A judge has found that Arizona’s signature matching process for mail-in ballots is unlawful, delivering what the plaintiffs in the lawsuit called a “massive win” for election integrity.
Specifically, the group argued that Mr. Fontes’s interpretation of “registration record” in the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual was unreasonably broad and improperly expanded the pool of signatures with which an early ballot affidavit signature could be compared, increasing the risk of false positives.
“While state law requires county recorders to match mail-ballot signatures with signatures in the voter’s ‘registration record,’ the Secretary instructed them to use a broader and less reliable universe of comparison signatures,” RITE said in a Sept. 5 statement on the court ruling.
“That means the Secretary was requiring ballots to be counted despite using a signature that did not match anything in the voter’s registration record. This was a clear violation of state law.”
Former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who sued Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s election, took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to post about the decision.
“This is what happens when you don’t back down from a fight.”
Dispute Over ‘Registration Record’
Court documents show that Mr. Fontes argued that the legal definition of “registration record” is ambiguous, and so he’s entitled to provide guidance on its interpretation.“The answer is ‘no.’”
The attorneys listed reasons that include the secretary of state’s statutory authority to conduct elections fairly and impartially.
But the judge disagreed with the reasoning.
“This argument fails because there is no ambiguity in the statute,” Judge Napper wrote in his opinion.
He noted that the Arizona “statute is clear and unambiguous” in that it requires the recorder to “review the voter’s registration card” and not other documents bearing the voter’s signature.
Judge Napper also noted that Mr. Fontes’s signature-matching process in the Election Procedures Manual “contradicts the plain language” of Arizona elections laws by allowing signature matching with documents that have “nothing to do with the act of registering.”
Accordingly, the judge denied Mr. Fontes’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In a statement, Derek Lyons, CEO of RITE, called the decision a “huge victory toward securing the elections that Arizonans deserve, which are elections they can trust.”
“RITE will build on this victory to continue to fight in court for elections that are administered according to democratically enacted laws, not illegal partisan commands,” he said.
The group said in a statement that the ruling shows that Mr. Fontes must change his signature verification procedures before the next election to “protect the integrity of Arizona’s mail-in balloting process” or face further legal consequences.
It’s unclear whether the ruling will have any implications for Ms. Lake’s lawsuit against Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s gubernatorial election.
