In a major victory for conservatives and election integrity in the November election, a federal judge has barred Arizona’s liberal Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from implementing novel rules he inserted into the state’s official procedures for collecting election results. And the judge actually compared it to nuclear weapons. More on that in a moment.
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has the overview on Friday’s verdict:
PHOENIX – A federal judge called Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ proposal “completely unprecedented” and compared it to a nuclear weapon. It prevented him from refusing to include a county’s votes in the statewide totals if local supervisors do not certify the election results.
In the ruling overdue Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi acknowledged that there had been at least one attempt by a regulator in the past to delay certification. This action threatened to delay the formal collection of all votes across the state and alter the results of some elections.
But Liburdi said the solution Fontes included in Arizona’s election procedures manual, allowing him to skip uncertified votes just to finalize the state’s results, would unfairly and unfairly deny voters who cast their ballots the right to vote withdraw illegally.
BREAKING: Federal judge rules Secretary of State Adrian Fontes can’t enforce a novel rule in his handbook that says if a county doesn’t certify its results, the state will advertise without it.
Compare it to a “nuclear weapon.”
The rule is blocked pending a hearing on the case. pic.twitter.com/4Q41R2Byxk
— Jen Fifield (@JenAFifield) September 28, 2024
The report continues:
Consider, Liburdi said, what would happen if supervisors balked in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county where 2.4 million people vote.
Under the rules set out in the manual, Fontes, an elected Democrat, would be allowed to certify the state’s results without including those votes — meaning the results would be determined only by the votes of the other 14 counties.
Judge Liburdi wrote:
“If the right to vote is the right of qualified voters in a state to cast and have their vote counted, then the canvassing provision imposes the most serious burden: state-sanctioned disenfranchisement.”
…
“A registered voter in Arizona may well meet all voting requirements and responsibilities, but her vote may be disqualified due to misconduct or omission by officials.”
The best part, however, was when Liburdi chided Fontes for his office’s lame excuse for needing the rule; Fontes claimed, “The provision was intended primarily to force county supervisors to comply with the law and would likely never be enforced.” The judge didn’t get it:
“A nuclear weapon does not become less dangerous just because a world leader says he will never use it.”
…
“The voting rights provision burdens voting rights at the nuclear level.
“It’s a weapon in the secretary’s arsenal that he has.” discretion to operate should the circumstances arise – a weapon that is no less threatening just because the secretary says she “commits” not to pull the trigger.”
And while the judge’s decision doesn’t remove the rule from proceedings, it does prevent him from relying on it for 2024:
Strictly speaking, Liburdi’s order does not invalidate the provision of the manual. That would require a comprehensive process. However, it prevents Fontes from enforcing or relying on that provision this year.
Read on the topic:
NEW: SCOTUS enacts Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit to make decision on citizenship and voter registration in Arizona
Accordingly Ballotopedia, Judge Liburdi was appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2019/
There was a second provision blocking Liburdi, which appears to be a progressive attempt to thwart election observers
The lawsuit’s challengers, two groups with ties to Republican interests, also persuaded Liburdi to bar Fontes from enforcing another provision dealing with freedom of speech and action in and around polling places.
That language would have prohibited “any activity by any person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters…within or outside the 75-foot boundary at a voting location.”
Liburdi found it was overly broad and likely to burden Arizonans’ First Amendment rights, writing in the decision that “there is generally no problem with excluding intentional threats, intimidation, or coercion,” but “[t]The matter, he said, depends on the fact that the wording also covers actions that have such an effect, regardless of the person’s intention:
He also noted that the manual, as written, regulates actions outside the 75-foot area where certain activities are prohibited by law, such as campaigning or taking photographs.
“Therefore, speech that a listener finds too loud, too offensive, or too outrageous – potentially anywhere in Arizona – is prohibited,” Liburdi wrote.However, it has long been known that speech should not be banned because it concerns topics that offend our sensibilities.”
And then there’s the fact that the ban would be based solely on the listener’s reaction.
“The plaintiffs do not have adequate knowledge of which statements are prohibited” wrote Liburdi. The provision could be enforced by a poll worker, who would have the ability to remove someone from a polling place before they even cast their ballot, he said.
“Additionally, the rule prohibits “offensive” or “insulting” speech without defining which categories of speech constitute the required level of insult or insult“,” he continued. “Without any limitation, election officials and poll workers have virtually unlimited discretion to categorize and regulate a voter’s speech.” [emphasis added]
American Encore, “an Arizona-based group led by Sean Noble that describes itself as promoting free enterprise policies,” and the America First Policy Institute, filed the lawsuit on behalf of an Arizona voter on July 8 “against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D), Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) and Gov [sic] Katie Hobbs (D) in federal court challenging two provisions of the state’s 2023 EPM. The case against Hobbs was later dropped.
It’s one of several lawsuits aimed at protecting election integrity in states across the country:
Breaking: Pennsylvania court rules on massive election integrity victory over mail-in ballots
RNC fights voter fraud in another state and files lawsuit over illegal mail-in voting policy in North Carolina
Fontes’ office responded to the ruling in a statement:
Fontes’ press secretary, Aaron Thacker, said the office will “review the decision in more detail and determine what we will do next, if we need to do anything at all.”
You can read the full order Here.
As this is a developing story, RedState will provide updates as necessary.
