Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Arizona Abortion Access Act Initiative I-05-2024, which appeared on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot. The Legislative Council prepared an analysis of the initiative, which included a description of existing state law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, except in medical emergencies. The analysis used the term "unborn human being" to describe the existing law, which the initiative's proponents argued was not impartial and requested the term "fetus" be used instead.The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of the initiative's proponents, finding that the term "unborn human being" was emotionally and partisanly charged, and ordered the Council to replace it with a neutral term. The Council members appealed the decision, arguing that the analysis was impartial and complied with statutory requirements.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's ruling. The Court held that the analysis substantially complied with the statutory requirement for impartiality by accurately describing existing law using the precise terminology found in the statute. The Court emphasized that the term "unborn human being" is used in the existing law and that the analysis provided necessary background information to voters. The Court concluded that the analysis was impartial and did not advocate for or against the initiative. The request for attorney fees and costs by the initiative's proponents was denied. View "ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS v MONTENEGRO" on Justia Law

The case involves the Arizona Republican Party (ARP) and its attorneys, who challenged the manner in which Maricopa County election officials conducted a mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election. The ARP argued that the hand count should have been based on precincts rather than voting centers, as prescribed by the Election Procedures Manual (EPM). The trial court dismissed the ARP's complaint and awarded attorney fees against the ARP and its attorneys under A.R.S. § 12-349(A)(1) and (F), which provides for such fees if a claim is groundless and not made in good faith. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that the attorney fees award was improper because the ARP's claim was not groundless, thus there was no need to determine whether the claim was made in the absence of good faith. The court found that the ARP's claim was more than "barely" colorable, as there was a plain-language conflict between § 16-602(B), which requires a precinct hand count, and the 2019 EPM, which permits a voting center hand count. The court also disagreed with the lower courts' rulings that the ARP's claim was groundless due to the unavailability of remedies, the applicability of the election-law time bar on post-election challenges to pre-election procedures, and laches. The court vacated the trial court’s and the court of appeals’ attorney fees awards. View "ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY v RICHER" on Justia Law

In this referendum matter concerning a city ordinance, the Supreme Court held that the proponent's error in failing to include the text of the to-be-referred ordinance within its application for a petition serial number, as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 19-111(A), could not be cured by showing that the City Clerk and petition signers knew what ordinance was being referred but that nothing authorized the City Clerk to reject petition sheets due to the application error.At issue was Ordinance 2022-18, which would take effect thirty days later unless referred to the ballot for a vote. Plaintiff sought to refer the ordinance to the ballot, but the City Clerk rejected Plaintiff's petition sheets and signatures based on Plaintiff's failure to attach the ordinance to the application for a petition serial number. Plaintiff brought this action seeking to compel the City Clerk to accept the sheets and signatures. The court concluded that the application's failure to strictly comply with section 19-111(A) was fatal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not strictly comply with section 19-111(A) when filing its application for a serial number and could not correct that error through its offered evidence; but (2) the City Clerk was not authorized to reject Plaintiff's circulated and signed petition sheets because the application for serial number was deficient. View "Voice of Surprise v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's amended final judgment finding that an initiative entitled the "Arizona Fair Elections Act" failed to qualify for the November 8, 2022 ballot, holding that the Act fell short of the required number of valid signatures, and therefore the trial court properly disqualified the initiative from the ballot.At issue in these multiple expedited election appeals and cross-appeals was the interpretation and application of the statutes governing initiative petitions and the method for determining whether an initiative has sufficient valid signatures to qualify for placement on an election ballot. The trial court found that the initiative had an insufficient number of valid signatures and ordered the Secretary of State to rescind the previous determination that the initiative qualified for placement on the ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed in their challenge. View "Mussi v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 19-118.01 does not facially violate the First Amendment where it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.A political action committee (PAC) hired AZ Petition Partners to collect signatures for the Invest in Education Act initiative. Initiative opponents brought this action for declaratory judgment against the PAC, alleging that Petitioner Partners' hourly rates and incentive programs violated section 19-118.01. Thereafter, the State filed fifty charges against Petition Partners. The court of appeals concluded that section 19-118.01(A) bans more than just per-signature payments, and therefore, the statute facially violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded the case, holding that section 19-118.01 only prohibits per-signature compensation. View "AZ Petition Partners LLC v. Honorable Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the superior court could adjudicate the challenge brought by Legacy Foundation Action Fund to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Clean Elections Commission in a collateral proceeding and that issue preclusion did not apply under the circumstances.The issues raised in this appeal stemmed from a 2014 election-related dispute between Legacy and the Commission. Legacy failed timely to appeal the final administrative decision of the Commission assessing a penalty for Legacy's violation of the Citizens Clean Elections Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the superior court lacked appellate jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the Commission acted within its subject matter jurisdiction. At issue before the Supreme Court here was whether the superior court could adjudicate the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding. The Supreme Court answered (1) because a judgment entered by a tribunal lacking subject matter jurisdiction was void the superior court could adjudicate Legacy's challenge to the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding; and (2) because the Commission did not serve as a neutral decision maker in deciding its own jurisdiction, Legacy was deprived of a full and fair adjudication of the issue, and therefore, issue preclusion did not apply. View "Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the final statements in the "Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act" initiative description, when read in its entirety, did not communicate objectively false or misleading information.Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming that the initiative description at issue was legally insufficient because the final statement "Does not change existing law regarding secured debt" was misleading or objectively false. The trial court denied the objection and ordered that the Act qualified to appear on the general election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the description, when read in its entirety, alerted a reasonable person to the principal provisions' general objectives and was not objectively false or misleading. View "Protect Our Ariz. v. Fontes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court rejecting objections based on the issue of whether signatures collected by some initiative petition circulators must be disqualified because those circulators failed to strictly comply with two registration requirements, holding that this Court declines to disqualify any signatures as a result of the circulators' failure to strictly comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 19-102.01(A).At issue was a challenge to the Voters' Right to Know Act, a proposed statewide initiative for the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. Challengers filed this lawsuit challenging the legal sufficiency of certain circulator registrations. The trial court denied most of Challengers' objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) circulators failed to strictly comply with one statutory requirement which ordinarily would require the Secretary of State to disqualify the signatures gathered by those circulators; and (2) because the registration process prevented compliance with the statute, enforcing the statutory disqualification requirement would "unnecessarily hinder or restrict" the constitutional right to engage in the initiative process. View "Leibsohn v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court that the Senate disclose all communications concerning an audit to American Oversight, holding that communications concerning legislative activities need not relate to proposed or pending legislation nor require an affirmative showing of indirect impairment of legislative deliberations to qualify for legislative privilege.At issue in this case was the scope and application of legislative privilege pursuant to the "Gravel/Fields framework" under the Arizona Constitution and common law. In 2020, Senate members contracted to conduct an audit of ballots cast in Maricopa County. American Oversight, a nonprofit organization, filed a complaint under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 39-121 to compel disclosure of the documents. The trial court rejected the Senate's immunity claim and ordered it to disclose the documents. When the Senate submitted a privilege log listing several withheld and redacted communications along with the requested documents American Oversight moved to compel the Senate to produce the withheld records. The trial court rejected the Senate's legislative privilege claim and granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Gravel/Fields framework requires that the Senate only disclose communications concerning administrative, political, or other non-legislative matters. View "Fann v. Honorable Kemp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the exemption from the referendum power for law "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions," see Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, 1(3), apples to tax measures and that a revenue measure is exempt from referendum provided that it is for the support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions.SB 1828 was signed by the Governor as a tax bill for the 2022 fiscal year and imposes a "flat" tax of 2.5 percent on taxable revenues but becomes effective only if the state General Fund revenues reach specific targets. Invest in Arizona (IIA) sought to prevent implementation of the flat tax by referring SB 1828 to the ballot in the November 2022 general election. Appellants filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from accepting or certifying any petition filed in support of a referendum of SB 1828, including IIA's petition. The trial court ruled that SB 1828 is referable and denied the preliminary injunction request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exemption from the referendum power for laws "for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions" applies to tax measures. View "Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs" on Justia Law