Arizona’s Election Manual Deemed Unconstitutional by Judge

By Staff Reporter

In a pivotal ruling on Tuesday, the Maricopa County Superior Court struck down key sections of Arizona’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual (EPM). The EPM, authored by Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, faced legal challenges from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), a public policy nonprofit.

Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill identified multiple violations within Fontes’ EPM, asserting that several provisions breached the Arizona Constitution. Specifically, the judge criticized its speech restrictions, misrepresentations of statutes, and unclear distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.

“The manual’s language imposed unnecessary, vague, and overly broad restraints on speech,” Ryan-Touhill wrote in her ruling. She noted that these restrictions acted as a blanket prohibition on various forms of conduct, contradicting constitutional protections. Examples cited included ambiguous terms like “harassing manner” and “intimidating manner.”

The ruling dissected 13 problematic instances. For example, Ryan-Touhill highlighted the vague prohibition against electioneering audible from within the polling place’s 75-foot limit and unclear restrictions on intimidating speech outside the same boundary.

Other scrutinized provisions focused on the conduct of individuals around voting locations. They included rules against aggressive behavior, offensive language, and the open carry of firearms in ways that might intimidate voters. The judge argued these clauses modified the criminal intent behind state laws on harassment and voter intimidation.

“The Secretary lacks the authority to alter a legal mens rea,” Ryan-Touhill emphasized, suggesting that the EPM improperly adjusted the criminal definitions set by Arizona statutes.

AFEC President Scot Mussi praised the court’s decision. “The judge correctly identified Secretary Fontes’ misguided manual as an attempt to undermine electoral integrity,” Mussi stated in a press release. He urged compliance with state law in maintaining transparency and fairness in elections.

The court mandated that any sections of the EPM containing speech restrictions be deemed unenforceable, marking a significant victory for proponents of free speech and electoral integrity.