The federalist

Court: Arizona’s ballot signature verification guidance contradicts state law.

An Arizona court found⁣ on Friday that ballot signature​ verification guidance issued by the secretary⁢ of state’s office does “not have⁢ the force⁢ of law.”

In the ruling from Judge‍ John⁣ Napper, the Superior Court of Yavapai ‍County denied​ motions ⁤to dismiss a complaint filed by Restoring​ Integrity ⁤and Trust in Elections⁣ (RITE) against Secretary of State Adrian ​Fontes, a ‍Democrat, that ‌alleged Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) contains ⁣unlawful signature-match guidance. ⁢In Arizona, the EMP governs⁢ how elections are run in the state.

Under Arizona law, county recorders are required to compare‌ the signature on a voter’s ⁢ballot envelope with ⁢the “signature of⁢ the elector on the ⁣elector’s registration record.” Arizona’s current EMP, however, ⁣instructs county recorders to “consult and review‍ not only ‌registration forms but also ‘additional known signatures from ​other official election documents in the ‍voter’s registration ‍record, such as signature rosters or early ‌ballot [permanent early voting list] ‌ request ​forms,’” as the court noted. ⁣RITE⁤ alleged that this even included “signatures ‍on prior early ballot envelopes.”

This guidance, ⁤the court ⁢indicated, is contrary to state ⁢law.

Fontes “argues the definition of ‘registration record’​ is ambiguous … ‌This argument fails because there is no ambiguity in ‌the statute,” Napper’s ruling reads. ‌“Pursuant to the statute,‌ the recorder is to the signature on the envelope the voter’s prior‍ registrations (the⁣ record). …⁢ If they match, then the vote ⁣is ⁤counted.​ If‌ they ⁤do not, the voter is contacted to address any ‍possible concerns. There is ‍no ambiguity in this statute or ⁢the process.”

In other ‍words, Fontes ​was⁢ likely instructing recorders to violate state law by mandating ballots be counted ‌despite using a different signature match standard ⁢than what was legally⁤ required.

The court found that Arizona’s EPM creates a process that “contradicts the plain language” of state law by⁢ allowing signature-match with⁣ documents that⁢ have “nothing to do with the act‍ of registering.”

“Therefore, this portion of the ‍EPM and the‌ instruction‍ from the Secretary do ‘not have the force of law,’” Napper concluded.

“RITE will⁢ build on this victory to continue to ​fight in court for elections that are administered according to ‍democratically ⁣enacted laws, not illegal ⁤partisan commands,” RITE President Derek Lyons said​ in a statement. “This is‍ a ⁤huge ⁢victory toward securing the‌ elections⁤ that Arizonans deserve,​ which are elections they can trust.”

The court ​has ordered‌ all parties ‍and their counsel to appear⁤ for ⁢a status conference on Sept. ‌19.


Shawn Fleetwood is‌ a staff writer for The‍ Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary ⁢Washington. He previously⁤ served as a state content writer for Convention of ‍States Action and his‍ work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth,⁤ and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter⁣ @ShawnFleetwood

Popular



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker