BREAKING: Maricopa County Recorder Files Action In AZ Supreme Court, Could Force 97,000 Long-Time Voters To Present Proof of Citizenship Or Lose Ballot Access

UPDATE, 9/20, 6:15pm: BREAKING, VICTORY: AZ Supreme Court REFUSES to Order Recorders To Move 98,000 Long-time Arizonans To Fed-Only  List Weeks Before Ballots Hit the Mail

Commends @stephen_richer, @Adrian_Fontes for bringing it to them quickly

​

Update, 4:50pm: The Arizona Supreme Court is moving fast. The Secretary of State's Response is due by 4:00pm tomorrow. (Fontes already had declared that he is ready to file it by then.) Any amicus (aka friend of the court) briefs are also due by then, and the Justices will quickly decide whether to accept this emergency Special Action.

************

Original article, 9/17: "BREAKING: Maricopa County Recorder Files Action In AZ Supreme Court, Could Force 97,000 Long-Time Voters To Present Proof of Citizenship Or Lose Ballot Access"

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has filed an emergency action with the Arizona Supreme Court today, seeking guidance on what to do about 97,000 voters (statewide) who are impacted by a just-discovered glitch in the Motor Vehicle Department's system. 

The voters may have long been assumed to have presented documented proof of citizenship to MVD because they received a duplicate license, and the "issuance date" was updated. Therefore, County Recorders believed that MVD had verified citizenship status when it may not have.

Richer asks the Justices for guidance on whether or not he should switch those people - more than 50,000 in Maricopa County - from the full-ballot status they have had to only being able to vote a "federal-only" ballot (President, Senate, House of Representatives)... unless they immediately provide proof of citizenship.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes notes that federal law prohibits counties from conducting voter list maintenance within 90 days of an election. This would definitely apply. He also notes today that most of those impacted are 45-60years old, and more are Republican than Democrat.

In 2004, Arizonans passed a proposition that required the proof of citizenship - instead of simply swearing under penalty of law that you are a citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court then ruled that such a requirement violated federal laws, and Arizona came up with a unique system that gave full ballot status to those who provided the proof, and "fed-only" status to those who used the federal voter registration form AND did not provide proof.

Because Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division has required proof of citizenship for most drivers - non-citizens have a separate class of driver's license which will (also) not permit voter registration - Arizonans filling out the federal form but writing their AZ DL number down are checked and given full ballot status.

The reset of the issuance date of the driver's license when someone gets a replacement license meant that County Recorders confirmed full-ballot statuts for 97,000 people who had not provided MVD with proof.

Soooo, this may apply to Arizonans who had their AZDL (or, ID) before 2004, BUT they registered to vote - or, re-registered after moving (from county to county - post-2004. AND, their DL had been updated and showed a post-1996 issuance date.

Richer is represented by Snell & Wilmer.

The Emergency Action attaches communications between the parties from yesterday and today. We also obtained those documents from the Secretary of State pursuant to a public records request. (Published below.)

This is only one of the moving pieces surrounding Arizona's unique bifurcated ballot statuses. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that Recorders REJECT new voter registration applications submitted on the state's application that do not include a (qualifying) AZDL or attached proof of citizenship, but to ACCEPT the same potential voter (with fed-only status) if they use the federal application.

Meanwhile, groups are hurriedly trying to assist "fed-only" voters to "cure" their status so that they can vote a full ballot. (I assisted several voters with that yesterday, in fact.)

Here is an explanatory news conference from Secretary of State Fontes:  

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Mark Meadows' Criminal Charges In Arizona REMAIN in State Court, Federal Judge Rules (READ Order)

Mark Meadows, President Donald Trump's Chiefs of Staff in the White House in late 2020, will continue to face criminal charges in Arizona state court. U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi today declined to accept Meadows' effort to remove the case to federal court.

In a 15-page Order, Tuchi finds that Meadows filed his Notice of Removal more than two weeks past the deadline, and did not present good cause for that tardiness. Meadows had claimed that he was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Trump immunity case. However, Tuchi decided that that was not a reason for not filing the Notice on time.

The judge went on to consider the substantive issue behind Meadows' request, anyway. Tuchi noted that Arizona's indictment of Meadows was because of his alleged activities in furthering the plan to have Arizona Republicans come up with a false declaration of their electors being Arizona's official electors. Therefore, Meadows' description of his Chief of Staff duties of simply being a liaison to the President did not hold water. "Mr. Meadows has not so much removed the State’s indictment as rewritten it," he wrote.

"Although the Court credits Mr. Meadows’s theory that the Chief of Staff is responsible for acting as the President’s gatekeeper, that conclusion does not create a causal nexus between Mr. Meadows’s official authority and the charged conduct.7 Therefore, because the Court concludes that the conduct charged in the State’s prosecution does not relate to Mr. Meadows’s color of former office, the Court must remand this case to state court for want of subject-matter jurisdiction."

Trial in the state court for Meadows and the Arizona's alleged "fake electors" is set for January, 2026. 

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: AZ Supreme Court THROWS OUT AZ Republican Party Action Challenging Hobbs' Executive Orders Encouraging Polling Places & Drop Boxes

The Arizona Supreme Court DISMISSED in quick order a Special Action Petition filed by the Arizona Republican Party challenging two election-related Executive Orders issued last year by Governor Katie Hobbs. The Executive Orders encouraged Arizona counties to make use of state facilities for polling places and drop boxes.

Chief Justice Ann Timmer's Order scolded the party for not justifying filing the action directly with the Supreme Court, and for why it waited so long after the Executive Orders were issued. The attorney for the AZGOP was Andrew Gould, one of Timmer's former colleagues on the Supreme Court bench.

The Court concludes that Petitioners have not presented adequate justification for the action to commence in this Court rather than the superior court. The issues raised in the special action petition will not be mooted by the November 2024 election. We further note that Petitioners have not addressed why neither EO was challenged until this point in time. An earlier challenge would have permitted the Petitioners to secure a final ruling well before the upcoming election.

The Supreme Court declined to award attorneys' fees to the Governor, who hired Arizona election law attorney Andy Gaona to defeat the petition.

The Republican Party can choose to refile the action in a lower court.

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BREAKING: Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould Strikes Out On Hand Count Case Against AG Mayes (READ Minute Entry)

Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould cannot get legal immunity in advance for voting to hand count all upcoming election ballots. His lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes was dismissed today by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky.

Gould filed the declaratory judgment action early this year, after Mayes had advised the Mohave County Board that conducting a full hand count would be against Arizona laws (that Gould had helped shape as a former lawmaker).

The case was dismissed before trial because Gould's rights as one Supervisor were not yet impacted (because his fellow Supervisors voted against a full hand count). "Supervisor Gould cannot seek relief that can only be sought through collective action of the Board, if it can be sought at all," wrote Astrowsky.

The judge did not assess attorneys' fees sanctions against Gould because the statute the AG's attorneys used to ask for the fees only applies when one government (official) sues another. Astrowsky noted that the AG had earlier argued that Gould was only suing as a (non-official) individual.

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.