Arizona Republicans scored a significant victory in court over the state’s top elections official.
On Thursday, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma championed a recent court ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney over contested provisions within the 2023 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). According to a release issued by the Arizona House of Representatives, “the court sided with Speaker [Ben] Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen in their legal challenge, declaring that the Secretary overstepped his authority and infringed on the Legislature’s exclusive lawmaking powers.”
🚨Arizona House Speaker @RepBenToma Hails Court Victory as Major Win for the Rule of Law and Election Integrity:
“This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and… pic.twitter.com/bYC7IIRDZK
Speaker Toma released a statement in reaction to the decision, saying, “This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and today’s decision reaffirms that foundational principle. Secretary Fontes attempted to overstep his authority, but the court recognized these actions for what they were – unlawful and unenforceable. I am proud to have led this fight to protect the constitutional role of the Legislature and to ensure that Arizona’s election laws are upheld as written. It’s a win for all Arizonans who value fair, transparent, and accountable election policies.”
President Petersen said, “A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.”
A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.
In a comment to AZ Free News, Petersen added, “We’re disappointed that the judge delayed the effective date of the AEVL provision but everything else was a big win. We will continue to do all we can to secure our elections and boost voter confidence.”
Arizona House Republicans shared that the court ruling “invalidated multiple provisions in the EPM, including:
A rule altering how voter registrations are managed for non-residents, in violation of Arizona statutes.
A rule excusing errors in circulator registrations, undermining strict compliance requirements for initiatives and referendums.
A rule limiting the role of county Boards of Supervisors during the canvassing process and improperly allowing the Secretary to exclude county results from the statewide canvass.”
While this past election cycle has come and gone, Fontes will have one more opportunity to fashion an EPM before the next one, and he has Democrat allies in Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes to potentially rubberstamp his schemes yet again. Arizona legislative Republicans are awaiting the next installment of the EPM to ensure that any out-of-order provisions will be quickly discovered and challenged in court to protect the integrity of Arizona elections.
Fontes dropped the current EPM just before the statute-mandated deadline of December 31, 2023, after securing approvals from Hobbs and Mayes. For the first time since 1978-1979, Democrats controlled the top three statewide offices in Arizona (Governor: Bruce Babbitt, Attorney General: John LaSota, Secretary of State: Rose Mofford). One of the most significant consequences of securing this power trifecta is the ability to negotiate, craft, and green light the state’s Elections Procedures Manual without initial interference from opposing political voices, as required by law every two years.
At the end of January, Petersen and Toma filed a challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court over Fontes’ EPM, which has been ongoing up until (and through) this week’s decision.
When the EPM was published at the end of last year, Governor Katie Hobbs, who preceded Fontes, said, “Partisan politics should have no role in how we run our elections. This EPM builds on the 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM from my tenure as Secretary of State and will ensure dedicated public servants from across the state will have the guidelines they need to administer free and fair elections. Together, we can protect our democracy and make sure every Arizonan has the opportunity to have their voice heard.”
As Secretary of State, Hobbs was required to finalize the EPM in 2021, but a divided government shared with Republican Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich stymied the quest to secure a green light for the manual. Hobbs and Brnovich were also mired in an ongoing political feud, which resulted in legal bar charges that the Secretary of State brought against the state’s top prosecutor and several of his attorneys. After receiving Hobbs’ updated manual, Brnovich sued the SOS “to compel her production of a lawful EPM.” Brnovich alleged that “the SOS failed to provide the Governor and Attorney General with a lawful manual by October 1, 2021, as required, and instead included nearly one-hundred pages of provisions not permitted under the EPM statute.” The challenge from the former Attorney General was rendered unsuccessful, and the state was forced to revert to the previous cycle’s EPM (2019) to govern the 2022 races.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
One of the Arizona Governor’s chief nemeses will be returning for duty in the upcoming legislative session.
Last week, it was reported that Senator Jake Hoffman would be reprising his role as the Chairman of the Arizona Senate Committee on Director Nominations (DINO).
“We’ve seen the tragic fallout from Katie Hobbs’ fake director scheme and its impacts on Arizonans in recent months, including the death of a child in DCS custody and a major $2 million fraudulent transfer of taxpayer dollars from DOH,” said Chairman Hoffman. “These heartbreaking or otherwise incredibly serious incidents could have been avoided had she followed the law and taken the Senate confirmation process seriously. When her illegal ploy didn’t work, she spent millions of dollars trying to flip control of the Legislature to get her radical nominees approved by Democrats and failed miserably. The committee invites Katie Hobbs to come to the table with sane, nonpartisan, qualified nominees, and we will approve them. What we won’t do is rubberstamp unqualified radicals.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen told AZ Free News, “I formed the DINO committee to make sure nominations are competent and nonpartisan. In the past, we have seen Governor nominees get approved with very little vetting. With a thorough review of each nominee, we will assure that our citizens have the best directors possible.”
On February 2, 2023, Petersen announced the formation of the Senate Committee on Director Nominations, tasking this panel “with gathering information and evaluating qualifications on the governor’s executive appointments in order to recommend a course of action for the Senate to take on each individual.” The Senate President appointed five members to serve on the committee – three Republicans and two Democrats.
Over the next several months, the committee held multiple hearings for Hobbs’ nominees. Although Hobbs was upset that not every one of her nominees received a passing grade, Petersen reminded observers that the process chosen by the Senate had “approved 70 percent of her nominees,” adding that “we are not a rubber stamp.”
Treasurer Yee is correct. The Governor has appointed 13 Fake Directors. They are illegitimate and should not be recognized as credible.
The Senate process was working to confirm nominees. We approved 70 percent of her nominees. But we are not a rubber stamp. 1of2. https://t.co/BSWzIX4fmj
In September 2023, Hobbs sent a letter to Petersen, informing him that she would “withdraw all director nominations that remain pending before the Senate and pursue other lawful avenues of ensuring State government can continue to function for Arizonans.” The governor blamed Senate Republicans for not “fulfilling (their) statutory obligations in good faith.”
After receiving Hobbs’ correspondence, Petersen stated, “This move by the Executive Branch showcases another prime example of an elected official who believes they’re already above the law and will go to extreme measures to bypass the requirements of the law when they don’t get their way.” Petersen also warned of the consequences of Hobbs’ unprecedented actions, saying, “Without directors fulfilling these obligations, the legality of every decision made by these state agencies is dubious, and litigation against the state would surely prevail.”
It didn’t take long for Petersen’s warning to come to fruition. One day after his statement, Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee held a Board of Investment Meeting and refused to recognize “employees from the Department of Administration or the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions as legally participating members.”
The Arizona State Senate then filed a lawsuit in the Maricopa County Superior Court against Hobbs in December 2023 over her refusal “to nominate agency directors, bypassing the Senate’s advice and consent processes.” The lawsuit asked the Court to declare that the Governor has violated state law and to require her to nominate directors to any of the agencies missing Senate-confirmed heads.
Earlier this year, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott A. Blaney issued a ruling in the lawsuit, concluding that the Governor “has improperly, unilaterally appointed de facto directors for these 13 agencies, [and] must comply with the procedures and deadlines in ARS 38-211 (B) & (C) for appointment of the agency directors.”
In his ruling, Judge Blaney wrote, “It is also not lost on the Court that the Executive Deputy Directors are the same individuals that the Governor previously nominated and forwarded to the Senate for review, but withdrew when she grew frustrated with the Senate…Under Arizona law, directors run the respective administrative agencies and are appointed to their important positions through a statutorily defined process. That process requires oversight by the legislative branch. Here the Governor willfully circumvented that statutory process and eliminated the Legislative branch from its oversight role.”
Judge Blaney also asserted that “if the Court were to agree that the Governor can side-step applicable statutes in this manner to arrive at her desired end state, it would render meaningless [all statutes governing this process].” The judge stated that “the Court therefore cannot arrive at any statutory interpretation that results in elimination of the Senate’s consent role from the statutory scheme.”
Blaney ended his ruling by expressing his desire for both the Governor’s Office and Senate Republicans to come together to resolve the matter between them. He wrote, “The Court will set a separate evidentiary hearing or oral argument for a date in late July or early August 2024. This will give these co-equal branches of government an opportunity to meet and confer in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of this dispute.”
Both sides were able to reach an accord soon after the court decision. In August, Arizona Senate Republicans announced that “Governor Katie Hobbs admit[ted] she violated state law through her scheme to circumvent the Senate confirmation process for director nominations and has agreed to submit new candidates for consideration, as required by law.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Katie Hobbs Admits to Violating State Law by Circumventing Senate Confirmation Process, Agrees to Nominate New Directors After Court Ruling
Many of those new nominees from the Governor’s Office are expected to be sent to the Arizona Senate at the start of the 57th Legislature in January, setting up potentially contentious battles over their qualifications with legislative Republicans.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court handed a sound defeat to Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and a victory to the America First Legal Foundation and Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, known as “EZAZ.org.” The court ruled on Thursday that Fontes’ office is ordered to immediately provide a full list of all individuals who registered to vote in the state of Arizona without providing the proof of citizenship required under the law, a total of approximately 218,000 people as previously reported by AZ Free News.
The ruling obliterated Fontes’ response to EZAZ.org’s demand for transparency, which claimed, “We fear, especially based on SCF’s filings, that its true desire here is not to keep watch on government actions — which our public records laws are designed to facilitate — but instead harass and intimidate voters in the midst of an election and whose rights Secretary Fontes has already vindicated before Arizona’s highest court.”
The court found that the testimony of Professor Robert Pape, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago who suggested with Fontes that “producing the list of 218,000 voters to EZAZ.org would expose those individuals to the risk of harassment and violence,” was “focused on political violence trends nationally and contained no analysis of such trends in Arizona.” They found further that, “Pape admitted on cross-examination that he conducted no research specific to Arizona. Professor Pape offered little more than speculation that a release of the requested information would lead to violence or harassment and, again, only based this opinion on national statistics.”
Finally, the court laid the claims about potential political violence to rest writing:
“The credibility of Professor Pape’s testimony and report was further diminished by what appeared to be gratuitous political bias in his report and in his testimony. The Professor’s opinions regarding general political violence focused almost entirely on allegations of past and anticipated prospective violence from only one side of the political spectrum, and only related to former president Donald Trump.”
The ruling concludes, “They failed to identify any specific threats of violence or harassment from EZAZ.org, and Ms. Hamilton’s unrebutted testimony established that EZAZ.org does not condone violent or harassing behavior and carefully screens its members and volunteers to ensure that persons who do condone or participate in such behavior do not participate in the organization.”
In a statement, America First Legal described the ruling saying, “The court found that Secretary Fontes ‘provided inconsistent testimony on this point’ and that ‘[h]is testimony suggested that he lacked detailed familiarity with the AZSOS’s efforts with regard to the issue and with regard to the records in the possession of the AZSOS related to the 218,000 individuals.’ The court’s order requires Secretary Fontes to produce the list of 98,000 individuals that he has along with any other personally identifying information that he has about the 218,000 individuals.”
James Rogers, America First Legal Senior Counsel, celebrated the ruling saying, “A majority of Arizonans no longer trust the election system of our state. One of the reasons is the lack of transparency from our state’s elected officials. When Secretary Fontes discovered the glitch that allowed 218,000 individuals to register without providing proof of citizenship, he should have immediately shared the list of affected individuals with Arizona’s county recorders, who are in charge of verifying the citizenship of voters. Instead, he has jealously guarded the list, refusing to share it with anyone. This suit was about restoring transparency and ensuring that county recorders can do their jobs by verifying the citizenship of voters. It is unfortunate that Secretary Fontes so aggressively opposed our common-sense efforts to help restore trust in our state’s election system.”
“This was a case we never should have needed to file,” said Rogers.
EZAZ.org’s Merrissa Hamilton wrote in a post to X, “FONTES = 0; TRANSPARENCY = WINNING! Despite AZ Secretary Adrian Fontes’ best efforts to falsely paint @AZHouseGOP@AZSenateGOP as homicidal maniacs (totally unhinged argument not remotely grounded in reality), while he’s also actively preventing Recorders from having access to do their jobs …
The Honorable Judge Blaney ruled in our favor in requiring Fontes to release to EZAZ.org the 98k voters impacted by the MVD ‘glitch’ causing voters to not have proof of citizenship on record.
Our only intent has always been to ensure the Recorders and Legislative leadership can do their jobs! And legal voters are enfranchised with confidence that their government is following the law in the operation of the elections!
Now that will happen! And the reputation of our happy, hardworking volunteers at EZAZ.org is restored!”
🥳FONTES = 0; TRANSPARENCY = WINNING!✅
Despite AZ Secretary Adrian Fontes' best efforts to falsely paint @AZHouseGOP@AZSenateGOP as homicidal maniacs (totally unhinged argument not remotely grounded in reality), while he's also actively preventing Recorders from having access… pic.twitter.com/ZlPl4JhhQi
Downtown Phoenix’s residents experienced a glimmer of hope in the ongoing homeless crisis last month after a court declared the city to blame. If the city doesn’t appeal the court’s order, it may be the end of the massive encampment known as “The Zone.”
The decision flies in the face of the precedent set by other cities: plans and spending that yield no favorable results, ultimately forcing the residents to learn to live with the crime and squalor. Yet, Phoenix may no longer be resigned to the same fate borne by most other major cities. Downtown property and business owners were vindicated in their belief: city officials’ plans, spending, and promises alone don’t qualify as results.
Requiring results of the city could mean The Zone may cease to exist in the near future — restoring a square mile of the current wasteland of city-sanctioned slums into a healthy business district — but only if the city of Phoenix decides to follow through on the court-ordered action to resolve the homeless crisis. Cleaning up The Zone would mean finding shelter and services for around 800 homeless residing in the area, according to a census conducted by the Human Services Campus late last month.
Homeless sit outside a business in The Zone.
The first bout of legal relief came for The Zone’s residents and business owners after the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled last month that the city of Phoenix was at fault for The Zone. The court ordered the city to show that it’s taking “meaningful steps” toward fixing The Zone. They have until July 10 to do so, with a trial date scheduled for June.
The ruling came days after the city of Phoenix promised to finally meet to fix The Zone, a promise prompted by back-to-back murders in the encampment.
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, told AZ Free News that this ruling was a good first step toward remedying The Zone — but that the city has a ways to go.
“I think this is a first step and a very important one,” said Sandefur.
Sandefur said that the superior court indicated the best next steps for the city would be to build structured campgrounds and establish treatment programs, rather than continue with their current “housing first” approach.
However, notice of a settlement in a separate, federal case issued recently may complicate matters in finally getting the city of Phoenix to fix The Zone.
In the Arizona District Court case, the ACLU and the city held mediation about three weeks ago.
Details of the settlement weren’t made public. The Phoenix City Council plans to convene April 18 in an executive session — a meeting not open to the public — to discuss the terms of the settlement. At some point after, the Phoenix City Council will announce the settlement terms during a public meeting.
Of note, the city attempted to dismiss the superior court case — but not the federal case. The city also spent just shy of $100,000 fighting the superior court case.
Ilan Wurman, another lawyer on the lawsuit against the city, told AZ Free News that the court’s order to fix The Zone was thorough to the point where he imagined it would be difficult for the city to fight it.
“The court’s ruling is such a thorough victory for the business and property owners that it will be very hard for the city to overcome it at a full trial on the merits,” said Wurman. “We hope the city does the right thing and considers a settlement or simply follows through on the court’s instructions — that will save a lot of expense to taxpayers and it will be better for the unsheltered community as well.”
In remarks to the press, the city stresses that it has allocated around $140 million to solve the homeless crisis. However, there’s a difference between commitment and spending. Of the $120 million in COVID-19 relief funds received to address the homeless crisis, the city has only spent about 10 percent.
Of what little the city has spent for the homeless crisis, the Maricopa County Superior Court assessed that none of this spending has actually mitigated the crisis.
Homeless use drugs inside Phoenix’s sprawling encampment known as The Zone.
“With few exceptions, the action items about which city representatives testified centered around the creation of more bureaucracy, additional staff positions, and obtaining additional funding for programs to vaguely address homelessness in general,” stated Judge Scott Blaney. “The Court received very little evidence — if any — that the City intends to take immediate, meaningful action to protect its constituent business owners, their employees, and residents from the lawlessness and chaos in the Zone.”
However, in a recent interview, Mayor Kate Gallego indicated that the city was attempting to follow through on a “housing first” approach, and claimed that the city was “working very hard” to fix the homeless crisis.
As AZ Free News previously reported, “housing first” — also referred to as “permanent supportive” or “affordable” housing — holds the theory that the homeless will choose to seek employment, become financially responsible, and receive mental health care and/or substance abuse treatment if food and housing are provided. The theory also posits that enabling the homeless to choose their housing and support services will make them more likely to remain in that housing and stick with self-improvement initiatives.
Gallego shared that the city was working on launching seven new shelter options in partnership with various organizations, and that the city is hoping to receive additional help from both the state and federal government. She mentioned that she would meet with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Gallego disclosed that she recently spoke with Gov. Katie Hobbs about the homeless crisis — a conversation that had last occurred during Hobbs’ inauguration week in January. The mayor said that Hobbs was looking for additional resources to provide the city.
“Residents should feel confident that they’re going to see changes,” said Gallego. “The message we want to send to the public is that we recognize it’s a problem and we want to solve it.”
When questioned, Gallego didn’t directly deny that the city wouldn’t appeal the superior court’s decision.
In another interview, Gallego claimed that adequate law enforcement was taking place in The Zone. Gallego’s claim conflicted with the various investigative reports and witness accounts that depicted minimal law enforcement in The Zone.
“We treat every member of our community the same when they commit a crime. We want to be consistent and to enforce breaking the law,” said Gallego. “If you commit a crime, it is the same regardless of your housing status.”
However, the “Gaydos and Chad Show” testified to witnessing a myriad of criminal activity during a recent excursion in The Zone — including drug use, public defecation and urination, and prostitution — but not seeing any police presence. In response, Gallego claimed the city’s police were “too aggressive” when handling the homeless. The mayor cited the Arizona District Court case against the city as justification for her claim. However, that lawsuit concerned whether the city could enforce camping and sleeping bans, as well as whether the city had a right to seize or throw away items from homeless encampments as part of cleanup efforts. The lawsuit does not address police response to criminal activity.
Watch: The Zone – Homelessness and Crime Rampant in Phoenix
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Two major water rights cases that date back to the 1970s are being reassigned to another judge, the first such change in more than 10 years, the Arizona Supreme Court announced last week.
Judge Scott Blaney of the Maricopa County Superior Court will take over the Gila River System and Source case as well as the Little Colorado River System and Source case, both of which were first litigated in the late 1970s. He replaces Judge Mark Brain effective Feb. 4 as what is commonly known as Arizona’s Water Judge.
The cases Blaney is taking over are general stream adjudication proceedings to determine the extent and priority of water rights in the Gila River system (Maricopa County case nos. W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4), and in the Little Colorado River system (Apache County Superior Court case no. 6417).
The Gila River General Stream Adjudication civil case began in the 1970s as a series of petitions to the Arizona State Land Department to determine, or adjudicate, conflicting surface water rights for the Salt, Verde, Gila, and San Pedro rivers.
The petitions were eventually transferred to the superior courts of the individual counties where the petitions were originally filed, but a 1981 Arizona Supreme Court order consolidated all four cases into the Gila River case. The justices also ordered the matters would be heard in Maricopa County.
Similarly, the Little Colorado River Adjudication began in the late 1970s when mining company Phelps Dodge Corp. filed a petition with the state land department to determine water rights to the Little Colorado River system and source. The litigation was later transferred to the Apache County Superior Court as the county where the largest number of potential claimants reside.
Blaney, a graduate of the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, served on the civil and family court benches of Maricopa County Superior Court since 2018. Prior to that, Blaney worked in private practice from 2003 to 2015 before becoming State Judge Advocate for the Arizona National Guard and general counsel for the Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA).
The state’s Water Judge is assisted by an appointed Special Master who hears disputes arising out of the cases, such as objections to hydrographic survey reports and other legal and factual issues designated by the judge.
Court records show the current Special Master is Susan Ward Harris, who was appointed in 2015. She has a master’s degree in hydrology from the University of Arizona’s College of Science as well as a Master of Law degree from Georgetown University.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
