Court rules proposed election-law changes can go to Arizona voters

The court rejected arguments that the Republican legislators who wrote Proposition 144 put too many provisions into a single take-it-or-leave-it package. Tempe City Councilman Randy Keating had filed suit against the ballot measure, saying each of the provisions should have to be offered to voters on their own merits.

The measure covers topics ranging from who can spend money to influence campaigns, to a requirement for all voters — including those who vote by mail — to provide identification.

Justice John Lopez wrote for himself and three other justices in the ruling: "These provisions are interrelated because each regulate the same context — the conduct of public elections." Lopez said it's irrelevant that each of the proposed changes could be presented to voters separately.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice Maria Elena Cruz disagreed, saying two of the changes that Prop. 144 would make are not sufficiently interrelated to be presented to voters as a single package.

They said those provisions — one on having early ballots tabulated on site when dropped off, and the other giving lawmakers broad powers to enact new election laws — are not sufficiently linked to everything else the measure would do if approved.

"Voters should be permitted to consider (the two sections) separately,'' Timmer and Cruz wrote. They said putting them in a single package violates constitutional requirements prohibiting disparate subjects from being put into a single ballot measure.

Tuesday's ruling addresses only whether Prop. 144 will be on the ballot. Still to be decided is what voters will be told about the measure through the description on the ballot.

The group America First Legal contends that Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is trying to mislead voters by using words designed to get them to reject the GOP-crafted ballot measure.

A trial judge rejected those claims. America First Legal now is seeking Supreme Court review.

'A single new constitutional section'

Prop. 144 has multiple provisions.

It would place a provision in the Arizona Constitution saying only citizens can vote. It also includes restrictions on spending by foreign nationals to influence elections, and a mandate for all voters to show identification when casting a ballot.

Keating, in filing suit, said constitutional amendments must be "sufficiently related to a common purpose or principle'' to form "a consistent and workable whole.'' What lawmakers put into Prop. 144, he said, were "far-flung areas of the law.''

When a trial judge rejected the claim, Keating appealed. The Supreme Court majority, while acknowledging the multiple sections, rejected his claim.

"They embrace the single general topic of election administration of public elections,'' Lopez wrote. "They concern a single new constitutional section. And they are qualitatively similar in their shared aim of ensuring that Arizona elections are decided by, and only by, eligible citizen voters.''

Timmer and Cruz said that's true of most of the provision, but not the two they said voters should be allowed to decide separately. 

One deals with the issue of early ballots, which voters can mail back or can choose to drop off at a polling place. 

Generally speaking, election workers have taken these ballots back to a central office where they are processed by comparing the signatures on the outside of the ballots with existing records. Only if they match can election workers open the envelopes and tabulate the results.

Proponents have said the high number of people who drop off early ballots unnecessarily slows results.

Prop. 144 would allow — but not require — those who bring early ballots to polling places to present the same kind of identification they would need if voting in person. If that matches, the envelope could be opened there, and the ballots immediately tabulated along with those cast in person.

The dissenting justices said that should not have been combined with the other provisions and instead offered on its own.

They also argued that voters should have been given the option to separately consider putting language in the Arizona Constitution to say all future election laws are presumed to be legal as long as they are connected to what the Legislature considers a "legitimate state interest.'' That is defined as covering everything from getting timely election results to the broader category of "preserving public confidence in the integrity of elections.''

Separate challenge to ballot wording

The wording in that section also is behind the separate legal challenge to the ballot wording.

Under Arizona law, the secretary of state is required to prepare a short title for each measure as well as a brief explanation of the effects of voting "yes'' or "no'' on the item. That language goes on the ballot itself.

James Rogers, attorney for America First Legal, contends that Fontes broke the law by writing that approval of the language spelling out the authority of the Legislature may "make it harder to challenge election laws.'' Rogers said that amounts to making improper legal predictions, in a way that could affect whether people decide to vote for the measure.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce rejected that argument.

"The fact that it is unknown precisely how the language will be applied or interpreted by the courts does not preclude the secretary from describing its potential impact, nor does it render that description false or clearly misleading,'' she wrote. "Rather, the description can reasonably be regarded as an attempt to provide necessary and appropriate information to the voting public.''

The justices have not said when they will rule on that issue.