com/JmoS8b0bXv
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) voiced opposition to the plan on Sunday, warning that the bill wouldn’t prevent road diets, Vision Zero projects, and progressive air quality control measures. AFEC offered a side-by-side comparison of SB1102 and the predecessor vetoed by Hobbs last month, SB1246.
AFEC further assessed that SB1102 would enable the Maricopa Association of Governments to enact its 2050 Momentum Plan.
🚨 Urgent: Why We OPPOSE SB1102
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club respectfully opposes SB1102, the #Prop400 bill negotiated between the Governor and House and Senate Leadership. Here's why ⤵️ 🧵 pic.twitter.com/m1sNTzrfhF
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 30, 2023
Prop 400 will appear on the November 2024 ballot for final voter approval. The tax was set to expire at the end of 2025.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona taxpayers are going to get some extra cash for the holidays thanks to Republicans giving back from this fiscal year’s budget.
Included in the Fiscal Year 2023 Arizona Budget was the insertion of the Arizona Families Tax Rebate. According to a release from Arizona Freedom Caucus Chairman and Senator Jake Hoffman, “Arizona families can expect to receive one-time tax rebates of up to $750 for qualifying households. Those with dependents under the age of 17 will receive $250 per dependent, or those with dependents 17 and older will receive $100 per dependent, capped at three dependents. Households must have a tax liability of at least $1 in order to be eligible. This criterion is based off of 2021 state tax returns.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senator Jake Hoffman Celebrates the Passage of the Arizona Families Tax Rebate pic.twitter.com/1MWzypkBPc
Hoffman explained the motivation for the tax rebate, writing, “Gas, groceries, housing and energy prices have surged over the past three years since Democrats took control of the federal government. As a result, Arizona families are hurting while they attempt to pay for the most basic necessities each month, like putting food on the table, keeping a roof over their heads, paying medical bills, keeping the lights on and filling up their gas tanks. In the meantime, government is flush with cash and in the position to give back to our honest, hardworking taxpayers.”
“This is the first time in at least 30 years our state lawmakers have been able to step up to the plate to provide a tax rebate of this magnitude for our citizens,” said Hoffman. “I’m proud of the leadership of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, and for the support of our Republican colleagues, to dedicate $260 million to helping struggling Arizona families. Despite the current economic uncertainty, the Arizona Freedom Caucus, and conservative Republicans at-large, remain fully committed to keeping Arizona free, vibrant, and prosperous for Arizona families, and all Arizonans, for generations to come. We hope this extra money will make life a little less stressful for our Arizona families as they approach the Christmas holiday season later this year.”
This tax rebate appeared to be the focus of discontentment from some Democrats at the state legislature. Earlier in the week, Representative Oscar De Los Santos took to Twitter to share his thoughts about the recently negotiated budget, saying, “Important context missing from AZ budget debate: Years of massive GOP corporate tax giveaways have resulted in AZ not having the resources – this year & in the future – we need to fund our schools, ensure housing & healthcare for all, solve the water crisis, and more.”
Important context missing from AZ budget debate: Years of massive GOP corporate tax giveaways have resulted in AZ not having the resources—this year & in the future—we need to fund our schools, ensure housing & healthcare for all, solve the water crisis, and more.
— Rep. Oscar De Los Santos (@os_delossantos) May 10, 2023
De Los Santos’ charge led Republican Representative Justin Heap to respond: “By ‘corporate tax giveaways’ do you mean the ‘Family Tax Rebate’ that will give every Arizona family with children a check? Leave it to Democrats to characterize giving some of their tax money back to Arizona families as ‘tax giveaway.’ It’s not our money, it’s theirs.”
By "corporate tax giveaways" do you mean the "Family Tax Rebate" that will give every Arizona family with children a check? Leave it to Democrats to characterize giving some of their tax money back to Arizona families as "tax giveaway." It's not our money, it's theirs.
— Az State Rep. Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) May 10, 2023
The pushback from Heap led another Democrat lawmaker, Representative Athena Salman, to add, “That’s false. Your rebate program leaves out families like mine who started and grew our families after 2022. Plus non-tax filers. Go read the bill, it’s short.”
That’s false. Your rebate program leaves out families like mine who started and grew our families after 2022. Plus non-tax filers. Go read the bill, it’s short.
Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, told AZ Free News, “we were very pleased to see the budget not only be structurally balanced, but also return nearly $300 million back to taxpayers. That money belonged to hardworking families, and we are glad it’s getting returned to them.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A proposition intended to provide transparency to certain, alleged dark money networks may result in more danger for certain nonprofits.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) says it’s faced threats of violence and endured vandalism last year, and expressed concern that Prop 211, the Voters’ Right to Know Act, would exacerbate these issues.
AFEC President Scot Mussi told AZ Free News that some of the threats of intimidation were so severe that they filed police reports. Mussi said that the forced disclosure of the names, addresses, occupations, and identities of employers for any donors who gave over $5,000 to them would be subject to the same evils they face.
“Our supporters should be able to exercise their speech rights without fear of harassment or intimidation,” said Mussi.
Mussi predicted that Prop 211 would result in donors enduring retaliation and harassment. He pointed out that the proposition lacked substantive protections, except a provision protecting individuals from a “threat of physical harm.” However, Mussi was skeptical that the provision had any teeth for most organizations, save for the wealthy and powerful.
Our staff have received numerous phone calls/voicemails threatening violence. One staff member's car was even vandalized. Prop 211 only encourages this behavior – targeting, harassing & doxing conservatives who won’t submit to the Left’s agenda. https://t.co/dM0Z2xOV5Q
Any group or entity that spends over $50,000 on campaign media spending in a statewide race or $25,000 in any other race must adhere to those disclosure requirements. The top three donors for that cycle must also be disclosed, even if their funds weren’t used for campaign media spending.
Campaign media spending includes any public communications promoting, supporting, attacking, or opposing a candidate within six months of an election; referring to a candidate 90 days before a primary election; or even researching, designing, or producing content in preparation for public communication about a candidate. This expansive definition would include blog posts, articles, press releases, or social media posts.
Mussi told AZ Free News that the forced disclosure was tantamount to doxxing. He said the disclosures are a “well-known tactic” to silence dissent, referencing the ousting of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after he donated to fund a California initiative declaring that marriage belongs between a man and a woman.
As a result of these concerns, AFEC filed a lawsuit to overturn Prop 211 last month. The nonprofit insists that First Amendment free speech protections also afford the right to not be forced to speak.
Joining AFEC is the Center For Arizona Policy (CAP), a conservative nonprofit, represented by the Goldwater Institute. The named defendants include Governor Katie Hobbs in her former capacity as secretary of state, as well as the Arizona Clean Elections Commission.
In a press release, Goldwater Institute (GI) Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman stated that Prop 211 would force donors to choose between supporting causes and organizations they believed in or having their donations and private information publicized on a government list.
“The result will be less free speech, more harassment, and an uglier political discourse,” stated Day Freeman.
As AZ Free News reported, Prop 211 provides neat carveouts for primary sources of leftist dark money: corporate media, Big Tech, labor unions, and “nonpartisan” PACs, for example.
The main financier of the measure, David Tedesco, is the founder and CEO of the Phoenix-based venture capitalist firm, Outlier. The leader of the effort was Terry Goddard, the state’s former Democratic attorney general. Both men toldThe Washington Post that they disagreed with characterizations of Prop 211 by AFEC, CAP, and GI.
Tedesco also pushed back against the Wall Street Journal editorial board opinion opposing the proposition.
“Transparency and sunshine are happy words, but in reality disclosure laws have become a weapon used by the left to intimidate conservatives from engaging in politics. Groups trawl records for names and then organize social-media campaigns to harass and discourage donors,” wrote the board. “Americans looking to participate in campaigns can, and often do, see their names dragged through the mud. Many donors decline to engage, and political speech is chilled before it even happens.”
Tedesco rebutted that Prop 211 doesn’t present a free speech threat because it was backed financially by registered independents and Republicans. He said that voters had a right to know any financial sources behind free speech.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has been asked to look into whether some of the state’s top election officials violated state law this week by issuing a statement opposing Proposition 309, which is on the Nov. 8 statewide ballot.
Prop 309 is before the voters to decide whether to amend several of Arizona’s current election laws. For an example, a “yes” vote would require voters to write their birthdate and government-issued identification number on the concealed early ballot affidavit, and for those who want to vote in-person they would be required to present an official photo identification at their polling place.
The Arizona Association of County Recorders (AACR) issued a statement Tuesday advocating a “no” vote which would leave in place the state’s existing laws about early ballot affidavits and voter identification. Among the duties of a county recorder is to conduct early voting, including mailing out early ballots and verifying signatures when early ballots are returned by voters.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer is the president of AACR and is the one who distributed the anti-Prop 309 statement on Tuesday. Yet according to election law expert Timothy La Sota, it appears Richer has violated two Arizona laws in connection with the statement, which was also posted to a website controlled by Maricopa County.
“Contrary to what Mr. Richer appears to believe, the County Recorder’s website is a publicly funded website, and using it as a vehicle to promote Mr. Richer’s political agenda is not only inappropriate, it is illegal,” attorney La Sota wrote, pointing Brnovich to Arizona Revised Statute 11-410(A) and 16-192(A). “This website is not at Mr. Richer’s disposal to use as a campaign website for his favored political causes.”
That first statute states a county “shall not spend or use its resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value” for the purpose of swaying an election outcome.
The second statute prohibits the state and “any public agency, department, board, commission, committee, council or authority” from spending or using public resources to influence an election, including the use of “computer hardware and software, web pages and personnel and any other thing of value of the public entity.”
La Sota pointed out that data associated with the document indicates the AACR statement -which includes the names of all 15 county recorders- was created by one of Richer’s employees during office hours, another “no no,” he told the attorney general.
“As a countywide elected official charged with various election related duties, Mr. Richer should know this,” La Sota added. “And his actions in placing his thumb on the scale illegally in this context do not auger well for maintaining a professional perception in other realms.”
During an interview Thursday morning, Amy Yentes of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club discussed why Arizona law expressly prohibits the government from electioneering activities in an effort to sway a particular race or contest.
“This is a protection for taxpayers,” Yentes told KFYI’s James T. Harris. She also supports La Sota’s request to Brnovich for an investigation into how the AACR’s anti-Prop 309 statement came to be created by a Maricopa County employee and posted to the county’s website.
“What is more disturbing is that Stephen Richer is an election administrator,” Yentes told Harris. “It is quite concerning that he can’t even follow basic election law and yet we’re trusting him to administer our elections.”
But that is not the only problem stemming from Richer’s distribution of the anti-Prop 309 statement, which he said on Tuesday afternoon was approved by AACR members by “unanimous voice vote (no nays, all ays).” Richer also tweeted that “14 of the 15 counties were present” for the vote, with only Apache County absent.
According to Cochise County Recorder David Stevens, the inference voters will make from the AACR statement and Richer’s social media comments is that all 15 county recorders are against Prop 309. In fact, Richer retweeted someone else’s comment that the vote was unanimous against the proposition.
That, Stevens says, is not true. In fact, he is an adamant supporter of Prop 309 and has demanded Richer correct the AACR statement and clear any misperception.
“Stephen, I was out of the office yesterday and did not see this email. I STRONGLY OBJECT to anyone assigning an opinion to me without my expressed consent. Silence is NOT acceptance. I do support prop 309 and kindly request you remove my name from this list and issue a retraction immediately,” Stevens wrote.
As of press time, Stevens had no contact from Richer about the Prop 309 issue. He was, however, included on a mass email the Maricopa County Recorder sent to his fellow recorders Wednesday evening.
“Good luck Recorders!” the subject line reads, before Richer wished everyone “the absolute best this early voting season.”
