Judge Rules in Favor of Legislature in High-Stakes Election Procedures Clash

A significant ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court has clarified the authority of Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes regarding election certification. The court determined that Fontes lacks the legal power to mandate county supervisors to certify election results, particularly in situations where they have expressed reservations.

Judge Scott Blaney’s decision, released on Thursday, found that certain provisions Fontes included in the Elections Procedures Manual are in direct conflict with Arizona state law. In such cases, state statutes take precedence.

The judge specifically voided a section of the manual asserting county supervisors have a “non-discretionary duty” to accept returns from the county recorder. This provision also claimed the board could not alter vote totals or postpone certifying the results without explicit statutory authority or a court order.

In his ruling, Blaney stated, “The secretary’s presumption does not exist in the statute,” emphasizing that Fontes cannot unilaterally impose such interpretations.

This ruling is particularly relevant in light of past incidents, such as the 2022 election in Cochise County, where some supervisors initially resisted certifying results, questioning the certification of ballot tabulators. This led to threats from the then-Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, concerning the ramifications of proceeding without the county’s election results.

While two supervisors eventually agreed to certification following a court order, the situation highlighted the tension between election officials and county supervisors.

In defending the provisions of the manual, Fontes argued that strict deadlines for state canvassing necessitate prompt actions by county officials. This urgency is particularly crucial during presidential election years.

However, Judge Blaney disagreed, reaffirming that the law does not permit the exclusion of any county’s canvass, as doing so would disenfranchise voters. “The secretary does not have authority to read such a drastic course of action into the governing statute,” the judge asserted.

Blaney advised that should such disputes arise, the appropriate course of action would be for the secretary to seek judicial intervention rather than bypassing county results.

The ruling serves as a considerable victory for Republican leaders Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, who contended that county supervisors should maintain some discretion in accepting or questioning electoral results.

Their attorney, Kory Langhofer, emphasized that Arizona law mandates that supervisors assess and determine the vote, allowing for more thorough scrutiny beyond a mere acceptance of results provided by election officials.

Langhofer argued, “The board’s statutory duty to canvass the vote does not necessarily require the board to accept the returns as they are.” Crucially, he asserted that if the results are not received by the statutory deadline, the secretary must delay the statewide canvass until all results are obtained, with possible extensions of up to 30 days.

Additionally, Judge Blaney rescinded another provision related to the status of voter registrations upon relocation. Fontes’ approach, which allowed a temporary inactive status, was deemed conflicting with state law requiring immediate cancellation of such registrations.

The judge acknowledged potential federal law conflicts but affirmed that state law must prevail, asserting, “The secretary does not have the authority to overrule and rewrite state law.”