Case Summary
LWVAZ, Campaign Legal Center, and Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief supporting several provisions of the Arizona Elections Procedures Manual on conduct in the polling places and voter intimidation. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club had filed a lawsuit in state court alleging the provisions were unconstitutional under the Arizona and United States constitutions and state law.
Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual provides guidance to election officials on administering the state’s election laws. The manual is prepared by the Arizona Secretary of State and approved by the state’s attorney general and governor.
Among the provisions included in the version for the 2024 election were several regulations against electioneering, photography, restrictions on access to voting locations, and voter intimidation.
On February 9, 2024, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (“AFEC”), a conservative group promoting “election integrity,” filed a state court lawsuit in the Maricopa County Superior Court. Among other claims, the complaint alleged that certain provisions concerning voter intimidation and polling place conduct were unconstitutional under the free speech protections of the United States and Arizona constitutions.
The plaintiff also argued that other provisions in the EPM, which allowed certain voters registered to vote only in federal elections to vote in presidential primaries, violated the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. Finally, AFEC asserted that the EPM was unconstitutionally vague and that the Secretary of State had exceeded his authority in enacting several of the provisions.
On March 22, 2024, the League of Women Voters of Arizona (LWVAZ), Protect Democracy, and the Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief defending the EPM. The brief argued that the case was not ripe for adjudication due to the lack of facts showing a dispute that could be resolved by the court.
On June 9, 2024, LWVAZ, Protect Democracy, and the Campaign Legal Center filed a second amicus brief supporting the Secretary of State’s motion to dismiss. The League asserted that AFEC had no standing to bring the lawsuit and that the voter intimidation provisions at issue accurately summarized federal and state law and were appropriate to include. Finally, LWV Arizona asserted that the right to free speech did not include the right to commit voter intimidation.
LWVAZ is represented in this matter by Osborn Maledon.
LWV Timeline
Plaintiff files complaint
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club files a lawsuit alleging several provisions of the Elections Procedures Manual on voter intimidation were unconstitutional and illegal under state law.
Secretary of State files motion to dismiss
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes files a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff has no standing to sue and that the EPM provides guidance to election officials in implementing laws rather than making new laws.
LWVAZ files amicus brief
LWVAZ files an amicus brief supporting the motion to dismiss, asserting that the lawsuit is procedurally defective due to a lack of imminent injury caused to AFEC by the EPM and an incorrect understanding of First Amendment law.
Plaintiff files amended complaint
AFEC files an amended complaint withdrawing some of their previous claims.
LWVAZ files second amicus brief
LWVAZ, Protect Democracy, and Campaign Legal Center file a second amicus brief supporting the EPM provisions at issue. The brief points out defects in the plaintiff’s standing and emphasizes there is no First Amendment right to engage in voter intimidation.
Court grants preliminary injunction
The court partially grants AFEC’s request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the Secretary of State exceeded his authority when publishing the voter intimidation provisions of the EPM.
Defendants appeal trial court ruling
Trial court denies stay pending appeal
The trial court declines to stay its ruling while the Secretary of State appeals to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
LWV Arizona files amicus brief in court of appeals
LWVAZ files an amicus brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by granting relief to the plaintiffs when they had failed to meet the standard for a facial or overbreadth challenge to the EPM provisions at issue. LWVAZ also argued the EPM was guidance to election officials under Arizona law and precedent, and not binding rules for the public.
Arizona Court of Appeals grants partial stay
The Arizona Court of Appeals grants a partial stay of the trial court's ruling. The order reinstates portions of the EPM that require polling place officials to prevent voter intimidation, preserve order and forbid bringing weapons into polling places.
Court stays case
By agreement of the parties, the trial court issues an order staying the case and pausing proceedings.
Parties agree to dismiss case
The parties jointly agree to dismiss the case, citing the revisions to the provisions at issue in the new 2025 Elections Procedures Manual.