The Arizona Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on August 19 in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the state’s early ballot signature verification process—one that could reshape how election officials authenticate mail-in ballots. The case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, will be heard by Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which lifted a prior stay in the case following a joint request by all parties to move forward on the merits.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has unlawfully expanded the scope of documents used to verify a voter’s signature on early ballot envelopes. The plaintiffs—Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and Yavapai County voter Dwight Kadar—argue that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Governor Katie Hobbs, enforced EPM guidance that violates state law.
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 16-550(A), election officials are required to compare a voter’s early ballot envelope signature to the one in their “registration record.” However, the current EPM—originally authored by Hobbs in 2019 and maintained under Fontes—permits election officials to validate signatures by comparing them to any election-related document on file, such as early ballot requests, provisional ballot envelopes, or Active Early Voting List notices.
“The current election procedures manual adopted by the Secretary of State has rewritten state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot 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.”
The case has had a turbulent procedural history. In 2023, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper initially ruled that the EPM violated state law, stating that the definition of “registration record” is neither vague nor ambiguous. Napper rejected the Secretary of State’s argument that the term could include any number of election-related documents. However, in a surprising reversal later in the proceedings, Napper ruled in favor of the state—prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
The outcome of this case could have major consequences for how Arizona handles the verification of early ballots in future elections. Arizona is a state with widespread early and mail-in voting, and signature matching is often the sole method for confirming voter identity on ballots returned by mail. Early ballot voters are not required to provide other identifying information, such as a driver’s license number, date of birth, or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
After months of delays—including a stay prompted by a separate ruling that invalidated the 2023 EPM for procedural reasons—the Court of Appeals has agreed to resume the case. All parties have urged the court to issue a ruling on the merits, regardless of the Arizona Supreme Court’s handling of a related challenge filed by the Republican National Committee.
The court’s decision will help clarify the balance of power between Arizona’s elected officials and its election laws, especially in the increasingly scrutinized area of early voting.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.”
The Elections Procedures Manual ensures that elections throughout AZ are run uniformly.
Unfortunately, it appears AG Brnovich prefers political posturing over performing his duty to review and approve the Manual. It’s time for him to work in good faith on behalf of all voters. pic.twitter.com/7ImW91mS6V
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.
Today, Judge Napper (Yavapai) denied AG Brnovich’s attempt to rewrite the election rules based on his own political preferences.
This is a win for the rule of law—and for Arizona’s voters. I’ll never stop defending our democracy against those who would undermine it. pic.twitter.com/ofurBuavbN
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) June 18, 2022
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.
We are suing the AZ Secretary of State to produce an Elections Procedures Manual in accordance with state statutes. Lawful & accurate elections must never be compromised. Read more here: https://t.co/nM9CMbMx2l
Arizona’s roughly 7,000 precinct committeemen positions will be filled by election this year after all, following a judge’s ruling on Tuesday that part of a recently passed emergency law is unconstitutional.
John Napper of the Yavapai County Superior Court struck down Section 4 of House Bill 2839 which had been introduced, voted on, and signed into law all on March 3 with the unintended consequence of making the political parties’ precinct committeemen (PCs) an appointed instead of elected position for the 2020 election cycle.
Under HB2839, PCs would be appointed by each county’s board of supervisors based on a list of interested candidates put forth by each county’s political party chairs.
Napper’s order of judgment came on the heels of an admission by the State of Arizona that the AZGOP and Yavapai County Republican Party plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit on March 15 were correct that Section 4 represented an unconstitutional special law, as it operated to abolish a single class of elections for a single year.
The lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Yavapai County Election Department described Section 4 as “a poorly worded provision” which “differed radically” from the other three sections. The provision unlawfully suppressed the rights of PC candidates to stand for election while also suppressed the rights of voters to elect their PCs, the plaintiffs argued.
HB2839 also provided for the appointment of only one PC per precinct, even though there is supposed to be one PC for every 125 persons in each precinct. Instead, the emergency law would have left each precinct with only one PC regardless of the precinct’s population.
The lawsuit noted that the mistaken passage of HB2839 with Section 4 gave the Yavapai County Republican Committee the sole authority to select its PCs, authority which the group “neither wants, needs, nor considers to be legitimate or democratic.”
The State’s response, however, did not concede to any of the four other claims put forth in the lawsuit.
“The Court does not reach the issues of whether Sec. 4 of HB 2839 (2022) violates other portions of the Arizona Constitution, or the issue of legislative intent, because the Court finds that Sec. 4 of HB 2839 (2022) is unconstitutional on other grounds,” Napper wrote.
The judge specifically noted that Section 4 “is severable” from the rest of the legislation, so that his ruling will not affect the other election-related changes included in the bill.
