A conservative legal group has hauled Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes into court over his official explanation of Proposition 144, alleging it misleads voters and leaves out core provisions of the Republican-backed election measure. America First Legal wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce to order a rewrite before ballots are printed, according to Arizona Capitol Times reporting.
Prop 144 is a kitchen-sink package. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Alexander Kolodin of Scottsdale, says it would make elections more secure. The text includes lines that “only citizens may register to vote in Arizona elections” and that elections “be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters.” It would add restrictions on foreign spending in Arizona elections, require voter ID for all voters whether they cast ballots in person or “by another method,” and create a presumption that new election laws are valid if connected to a “legitimate state interest,” from timely results to “preserving public confidence.” It leaves the specifics of how ID would work for mail voting to future legislatures. More than 80% of Arizona voters cast ballots by mail, the Capitol Times notes.
Why does this fight matter? Because the explanation appears on the ballot itself. It is the first thing many voters read. It is supposed to be neutral. And this is not happening in a vacuum. Kolodin is also the Republican nominee for secretary of state, set to face Fontes, a Democrat, in November. So any tilt in the description is guaranteed to look like the referee whispering into the microphone. No hearing date has been set.
Attorney James Rogers, representing America First Legal, argues Fontes’s official write-up “omits critical information” and “misleads voters” about key effects. He points out the explainer does not mention the citizenship-only provisions at all. He says Fontes tells voters the foreign money limits are similar to federal law when, Rogers argues, federal law bars foreign contributions to candidates but does not broadly prohibit foreign spending on ballot measures as Prop 144 would. And Rogers calls the explainer’s claim that the new judicial review standard “may make it harder to challenge election laws” a step over the line from explanation into advocacy, labeling it “a contested legal conclusion and litigation prediction.”
Fontes’s office says there is no problem. Spokeswoman Calli Jones says the explanation is legal, neutral and tells voters what they need to know. She says space on the ballot is limited and that repeating “talking points about requiring citizenship and voter ID” would take “unnecessary space,” especially because those points are already state law. As for the broader summary, Jones says, “What was included by the office was necessary, neutral, and provided voters with the needed information regarding the legitimately proposed statutory changes. We have a responsibility to make sure people know what these referrals actually do and how they may change existing law, not regurgitate talking points.”
