by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
- Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
- Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
- Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
- Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
- South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
- Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
- Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Oct 30, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The outcome of a new poll is indicating the defeat of Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act,” which proposes to overhaul Arizona elections with ranked-choice voting and open primaries.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) released the poll on Tuesday, conducted by Data Orbital. The pollster surveyed over 500 voters over the past weekend to gauge their support for Prop 140; only 42 percent of respondents expressed support for the measure, with those who have already voted at 38 percent in support.
AFEC President Scot Mussi stated in a press release that the poll results indicated an opposition to election reforms similar to those adopted by California.
“This latest poll demonstrates that Arizonans do not appreciate these special interests attempting to commandeer our elections for their radical agenda,” said Mussi. “Arizona voters are diligently doing their research on Prop 140, and they are being turned off by its dangerous effects on our state’s elections and future.”
Mussi remarked that the defeat of Prop 140 would be “sending a message to these out-of-state billionaires and California liberals” that Arizonans won’t adopt “a system run by a partisan election official and his band of unelected bureaucrats.”
By “partisan election official,” Mussi was referring to the Secretary of State — under Prop 140 reforms, the secretary decides the number of candidates who may qualify for the general election ballot in every race, even their own. Theoretically, that could mean a general election ballot consisting of only one party.
AFEC also criticized Prop 140 for its speculated potential to increase tabulation errors, lengthen voting lines, and delay election results.
41 percent of respondents said they were not supportive of the measure. Eight percent said they were undecided, and five percent said they could not recall on how they had already voted on the measure.
The poll surveyed 261 males and 289 females, and respondents were nearly evenly split on whether they were “extremely likely” to vote (291) or had already voted (231). A select few were only somewhat likely (15) or “50/50 likely” (13).
A majority of respondents were 65-and-over, white, Republican, in possession of some college education but no degree, and had voted in the last four elections.
Respondents were heavily weighted in the 65-and-over crowd at 33 percent (182 respondents), with decreasing numbers of participation as the age brackets went younger: 17 percent at ages 55 to 64, 14 percent at ages 45 to 54, 14 percent at ages 35 to 44, 13 percent at ages 25 to 34, and eight percent at ages 18 to 24.
A majority of respondents self-identified as white (71 percent), followed by Hispanic (20 percent), African American (four percent), Asian (two percent), and other (two percent).
Also, more respondents were Republicans: 39 percent. 32 percent of respondents were Democrats, 25 percent of respondents were independents or unaffiliated, and about four percent were “other” voters.
42 percent of respondents received some college education but no degree. 25 percent had a bachelor’s degree, 15 percent had a high school degree or an equivalent, over 14 percent had a graduate degree or higher, two percent didn’t have their high school diploma, and one percent refused to answer.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 21, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Earlier this week, a court-appointed Special Master confirmed that nearly 40,000 initiative signatures were duplicates and thus invalid. But on Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz still ruled that, because Proposition 140 cannot be removed from the ballot, votes for the Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primary initiative will be counted.
The court’s affirmation of the initiative, despite Petition Signature Fraud being proven, sent shockwaves through the Arizona political scene.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement following the ruling, openly accusing Moskowitz of bias in favor of the initiative.
“From the moment he was unanimously rebuked by the AZ Supreme Court for blocking the removal of nearly 40,000 duplicate signatures, Judge Moskowitz has been trying to find a way to place Prop 140 on the ballot, irrespective of whether it had enough signatures to qualify. Today he issued a ruling manufacturing that outcome, deciding that the statutory method for determining the number of valid signatures for ballot initiatives is now unconstitutional. He made this radical determination despite the fact that the statute Moskowitz invalidated is nearly 30 years old and was reviewed and upheld against a constitutional challenge by the AZ Supreme Court in 2022 (Mussi v Hobbs).”
Prior to Moskowitz’s ruling, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer ordered that if the Special Master ruled the signatures invalid, then the Make Elections Fair PAC would be permitted to argue against enjoining the vote count on grounds that court precedent typically required ruling prior to ballot printing, something not required in statute.
This ruling would appear to validate concerns many opponents of the Proposition have voiced, that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, defending legal council, and Moskowitz himself all sought to deliberately slow-roll the court proceedings beyond the printing date to ‘run out the clock’ and force the vote through.
In the ruling AZFEC deemed “radical” in a post to X, Moskowitz claimed that the confirmation of duplicated, invalid signatures was “moot,” having passed the printing deadline. He curiously cited a statute NOT being present in his justification and leaned purely on case law. He wrote, “Although there is no statutory authority for the proposition that petition challenges must end before ballot printing begins, there is case law that supports such a ‘bright light’ end to such litigation.”
He continued, “Here, the time pressures were such that not every duplicate signature was reviewed and verified by clear and convincing evidence before the August 23, 2024 ballot printing deadline, such that the underlying action is moot as of that deadline.”
In a staggering move, Moskowitz claimed that the court cannot grant injunction against counting the signatures, citing “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute,” as expressing the intent of the legislature.
In full he wrote, “That is not a sufficient basis for this Court to grant such a remedy, especially given the injunction allowable under (the law), the statute upon which Plaintiffs initially brought this action, does not include enjoining the canvassing of votes,” Moskowitz wrote. “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing deadline.”
Mussi wrote in the AZFEC statement that the organization intends to bring the matter to the State Supreme Court once again, “The bottom line is that after the removal of the duplicate signatures, Prop 140 lacks the required number of valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The committee behind the measure was aware of this fact, which is why they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.
We are confident that after a careful review of the facts, ruling, and trial court record, the AZ Supreme Court will again overturn this outrageous ruling by Judge Moskowitz and enjoin Prop 140 from being tabulated.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Sep 15, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is demanding an investigation into an alleged misuse of taxpayer funds by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
AFEC published a press release on Tuesday accusing Fontes of misusing taxpayer funds by filing a “politically motivated” brief in the ongoing Arizona Supreme Court case, Smith v. Fontes. The organization also requested that Fontes recuse himself from all ballot tabulation procedures concerning the other initiatives.
“By filing his brief at the Arizona Supreme Court, Fontes unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Proposition 140,” said AFEC in its press release. “In short, to Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona’s elections system can be operated like California’s radical system.”
AFEC and other critics compare the components within Proposition 140 to current election procedures exercised by California.
Proposition 140 seeks to remove the partisan split in primary voting — instead implementing open, or “jungle,” primaries — and determine winners using ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank their preferred candidates each election until one candidate accrues over 50 percent of the vote.
That claim of political motivation stems from Fontes’ role as a “team member” for the nonprofit organization (Save Democracy) supporting the political action committee (Make Elections Fair Arizona) pushing Proposition 140. Those two entities are also united by the involvement of Sarah Smallhouse as their president and treasurer, respectively: a longtime Democrat donor from Tucson who served as leadership for a University of Arizona board and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.
Fontes’ brief petitioned the court to count any votes cast for Proposition 140, even if the ongoing review of the ballot-qualifying signatures determined that there weren’t enough signatures gathered. Fontes argued that the proposition should be considered valid since the ballots were already being printed with the contested proposition on them.
“Once the ballots have gone to print, it is in the hands of Arizona’s voters,” said Fontes. “The person contesting an issue (or candidate) can make a case to the voters, but the Courts cannot usurp the voters’ decision once it goes to them.”
AFEC sued to stop Proposition 140 earlier this summer after reportedly discovering that over half of the gathered signatures were in violation of state law — around 40,000 duplicates. Should all those alleged duplicate signatures be removed, the proposition would lack the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.
AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a statement that Fontes’ brief amounted to the secretary of state taking a side in a ballot measure rather than maintaining an impartial role in the elections process.
“Far from acting as a fair and impartial elections chief, Fontes has officially taken a side in a controversial measure that would be potentially on the ballot, showing Arizonans that he is using taxpayer dollars to make the case for a California-style amendment that would fundamentally transform the way we vote and select our candidates for public office,” said Mussi. “This is not saving democracy; this is trampling the will of the people and the laws that govern how elections should be executed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 5, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
On Tuesday, a judge considered the ongoing matter of Prop 140 in April Smith v. Fontes. The case involves a challenge of the validity of Arizona’s ranked choice voting initiative signatures.
At the end of the hearing, the number of challenged signatures was whittled down from over 40,000 to approximately 38,100 to be reviewed by a special master appointed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge FrankMoskowitz.
Court observers are questioning if the outcome of the case has already been determined in Moskowitz’s mind.
It was evident that there was confusion between the judge and counsels for the plaintiffs, the Make Elections Fair Arizona PAC, and the Arizona Secretary of State on how to determine whether signatures already eliminated by County authorities or the Secretary of State would be present in either the full number of signatures or in “extrapolations.” The extrapolations are created by multiplying a 5% sample by 20 under existing statute to create a “validity rate” that can be applied to the sum total of signatures.
The hearing seemed expressly focused on how much of the evidence of duplicate signatures the court should exclude from consideration, rather than as the Supreme Court directed in Mussi v. Fontes, to “determine whether the exhibits prove any duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence.”
Judge Moskowitz appeared more concerned with determining how many exhibits do not prove duplicate signatures, saying, “They’re done. It’s over. It doesn’t matter if the remaining 31,000 or whatever it is are in fact duplicates and maybe double counted, maybe not give ’em credit and say they weren’t double counted. If you can get 4,800 that were double counted, it’s over,” describing what he expects to see in a brief from Make Elections Fair PAC.
Attorney Daniel Arellano, representing Plaintiffs April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian pushed back against this notion saying, “First of all, I just to be clear, I mean these all sound like categorical arguments to me, which I think are precisely what the Supreme Court said not to do. I’ve not seen briefing of this issue. There’s a preview of it. (…) I’ve not actually seen any legal argument on this, but as I listened to this argument here today, judge, I think, again, I forget if it’s Leah v. Hobbs or Leah v. Reagan, but one of the two definitely says that we get to invalidate signatures for reasons other than, in addition to, and outside of the 5% sample. And so if the premise of the committee’s argument is that it is, we have to go with what the county hasn’t validated because that is already multiplied times 20, and we can’t invalidate anything in addition to or separate from that. That is I think a proposition that the Supreme Court has squarely rejected.”
He added, “I think the point is I don’t think we can use this as an avenue to foreclose line by line review of the 38,000 signatures.”
But Judge Moskowitz was quick to retort: “No, I understand that. But even if I said yes, clear and convincing all 38,000, it says proceed accordingly. And my proceed accordingly is my next step is going to be how do I know of whatever number is of duplicates hasn’t been already invalidated. How do I know this signature hasn’t already been invalidated? And I think that would be in the proceed accordingly part of the Supreme Court’s order.”
However, the order from Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer made the court’s priority clear, “The trial court must continue with determining whether the initiative is supported by a sufficient number of qualified signatures. This determination should be made as expeditiously as possible to provide the parties and the public certainty.”
In a thread posted to X, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) paraphrased a comment from the organization’s President Scot Mussi, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In a press release the organization cited from the evidence presented that:
- When the Prop 140 Committee submitted their signatures to the Secretary of State, around 250 people had signed five or more times.
- One individual had signed 15 times.
- All those signatures were included in the final tabulation by the Arizona Secretary of State.
In a status update hearing held late on Wednesday, it was determined that Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly will lead the signature verification effort as court-appointed Special Master. During the meeting, Judge Moskowitz again referred to a possible stopping point for the signature review, asking Arellano, “Not to be looking at this for one side or the other, but there is a number of 4,800. And the only reason I say that number is because it’s the lowest number we’re talking about. But if that 4,800 number of duplicates is reached um… Does he stop if he knocks out whatever that number is 4,800 of duplicates? So you don’t get to your 33,000 something, something number Mr. Arellano? Does he just stop?”
Arellano, representing the plaintiffs, responded that the Special Master should be checking in with attorneys from both sides “periodically,” however, he added, “We’ve not set that up as any particular kind of benchmark. Nor do I know that we’d be comfortable doing so, since it sort of sets that up as like a goal of sorts.”
The signature checking effort is expected to run through September 16th with a hearing to discuss legal briefs from both sides on Friday.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
