SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
SETH LEIBSOHN, an individual; ) Arizona Supreme Court
CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY ACTION, ) No. CV-22-0204-AP/EL
a nonprofit corporation; )
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB, a ) Maricopa County
nonprofit corporation; GOLDWATER ) Superior Court
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND ) No. CV2022-009709
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. )
__________________________________) 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. § 19-
118 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. § 19-
118 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. See Declaration of Kori
Lorick 5. 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 and disqualification of circulator
signatures on this record and under these circumstances would
“unreasonably hinder or restrict” the exercise of the 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 the manual submission of required information in the
interim. 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 parties’ requests for
attorney fees as there is no prevailing party. 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