Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Three Anti-Voting Lawsuits in Major Win for Election Access
Agent
Court Declines to Hear Appeals in Mail-in Ballot, Hand Count and Election Certification Cases
Arizona voters have secured significant victories in their efforts to protect election systems after the state Supreme Court declined to hear three separate challenges backed by Republican lawmakers and right-wing groups. The high court's decision on Friday left in place key safeguards for mail-in voting, election administration and certification, marking a major win for voting rights in a battleground state that has been at the center of repeated efforts to reshape election rules since 2020.
In three orders issued Friday, the conservative-leaning court refused to take up appeals in cases that sought to restrict how mail-in ballots are verified, allow counties to hand count ballots and weaken rules governing early voting and election certification. By turning the cases away, the court let lower court rulings stand — preserving systems that make voting more accessible and election results more secure.
The outcome protects voters whose signatures may change over time — including elderly and voters with disabilities — and reduces the risk that valid ballots are wrongly tossed out.
Signature Verification Standard Preserves Mail-in Access
At the center of one case was a challenge from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections — a group founded by former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr — targeting how the state verifies signatures on mail-in ballots.
Under Arizona law, voters who cast a mail ballot must sign the outside envelope. Election officials then compare that signature to ones already on file to confirm identity. The plaintiffs argued officials should only be allowed to compare signatures to a voter's original registration record — a narrower standard that could increase the number of rejected ballots.
State officials, however, use a broader set of records, including past ballot signatures, to make more accurate matches. Lower courts rejected the challenge, and the state Supreme Court's refusal to review the case means that system will remain in place.
The outcome protects voters whose signatures may change over time — including elderly and voters with disabilities — and reduces the risk that valid ballots are wrongly tossed out.
Hand Count Challenge Ends Without Relief
A second case brought by Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould attempted to upend how ballots are counted altogether. Gould argued counties should be allowed to abandon voting machines and conduct full hand counts of ballots — a process election experts widely agree is slower, less accurate and more vulnerable to human error.
Arizona courts dismissed the lawsuit, reaffirming that state law requires ballots to be counted using certified tabulation machines. The appeals court warned that full hand counts would introduce unnecessary risk into the process.
Gould is unsure whether there will really be an opportunity in the future for him to put himself in Attorney General Kris Mayes' legal crosshairs. All this stems from the 2024 election when the Mohave supervisors were weighing whether to proceed with a hand count of the races.
Just putting the issue on the agenda resulted in a letter from Mayes, read to the board at that meeting, warning the supervisors that going down that path could result in various felonies and misdemeanor penalties.
We hope you will choose not to violate the law and thus that it will not be necessary to consider whether criminal prosecution is warranted for conducting an illegal hand count, the attorney general wrote.
Gould contends that had it not been for Mayes' letter, board Chair Travis Lingenfelter would have voted for the hand count, providing the necessary third vote. So he filed suit, asking a trial judge to rule that the use of tabulating machines is not mandatory but optional, that the supervisors can make that choice — and, more to the point, that he should not be subjected to threats and intimidation by the attorney general for voting to have hand counting be the primary initial method of vote tabulation.
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled Gould had no basis to sue. The AG's letter, which provided that criminal penalties may result from the board's vote and that criminal prosecution would be considered for conduct an illegal hand count does not constitute a specific threat of prosecution.
Election Procedures Manual Challenge Falls Short
The third case was a sweeping challenge led by Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and former House Speaker Ben Toma targeting the state's 2023 Election Procedures Manual — a rulebook that guides how elections are run.
Among other things, the lawsuit sought to undermine provisions governing the Active Early Voting List — the system that allows voters to automatically receive mail ballots — and rules requiring counties to certify election results. Lower courts issued mixed rulings, but crucial protections survived — including the rule that voters remain on the early voting list unless properly notified and removed, and the requirement that county officials certify election results once votes are counted.
Republican lawmakers asked the state Supreme Court to revisit those decisions. And the court declined.
That leaves intact two core pillars of Arizona's election system: stable access to mail-in voting and a clear obligation for local officials to finalize election results — preventing efforts to delay or refuse certification.
Taken together, the high court's rejections mark a significant victory for voting rights in a battleground state that has been at the center of repeated efforts to reshape election rules since 2020.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court's decisions mark a significant victory for election administrators and voting rights advocates. The court has consistently rejected efforts to weaken Arizona's election systems, even as similar challenges continue at the federal level.
The Arizona Attorney General's office continues to face scrutiny over its enforcement of election laws. Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould remains convinced that nothing in Arizona law actually mandates the use of machines to count ballots. And that leaves open the possibility he may lead another fight to force a hand count of some future election.
For now, however, Arizona's election systems remain intact, protected by a series of court rulings that have stood the test of legal challenge.
Sources
- Democracy Docket: In win for voters, Arizona Supreme Court rejects string of anti-voting lawsuits
- Arizona Capitol Times: Hand count immunity denied to Mohave County supervisor by Arizona Supreme Court
- Tucson.com: Arizona ballot-count lawsuit over