Despite Court Ruling, Arizona Counties Hold the Key to Certifying Election Results

A federal judge has issued a ruling blocking an Arizona regulation aimed at ensuring timely finalization of election results. The judge stated that the state cannot bypass a county’s results if local officials choose not to certify them, citing other legal mechanisms that render the rule unnecessary.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes had recently incorporated this rule into the state’s Election Procedures Manual, granting his office authority to proceed with certification even in the absence of a county’s reported results. However, this move faced legal challenges spearheaded by conservative groups.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi ruled that Fontes failed to clarify the need for this additional regulation, highlighting the existence of various alternatives to safeguard voter participation and ensure timely vote counts. In his order, Liburdi elaborated on these options.

Among these options, Fontes can initiate legal action against county supervisors to compel them to certify results, and he can also pursue criminal charges against supervisors who refuse their duties. These measures were previously implemented during the contentious 2022 election in Arizona.

A representative from Fontes’ office indicated that they are currently reviewing the ruling to determine whether to appeal it.

The issue of county certification is far from theoretical. During the 2022 midterms, two Republican supervisors from Cochise County notably did not certify the results ahead of the deadline, prompting a court to intervene. Following the deadline, both supervisors faced felony charges for their actions, with a trial scheduled for January.

In other counties, such as Mohave, some supervisors have considered rejecting certification under pressure from Republican constituents who questioned the integrity of the elections.

The rule that Fontes introduced effectively established a mechanism allowing the state to validate overall election results without relying on a non-compliant county. In an August court filing, Fontes’ office mentioned that this regulation was intended as a last resort for an unlikely scenario where all other solutions failed.

Arizona’s Election Procedures Manual serves as a guideline for county officials on compliance with state election law. Fontes made updates to this manual last year, aiming to refine the election process after the previous midterm elections. Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes endorsed the updated manual in December.

In a related case, other conservative groups, including Republican legislative leaders, have filed lawsuits in state courts, contesting the rule concerning the exclusion of county results. This particular case remains pending.

Additionally, in July, the America First Policy Institute, aligned with former President Donald Trump, initiated a federal lawsuit challenging several regulations in Fontes’ manual. This lawsuit sparked Liburdi’s recent ruling, as it also contested rules intended to prevent voter intimidation. A state court previously issued a temporary injunction against those rules, which Liburdi agreed to extend pending further hearings.

Fontes’ team sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the portrayal of the rule regarding county result exclusions presented an improbable series of unfortunate events. However, Liburdi dismissed this perspective, granting the conservative groups an injunction. He emphasized that the regulation represented a dangerous overreach, capable of disenfranchising voters at the discretion of the secretary of state.

“Defendants’ position asserts that finality is preferable to accuracy, allowing potential disenfranchisement of millions,” Liburdi commented. “What value does this finality hold if it undermines the principles of democracy?”

Liburdi also acknowledged alternative methods proposed by America First to address instances where county supervisors refuse to certify results. These included empowering the secretary to certify canvass results directly, obtaining judicial clarification on vote counts, and designating an auditor or special master for result certification.

“Any of these alternatives would allow the state to meet the statutory deadline for final election results while ensuring all voters are enfranchised,” Liburdi concluded.