Arizona Supreme Court upholds Fontes' Prop. 144 election reform ballot language

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes that argued he tried to trick voters into rejecting a Republican election reform measure that will appear on the November ballot.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Arizona voters by America First Legal, a firm aligned with President Donald Trump. It took issue with the ballot description Fontes crafted for Proposition 144, which would make a number of changes to Arizona election laws if approved by voters.

The suit argued the description doesn’t mention parts of the proposed law that would explicitly state non-citizens cannot vote in Arizona elections, something that is already illegal under the law.

Politics

Here are the 10 measures lawmakers sent to the Arizona ballot in November

Camryn Sanchez, Wayne Schutsky

Arizonans will get to decide whether to add voter ID requirements to state elections, keep transgender children out of peer’s bathrooms and more in November, as lawmakers passed a series of last minute ballot measures.

The Secretary of State’s Office pointed out it only has 50 words to work with when crafting the descriptions for measures that will appear on every Arizona ballot. And it chose to use those words to highlight the parts of Prop. 144 that would actually change Arizona law, such as a clause that would require all Arizona voters — including those who cast a ballot by mail — to show identification.

"We have a responsibility to make sure people know what these referrals actually do and how they may change existing law, not regurgitate talking points,” Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the secretary of state, said.

In a split decision, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a trial judge’s decision to reject the lawsuit.

The majority of justices concluded that the three voters challenging the description didn’t have standing, meaning they had no legal justification to bring the lawsuit in the first place.

The lawsuit argued the three voters faced real harm if Fontes’ description was allowed to appear on ballots, because they supported the measure and planned to actively campaign on its behalf.

“These characteristics are shared with many voters across the state during a busy election season and certainly do not constitute a distinct and palpable injury,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court majority.

And, even if the plaintiffs did have standing, that majority would have dismissed the lawsuit anyway, Timmer wrote.

That’s because state law gives Fontes authority to write ballot descriptions, with approval from the Attorney General’s Office.

“The majority agrees with the trial court that the description is not false or clearly misleading,” Timmer wrote.

Justices William Montgomery and Kathryn King disagreed with the majority. They argued the plaintiffs did have standing to sue and that the description title Fontes chose was misleading because it did not use the words “citizen” or “citizenship.”