Photo via Getty Images
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Republican-backed ballot referral that would amend the state’s constitution to make sweeping changes to how elections are conducted can remain on the November ballot.
Critics had argued that Proposition 144, also known as the “Fast Accurate Secure Transparent Election Results Act,” violated a provision in the Arizona Constitution that demands that proposed constitutional amendments be limited to a single action.
The GOP-crafted ballot measure would prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence state elections — they are already barred from giving to candidates, but can give money to other political committees — require every voter to show government identification before casting a ballot in every election and require all polling locations to provide on-site tabulation of ballots for voters who want it. It would also create a new standard for challenging election laws enacted by the state legislature.
It also adds a constitutional provision declaring that “only citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections,” and that the results of the elections “shall be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters.” Both of those provisions are already in state law, and have been since Arizona became a state.
Tempe City Councilman Randy Keating challenged Prop. 144’s constitutionality and sought to have it removed from the ballot, claiming that it violated the Arizona Constitution’s Separate Amendment Rule.
A trial court dismissed Keating’s arguments last week, and he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which concurred with the lower court in its ruling on Tuesday.
Vice Chief Justice John Lopez wrote for the majority that the provisions in Prop. 144 were topically related, given they all pertain to the administration of Arizona elections.
“They embrace the single general topic of election administration of public elections; 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,” Lopez wrote.
Joining in the majority opinion were Justices James Beene, Bill Montgomery and Kathryn King.
Lopez wrote that even though the provisions cover different aspects of election administration, they are all aimed at “protecting the franchise from ineligible participation and foreign influence and ensuring eligible votes are accurately counted.”
Written by state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican, Prop. 144 was one of five controversial last-minute ballot referrals that the Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature approved along party lines in a marathon night of voting on the last day of the annual legislative session in June.
Kolodin, the Republican nominee challenging Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in his race for reelection in November, is an attorney and election denier who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2023 for his part in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election that made implausible and evidence-free claims of massive election fraud.
Chief Justice Ann Timmer and Justice Maria Elena Cruz dissented, writing that they would reverse the lower court’s decision because portions of Prop. 144 are not sufficiently related to one another that they “should stand or fall as a whole.”
In their dissent, Timmer and Cruz wrote that the provisions requiring counties to offer on-site tabulation for voters on Election Day to speed up results and a section that would make challenging election laws passed by the legislature more difficult are distinct enough from the rest of the measure that they constitute separate amendments. Voters should be able decide on them separately, they said.
Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case.
The Arizona Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether it will force Fontes to change the description of Prop. 144 to be placed on the ballot. The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation challenged the description, saying it was misleading and didn’t contain key provisions. The high court has until the Aug. 20 ballot printing deadline to make its ruling.
