PHOENIX β An attorney for Gov. Katie Hobbs is taking a swat at the head of the Arizona Republican Party, accusing her of a last-minute attempt to use the courts to undermine voter confidence and access.
In filings at the Arizona Supreme Court, Andy Gaona tells the justices there is no basis for the new lawsuit by Gina Swoboda seeking to void executive orders issued by the governor last year to ease registration and voting. The orders βseverely harm and diminish the public and voterβs confidence in election integrity,ββ Swoboda claims.
βThese allegations make no sense,ββ Gaona said in his response on behalf of the governor. He said even if the orders somehow diminished the confidence of Swoboda and her allies β something he is not conceding β their beliefs would be βobjectively unreasonable.ββ
One allows state agencies to make their facilities available for voting locations or where people can drop off their ballots. The other directs some state agencies to make voter registration forms available to the public.
On the first, Gaona noted that each county that decides where to set up polling places and locate drop boxes, not the governor.
βCounties designating state facilities as voting locations has nothing more to do with βelection integrityβ than any other designation that counties make,ββ he said. βAnd state agencies making voter registration forms available has nothing more to do with βelection integrityβ than anyone else (including the Arizona Republican Party) doing the same.ββ
And Gaona suggested that thereβs something political in the timing of the litigation β 2 1/2 months before the general election β given that Hobbs signed the orders last November.
βPetitioners should have filed in superior court months ago, but waited until the day before the ballot printing deadline for the general election in their craven attempt to cast doubt on Arizonaβs elections process and limit Arizonansβ access to the democratic process,ββ he told the Supreme Court, where Swoboda chose to file her complaint. And he called the claims βthe very definition of frivolous, relying on nonsensical reading of the orders and relevant statutes.ββ
In fact, he contends the whole filing so lacks merit that Swoboda and the other two people who filed suit with her should pay the governorβs legal fees βto dissuade parties from using this court to bring frivolous claims that do little more than continue false narratives about elections in our state.ββ
The first of the executive orders allows state state buildings to be used as voting sites or ballot drop-off locations this year and into the future. Attorney Andrew Gould said it is flawed, saying it does not address things like where to store completed ballots until they can be sent to the appropriate election officials.
And he said it isnβt within the governorβs power to designate state agencies as voting and ballot drop-off locations.
Gould also wants the Supreme Court to void another Hobbs executive order which directs agencies to include on their public websites a link that directs users to either the Secretary of Stateβs voter registration website or an online voter portal for registration operated by the Motor Vehicle Division. It also says the agencies should make paper registration forms available in βconspicuous public locations.ββ
He contends that βsubstantively and fundamentally exceeds her constitutional and statutory authority.ββ
Both arguments, Gaona told the justices, are flawed.
It starts, he said, with that claim that Hobbs was wresting power from county election officials. Gaona said the order does no such things
βInstead, it orders the Arizona Department of Administration to βcoordinate with state agencies and countiesβ to determine whether there are state facilities that counties could choose to use as polling places,ββ Gaona said. βIt doesnβt order ADOA to unilaterally designate voting locations, nor does it force any county to use any state facility as a voting location.ββ
As to the other order, he pointed out there is nothing in state law that prohibits agencies from providing Arizonans with voter registration forms.
βIn fact, the county recorder must also βdistribute state mail-in registration forms at locations throughout the county such as government offices, fire stations, public libraries and other locations open to the general public,ββ Gaona said, quote state law. βEven more to the point, βthe county recorder may provide voter registration forms in quantity to groups and individuals that request forms for conducting voter registration drives.β ββ
All that, he said, makes the lawsuit even more questionable.
βThat petitioners β including the chair of one of Arizonaβs major political parties β objects to state agencies making voter registration forms (which they receive from elections officials) available to the public speaks volumes,ββ Gaona said.
If nothing else, he said, Swoboda and the two other plaintiffs lack standing to seek to have both ordered enjoined.
Under Arizona law, one of the factors a judge has to consider is whether failure to issue an injunction will result in βirreparable harmββ to the person seeking the order.
βPetitioners seeking injunction relief must show that they themselves will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction,ββ Gaona said. βNo petitioner even tries to explain how the executive orders could personally and irreparably harm them.
As he sees it, the lawsuit turns the issue of harm on its head.
βItβs difficult to understand how the equities or public policy would ever favor removing voter registration information from state offices or precluding state agencies from allowing counties to use their facilities as polling places of ballot drop-off locations,ββ Gaona said.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to even consider Swobodaβs lawsuit.