Maricopa County Recorder and GOP Senator Champion Ranked Choice Voting in Supreme Court Showdown

By Staff Reporter |

Last week, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and State Senator Ken Bennett submitted amicus briefs to the Arizona Supreme Court in support of the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) ballot initiative. This initiative is known as the “Make Elections Fair Act,” or Prop 140.

Bennett, who previously served as the secretary of state from 2009 to 2015, collaborated with Helen Purcell, the former Maricopa County recorder with nearly 30 years of experience. Their combined expertise highlights the importance of timely electoral processes.

In his brief for the case Smith v. Fontes, Richer argued that the votes for the RCV initiative should be counted despite concerns about duplicate signatures. He emphasized that the election period had already commenced, asserting that state law mandates the counting of votes cast regardless of any issues raised. “Hiding the results or attempting to prevent the vote from being tabulated is an inequitable result,” he stated, pointing to the necessity of government transparency.

Richer explained that discussions about the initiative’s qualifications became irrelevant once the deadline for ballot certification passed. “To be resolved with a high degree of certainty may not be currently possible given the election time constraints,” he noted. He believes there is value in allowing the vote to proceed and expressed confidence in its constitutional validity.

His office has already printed more than 21,500 different ballot styles, sending them to residents and military voters, with over 1,100 returned so far. “Once the ballots are printed, the time for signature challenges must end,” Richer said, reinforcing the importance of proceeding with the election.

He also reminded that state law prohibits the destruction of public voting records and confirmed that counting would not be halted despite ongoing legal challenges. “If the voting tally is a public record, the Recorder does not see how Maricopa County can either destroy it or fail to release it,” Richer added.

Bennett and Purcell further contended that timeliness in elections should take precedence over issues of validity. They referred to legal precedents that indicate challenges must be resolved before the printing of ballots. “Courts have consistently upheld the principle that pre-election challenges must be resolved before the ballot printing deadline,” they stated, warning of potential chaos and decreased voter confidence if Prop 140 were invalidated after voting began.

The Supreme Court’s involvement comes after the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled against the validity of nearly 40,000 contested signatures. However, the court maintained that votes for Prop 140 could not be disregarded, a decision that led to the current appeal. Richer and Bennett have voiced their disagreements with this ruling.