LEIBSOHN et al v HOBBS/VOTERS RIGHT TO KNOW (Decision Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA SETH LEIBSOHN, an individual; CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY ACTION, a nonprofit corporation; ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB, a nonprofit corporation; GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND RESEARCH, a nonprofit corporation; and AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY, a nonprofit corporation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) KATIE HOBBS, in her capacity as ) the Secretary of State of ) Arizona, ) ) Defendant/Appellee, ) ) VOTERS’ RIGHT TO KNOW, a ) political committee, ) ) Real Party in Interest/Appellee. ) __________________________________) Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0204-AP/EL Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-009709 FILED 08/24/2022 DECISION ORDER Before the Court is an expedited election appeal regarding the “Voters’ Right to Know Act” (Serial Number I-04-2022), a proposed initiative for the November 8, 2022 General Election. The Act seeks to enact statutes that eliminate dark money practices by requiring public disclosure of the original sources of contributions of over $5,000 to fund campaign media spending in an election cycle. Appellants challenged the legal sufficiency of the petitions of certain circulators, initially raising four objections but pursuing Arizona Supreme Court No. CV 22-0204-AP/EL Page 2 of 4 only two objections on appeal. Relevant here, Appellants argued: (1) certain circulators were not properly registered under A.R.S. § 19118 because they failed to submit a new or updated affidavit with their registration application specific to I-04-2022 as required by A.R.S. § 19-118(B)(5); and (2) certain circulators who reside in multiunit structures were not properly registered under A.R.S. § 19118 because they failed to provide a residence address that included a relevant unit number. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied these two objections. Appellants timely appealed. The Court, en banc, has considered the briefs and authorities in the record, the superior court’s ruling, and the relevant statutes and case law in this expedited election matter. The Court unanimously finds that A.R.S. § 19-118 does require each circulator to submit a separate affidavit as one of five required items in each registration application submitted for each petition he or she circulates. But any circulators’ lack of compliance with § 19-118 does not invalidate the signatures gathered by these circulators on the record and circumstances before us. The Circulator Portal established by the Secretary of State’s Office (SOS), which was in operation at the time the Governor and the Attorney General approved the 2019 Elections Procedures Manual pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-452, by design does not permit the submission of more than one affidavit per circulator. Lorick 5. See Declaration of Kori By also refusing to accept manual submission of a hard Arizona Supreme Court No. CV 22-0204-AP/EL Page 3 of 4 copy affidavit, see id. at 3, the SOS rendered it impossible for circulators to successfully submit a registration application as required by § 19-118 for I-04-2022 if they had already registered to circulate other petitions. The Court unanimously declines to find that the initiative committee, Voters’ Right to Know, or any individual circulator failed to comply with § 19-118 when the SOS has prevented such compliance. A finding of non-compliance signatures on this “unreasonably hinder record or and and disqualification under restrict” the these of circulator circumstances exercise of the would initiative power under article 4, part 1, sections (1) and (2) of the Arizona Constitution. Stanwitz v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 344, 348 ¶ 14 (2018), as amended (Nov. 27, 2018) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, signatures collected by such circulators in connection with I-04-2022 are not subject to disqualification. We have every expectation that the SOS will remedy deficiencies in the submission of information through the Circulator Portal and accommodate interim. the manual submission of required information in the However, if an initiative committee seeks to submit the information required pursuant to § 19-118 and the SOS refuses to accept it, an aggrieved party should seek special action relief. The Court further unanimously finds that § 19-118(B)(1) does not require a circulator residing in a multiunit structure to provide a unit number in connection with a residence address. Therefore, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV 22-0204-AP/EL Page 4 of 4 circulators who did not supply a unit number nonetheless complied with the statute. IT IS ORDERED affirming the superior court’s judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the attorney fees as there is no prevailing party. parties’ requests for See § 19-118(F). A written Opinion detailing the Court’s reasoning will follow in due course. DATED this 24th day of August, 2022. /s/ ROBERT BRUTINEL Chief Justice TO: Thomas J Basile Kory A Langhofer Amy B Chan Noah Gabrielsen Joshua David Rothenberg Bendor Joshua J. Messer Travis Charles Hunt Annabel Barraza Spencer Garrett Scharff Hon. Joseph P Mikitish Hon. Jeff Fine Alberto Rodriguez Timothy A LaSota Dominic Emil Draye
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
