Arizona Officials Stand Firm on Election Guidelines Amid Conservative Challenge

Two conservative special-interest groups filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday challenging two provisions of Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual. They claim the new election guidelines infringe on free speech and the right to vote.

The plaintiffs, American Encore and the American First Policy Institute, are seeking a federal court order to block the recently implemented changes. These provisions were introduced to enhance the integrity of elections in Arizona amid growing concerns over electoral processes.

In response to heightened election-related tensions, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes amended the Elections Procedures Manual last year. This manual, reviewed every odd year, now includes new regulations addressing speech at polling places and the responsibilities of county supervisors regarding vote canvassing.

The first amendment, referred to as the vote nullification provision, grants the secretary of state the authority to discard all votes from a county if its board of supervisors fails to meet canvassing deadlines. This measure was a direct reaction to a 2022 incident in Cochise County, where delays in certification by Republican supervisors nearly compromised statewide election results.

The second amendment expands the definition of voter intimidation, explicitly prohibiting “aggressive behavior,” such as shouting or taunting voters or poll workers. The conservative groups have specifically challenged this provision, asserting that it violates the First Amendment rights to free speech.

During the court hearing in Phoenix, Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes defended the legality and necessity of these updates. She urged U.S. District Judge Michael T. Liburdi to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not demonstrated an imminent threat of harm.

In contrast, attorney Drew Ensign, representing the conservative groups, contended that the potential for disenfranchisement, while not currently imminent, remains credible based on past events. “The possibility that the government could disenfranchise you, even if the likelihood is well under 1%, creates a cognizable injury,” he stated.

Hartman-Tellez, representing Fontes, countered that any risk to a single county should be weighed against the potential impact on statewide election integrity. This perspective emphasizes a preference for managing threats to ensure fair elections.

Judge Liburdi appeared skeptical of the justifications for the provisions, questioning their necessity. He remarked, “If this is all hypothetical, why do we even need this?” His inquiry suggested a desire for clarity regarding the implications of the amendments.

The speech provision remains a contentious point, with the conservative groups asserting that it could hinder free speech. Mayes previously communicated to the groups that the amendments do not establish new criminal offenses but rather serve as guidelines for poll workers to identify inappropriate behaviors.

Ensign argued that the language of the provision, which refers to “any person,” raises concerns about its application to voters themselves. He highlighted that the First Amendment protections encompass more than just criminal charges, implying that even non-criminal applications of the law can chill free speech.

Liburdi signaled that he would deliver rulings on the motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction within the next two weeks. With early voting set to begin on October 11 and the canvassing deadline on November 21, time is of the essence for resolving the disputes.