Arizona’s Voter Intimidation Laws Halted by Court Ruling

A Maricopa County judge has declared that Arizona’s voter intimidation and harassment prevention rules infringe on free speech rights. The decision temporarily halts the enforcement of these rules, pending a final ruling.

These rules, established years ago, prohibit actions such as following, photographing, videotaping, or yelling at voters near polling places and drop boxes. The recent injunction by Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill aims to reevaluate their scope and implications.

With early voting for the presidential election just two months away, this decision comes at a crucial time. Republican groups, including the Republican National Committee through its “Protect the Vote” initiative, have already mobilized efforts to monitor polling activities actively.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has expressed intent to appeal the judge’s order. Fontes’s office highlighted the difficulty in balancing necessary restrictions with free speech rights during elections.

Judge Ryan-Touhill acknowledged that certain activities, like explicitly telling someone whom to vote for or making threats, can be restricted in polling areas. However, she found other prohibitions overly broad, as they extended beyond the 75-foot electioneering boundary. Her critique pointed out ambiguities in defining what constitutes intimidating or harassing behavior, challenging the clarity of rules such as what messages on t-shirts might be deemed offensive.

State law already prohibits threats and intimidation to deter voting, but Fontes’s manual extends these definitions, prompting judicial review.

The Secretary of State’s office confirmed that despite the order, activities such as campaigning, photographing, and voter intimidation within the 75-foot boundary remain illegal. The contested rules were initially part of Fontes’s attempt to address voter complaints about intimidation tactics during the 2022 midterm elections, including incidents involving armed drop box watchers.

Fontes’s revisions to the manual, intended to safeguard voters, have faced pushback. Several Republican groups argued that many provisions clashed with state laws or were unconstitutional, leading to multiple lawsuits. The latest ruling stems from a suit filed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, America First Policy Institute, and a resident.

Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, testified that the vague nature of the regulations could inadvertently criminalize benign actions by poll watchers and volunteers. He emphasized the potential for misinterpretation, leading to undue penalties.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to covering local election administration and voting access.