Challengers in Az ‘Make Elections Fair’ Ballot Case Slam Fontes for Double Standards

The legal battle surrounding the Make Elections Fair Act continues in Arizona, as challengers seek to strike arguments presented by the Secretary of State from the court record. They contend that the decision on the proposed constitutional amendment should be left to voters, not the courts.

Daniel Arellano, representing the challengers, accused Secretary of State Adrian Fontes of having made contradictory assertions in a similar case recently. The controversy centers on allegations that insufficient signatures were gathered to qualify the ballot measure for the November election.

Despite the ongoing legal challenge, ballots are already printed, ensuring that Proposition 140 will appear on the ballot. However, if the courts find that a significant number of signatures are duplicates, the Arizona Supreme Court has indicated that it may invalidate votes cast for the measure.

If passed, the Make Elections Fair Act aims to amend the Arizona Constitution to establish an open primary system. This would allow all candidates for federal, state, and local offices, including politically unaffiliated ones, to compete in a single primary election.

In a recent court filing, Fontes argued that disregarding votes on the measure after allowing voters to express their choice would disenfranchise them. Earlier, a trial court had dismissed claims that approximately 40,000 signatures were duplicates, ruling that the proposition had well over the required number of valid signatures.

However, the Arizona Supreme Court instructed the trial judge to revisit the case and assess the evidence. Fontes subsequently requested the high court to reconsider its decision, citing established legal precedents that contradict the continuation of the lawsuit after ballots are printed.

Arellano claimed that Fontes lacked the authority to make such a request and highlighted Fontes’s previous arguments regarding another candidate’s eligibility, which showed inconsistency in his position. In that instance, Fontes had recommended disregarding votes for a candidate deemed ineligible, suggesting a potential double standard in his current stance.

JP Martin, a spokesperson for Fontes, defended the Secretary’s request for reconsideration as aligned with the Supreme Court’s directives. He noted the absence of similar statutes within the initiative process compared to candidate eligibility, stating that once a measure appears on the ballot, challenges are considered moot based on 80 years of precedent.

The Way case, linked to allegations regarding a candidate’s residency, was dismissed on Monday. Both the challengers and Arellano accused the committee behind the Make Elections Fair Act of deliberately stalling the legal process until the ballot printing was complete. Arellano characterized the situation as a tactical maneuver to sidestep impending scrutiny of the validity of the signatures.

“It is clear they saw the ballot printing deadline as a means to evade accountability,” Arellano stated. He further argued that voters are not disenfranchised if their votes are not counted for a measure deemed ineligible from the start, countering claims from Fontes and the committee regarding potential voter disenfranchisement.