The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes unlawfully restricted public comment on the 2023 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) to just 15 days, halving the required 30-day period as stipulated by state law. The ruling serves as a win for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and local party affiliates, who brought the challenge against the state’s election procedures.
Arizona Court Rules on Election Procedures, Strikes Down Shortened Comment Period
Arizona Court Rules on Election Procedures, Strikes Down Shortened Comment Period
Arizona Court of Appeals decides Secretary of State violated law by limiting public comment on election manual revision.
The appellate court's ruling emphasized that the EPM must comply with the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates a minimum of a 30-day public comment window for any new regulations. By failing to meet this requirement, Secretary Fontes was found to have not “substantially complied” with the necessary legal standards. The court has remanded the case, reversing a prior dismissal by the Maricopa County Superior Court.
The EPM is crucial as it guides county election officials through various processes, including voter eligibility, polling logistics, and the auditing of election outcomes. Following the ruling, there is ambiguity regarding which version of the manual will be utilized in upcoming elections in Tucson and other municipalities later in the year. Secretary Fontes’ office argues that the 2023 manual will remain effective during the appeal, while the Arizona Republican Party insists that election authorities revert to the 2019 version pending the outcome.
Politics surrounding the decision have been noteworthy, with Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda applauding the court for ensuring public involvement in electoral processes, which she argues is uniquely honored in Arizona compared to other states. In contrast, Secretary Fontes disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asserting the ongoing validity of the 2023 EPM until the court's ruling takes effect.
This development is part of an ongoing pattern of legal disputes regarding the 2023 EPM. Previously, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge rescinded several provisions of the manual, asserting that Fontes had overstepped his authority in regulating voter registration and election certification.
The appellate court's decision underscores the imperative for state officials to uphold standard procedural norms when instituting election-related regulations. The outcomes of this litigation not only hold immediate implications for Arizona's election infrastructure but may also reshape future methodologies for developing and enforcing election procedures statewide.
The EPM is crucial as it guides county election officials through various processes, including voter eligibility, polling logistics, and the auditing of election outcomes. Following the ruling, there is ambiguity regarding which version of the manual will be utilized in upcoming elections in Tucson and other municipalities later in the year. Secretary Fontes’ office argues that the 2023 manual will remain effective during the appeal, while the Arizona Republican Party insists that election authorities revert to the 2019 version pending the outcome.
Politics surrounding the decision have been noteworthy, with Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda applauding the court for ensuring public involvement in electoral processes, which she argues is uniquely honored in Arizona compared to other states. In contrast, Secretary Fontes disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asserting the ongoing validity of the 2023 EPM until the court's ruling takes effect.
This development is part of an ongoing pattern of legal disputes regarding the 2023 EPM. Previously, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge rescinded several provisions of the manual, asserting that Fontes had overstepped his authority in regulating voter registration and election certification.
The appellate court's decision underscores the imperative for state officials to uphold standard procedural norms when instituting election-related regulations. The outcomes of this litigation not only hold immediate implications for Arizona's election infrastructure but may also reshape future methodologies for developing and enforcing election procedures statewide.
