Democratic attorneys file legal challenges to remove third-party candidates from Arizona ballots

A half-dozen third-party candidates running for Congress and statewide office in Arizona are facing legal challenges to keep them off the ballot.

Most of those challenges are seeking to disqualify candidates running under Arizona’s No Labels Party, which was called the Arizona Independent Party until a judge invalidated that name change last month.

That includes lawsuits against Scottsdale businessman Hugh Lytle, who is running for governor, and Michael Zepeda, who is running for state treasurer. Congressional candidates Christopher Ajluni, Iman Bah and Jessie Martines are also facing challenges.

Challenges were also filed against gubernatorial candidate Risa Lombardo and congressional candidate David Redkey, who are both running as members of the Arizona Green Party.

Nearly all of those challenges were filed by attorneys or law firms tied to Democratic politics.

Lawyers with Herrera Arellano LLP filed challenges against Zepeda, Ajluni, Bah and Martines. The firm was co-founded by Roy Herrera, who has worked for Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego and advised the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Steven Jackson, chair of the local Democratic Party in Legislative District 8, filed a separate challenge against Ajluni. And Paul Weich, a Tempe Democrat active in state politics, is challenging Martines’ candidacy.

Attorneys Austin Yost, Sambo Dul and Kelleen Mull, who work at firm Coppersmith Brockelman, filed challenges against Lytle and Lombardo. Dul previously worked for Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, and Yost has represented Democratic campaigns in the past.

Paul Johnson, chair of the No Labels Party in Arizona, accused Arizona Democrats of engaging in a coordinated campaign to remove third-party challengers over concerns they could siphon votes away from Democrats and hand electoral victories to Republicans in November.

“The idea that they challenged Hugh (Lytle) and the Green Party — that’s the smoking gun,” Johnson said.

Johnson connected the challenges to efforts by both Democrats and Republicans to reverse the Arizona Independent Party name change he championed last year, arguing both are part of a larger push by both parties to block candidates who appeal to voters disenchanted with the two major parties.

“But the Democratic Party in particular is causing themselves a problem in this election,” Johnson said. “The governor is causing herself a problem because even though we don't have the evidence, we know.”

Candidate challenges

Both Jackson and Weich denied any coordination with the Democratic Party.

“No they were not,” Jackson said. “There were multiple Dems across (Congressional District 1), however, who were concerned and reached out on multiple candidates.”

Every candidate running for office under a political party’s banner in the state must collect a specific number of petition signatures from fellow party members or independent voters to qualify for the July primary election.

And, after candidates turn in those petitions, anyone can challenge their validity in court.

Many of the challenges filed by Democratic attorneys against third-party candidates this year make arguments seen regularly in these types of lawsuits, including claims that a candidate's signatures did not comply with state election laws.

For instance, Lombardo, the Green Party governor candidate, needs 1,771 signatures to qualify for the ballot. She turned in 3,250, but a challenge filed by Yost and Dul argues over 1,600 should be invalidated.

The lawsuit claims dozens of petition sheets should be invalidated because the people gathering the signatures were not qualified. That includes allegations that petition circulators did not include their real home address on petitions and that other circulators had felony convictions that rendered them ineligible to collect signatures.

Another suit against Zepeda, the No Labels treasurer candidate, claimed that about 1,000 of his signatures should be thrown out because the person who signed his petition wasn’t a registered voter or was not a registered No Labels or independent voter.

Some of the challenges contain more unique arguments, though.

For instance, Weich’s lawsuit against Martines argues the congressional candidate, who is running in the West Valley’s Congressional District 8, first filed to run as a Democrat and then an independent not affiliated with any party.

Martines then filed to run under the Arizona Independent Party/No Labels banner on March 23, the same day petition signatures were due. He turned in 326 signatures, but Weich alleges those should all be invalidated because Martines wasn’t actually a member of the No Labels Party at any time during the process.

Yost and Dul’s lawsuit seeking to bar Lytle from the ballot argues that the No Labels gubernatorial candidate failed to list his actual home address on his nomination paper and petitions.

Instead, Lytle used a business address, according to the lawsuit.

The Democratic attorneys argue this violates a state law requiring candidates to list “the person’s actual residence address” or a post office box if they do not have a residence or their home address is protected by state privacy laws.

In response to the suit, Lytle didn’t directly address the law in question.

Instead, he echoed Johnson’s criticism of Hobbs, citing the governor’s connections to Yost and Dul.

“Governor Hobbs would rather hide behind high priced lawyers than face real competition at the ballot box. What is she afraid of?” he said in a statement.

Michael Beyer, a spokesman for Hobbs’ campaign, declined to comment.

Sloppiness or a conspiracy?

Weich, the attorney, has a theory about why so many third-party candidates are facing challenges — and it has nothing to do with a Democratic conspiracy.

“One of the aspects of this is that the confusion and the publicity of the No Labels Party changing names to Arizona Independent Party, and then the lawsuit attracted candidates who might not otherwise file petitions,” he said. “So I think that there were people that were attracted by the lower signature amounts and didn't know quite how to do it correctly.”

When Johnson first rebranded the No Labels Party as the Arizona Independent Party, he said it would create a home for independent candidates. Under Arizona law, those candidates would have to gather thousands of signatures to qualify for the ballot as traditional independents, or candidates affiliated with no political party.

By running under the Arizona Independent/No Labels banner, the barrier to entry is much lower. For instance, Ajluni would have had to collect over 5,000 signatures to run without a party in Congressional District 1. But, as a member of No Labels, he only needed 231.

Johnson, the No Labels chair, acknowledged that some third-party candidates may have simply failed to follow the law.

“The idea that candidates mess up, make mistakes, those things happen and challenges happen,” he said. “But you can see a coordinated effort by the Democratic Party against independents, and it's just one more time they've done it.”

Weich also pointed out that it wasn’t just Democrats looking into third-party candidates and the validity of their petitions, even though they ended up filing the lion’s share of legal challenges.

Twenty-four challenges were filed ahead of the deadline on Monday afternoon, including 11 challenges against No Labels or Green candidates.

Of those challenges, eight came from lawyers aligned with Democrats.

Republican attorney Kory Langhofer also filed a separate challenge against Zepeda, the No Labels treasurer candidate. And No Labels gubernatorial candidate Teri Hourihan filed challenges against Lytle, her opponent in the primary, and Lombardo.

Public records Weich obtained show that Republican CD1 candidate Jay Feely’s campaign also requested copies petition signatures turned in by Ajluni and Monica Alponte, a Libertarian candidate.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to correct Paul Weich's residency.