by Matthew Holloway | Feb 16, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has filed an official complaint with Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell requesting they take legal action on the almost 40,000 duplicate signatures that were uncovered during the legal challenges to Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated in the November election with almost 60% of the vote share.
During the unsuccessful legal challenge against Prop 140’s fraudulent signature gathering in April Smith v. Fontes, a court-appointed Special Master found that, of the original 41,387 pairs of signatures challenged, a total of 37,657 or approximately 99%, were in fact duplicates. Removing these duplications would have driven the proposition 3,300 signatures short of the of the minimum qualification to appear on the Nov. 5th ballot.
The Special Master, Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly, found that “Plaintiffs had proved by clear and convincing evidence that 37,657 signatures were duplicates— that the same person had signed more than once.”
Indeed the evidence showed that 253 people signed the petitions five times or more and one individual signed no less than 15 times.
In a letter to Mayes and Mitchell, Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club wrote, “Double or even triple-signing the same initiative petition over the span of several months may well evince merely carelessness or forgetfulness. Signing one’s name five, ten, or even fifteen times, however, is not susceptible to that excuse.”
“There is certainly, at the very least, ample reason to believe that the individuals identified in Exhibit A knowingly violated Arizona law. I accordingly request that your respective offices open an investigation and pursue all appropriate criminal charges.”
You can read the complaint here. You can see the exhibit of duplicate signatures here.
In August, the AZFEC criticized the group behind Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair PAC,” with a strong condemnation that the group, which is sought to import “California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.”
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 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.
Page 6 of 10«12345678910»
