Protect Our Arizona v. hobbs/healthcare Rising ( 2022 )

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
PROTECT OUR ARIZONA, a political ) Arizona Supreme Court
committee, ) No. CV-22-0203-AP/EL
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Maricopa County
) Superior Court
v. ) No. CV2022-009335
)
KATIE HOBBS, in her capacity as )
the Secretary of State of )
Arizona, )
)
Defendant/Appellee, )
)
ARIZONANS FED UP WITH FAILING )
HEALTHCARE (HEALTHCARE RISING AZ),)
a political committee, )
)
Real Party in Interest/Appellee. )
__________________________________) FILED 08/24/2022
DECISION ORDER
Before the Court is an expedited election appeal regarding
the Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act (Serial No. I-05-
2022), a proposed initiative for the November 8, 2022 General
Election. The Act seeks to amend certain statutes governing
interest rates on medical debt as well as a debtor’s property
exemptions.
Appellant Protect Our Arizona challenged the legal
sufficiency of the initiative, initially raising five
objections. Appellant later withdrew all but two objections.
Relevant to the appeal, Appellant argued: (1) the initiative’s
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0203 AP/EL
Page 2 of 5
98-word summary was legally insufficient because the phrase
“[d]oes not change existing law regarding secured debt” was
objectively false or misleading; and (2) certain circulators
were not properly registered because they failed to submit a new
or updated affidavit with their registration application.
After a trial and oral arguments, the superior court denied
Appellant’s remaining two objections and determined the Act
qualified to appear on the general election ballot. Appellant
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
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0203 AP/EL
Page 3 of 5
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 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-05-2022 if they had already registered to
circulate other petitions.
The Court unanimously declines to find that the initiative
committee, Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare (Healthcare
Rising AZ), 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-05-2022 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
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0203 AP/EL
Page 4 of 5
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 the summary is
sufficient and alerted a reasonable person to the principal
provisions’ general objectives. See Molera v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz.
20 (2020). The summary, when read as a whole, is not
objectively false or misleading.
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
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0203 AP/EL
Page 5 of 5
TO:
Thomas J Basile
Kory A Langhofer
Amy B Chan
Noah Gabrielsen
James E Barton II
Jacqueline Soto
Joshua David Rothenberg Bendor
Joshua J. Messer
Travis Charles Hunt
Annabel Barraza
Hon. Frank W Moskowitz
Alberto Rodriguez
Hon. Jeff Fine
Christina Sandefur
Timothy Sandefur
Daniel J Adelman
Samuel Schnarch
Patrick J Kane
Roy Herrera
Daniel A Arellano
Timothy A LaSota
Dominic Emil Draye