Challengers in Make Elections Fair Case Slam Fontes for Double Standards

The legal battle surrounding the Make Elections Fair Act has intensified, with challengers urging the court to dismiss arguments from Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. They assert that Fontes’ claim, which emphasizes voter determination over judicial intervention, should not remain in the court record.

Daniel Arellano, the attorney representing the challengers, accused Fontes of hypocrisy. He pointed out that Fontes previously made contradictory statements in another case, undermining his current stance.

The proposed constitutional amendment is under scrutiny as critics argue that its supporting committee failed to gather sufficient valid signatures for placement on the November ballot. Despite this challenge, ballots have already been printed with the measure included. However, the Arizona Supreme Court has indicated that if the signatures are deemed invalid due to duplicates, any votes for Proposition 140 may not be counted.

If the voters approve the Make Elections Fair Act, it would implement an open primary system in Arizona. This change would allow all candidates for federal, state, and local offices to compete in a single primary election, breaking down the barriers of partisan segregation. Politically unaffiliated candidates would also be part of this voting process.

In a recent filing, Fontes argued that disregarding voter choices after allowing them to vote would disenfranchise constituents. Earlier, a lower court dismissed evidence from challengers claiming that approximately 40,000 signatures were duplicates, ruling that the measure had over 32,000 signatures beyond what was necessary.

Following this, the Arizona Supreme Court directed the trial judge to review the evidence again. Fontes has since requested that the high court reconsider its decision, referencing long-standing legal precedents that oppose reopening cases post-ballot printing.

Arellano contended that Fontes lacked the court’s permission for this request and highlighted a previous case involving Republican candidate Michael Way. In that case, Fontes argued against counting votes for a candidate deemed ineligible.

JP Martin, representing Fontes, maintained that the Secretary’s request followed legal protocols set by the Arizona Supreme Court. He emphasized that motions to strike are usually looked down upon by the courts.

Addressing the alleged double standards, Martin underscored a state statute that dictates procedures in cases where candidates are removed from races after ballots are printed. This statute notably does not extend to initiatives like the Make Elections Fair Act.

The controversy around Way, who faced allegations regarding his residency status, concluded with a dismissal of the case on Monday. Meanwhile, challengers of the Make Elections Fair Act accuse its supporters of deliberately delaying proceedings until after the ballot printing deadline.

Arellano criticized this strategy, suggesting that allowing ballot printing to serve as a legal shield would encourage future manipulations of the electoral process. He countered claims that invalidating votes for the Act would disenfranchise voters, arguing that votes on an ineligible measure should not count in the first place.

***UPDATE: The story has been updated with comments from a spokesperson for the Arizona Secretary of State.