Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a man who owns his job thanks to the massive fraud in Maricopa County has been slapped down by a federal judge after he tried to assert his power to certify an election should any county refuse to certify the election even if fraud was discovered. This was an attempt to scare county clerks into certifying the election even if massive fraud was found. The judge ruled against him based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Judge Michael T. Liburdi issued an order on a challenge to the Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM) in a recent lawsuit pitting American Encore and Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Secretary of State, against each other. The plaintiffs contended that the manual’s “Speech Provision” and “Canvass Provision” violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, which would disenfranchise voters in any county where fraud was found. Fontes contended that he could certify the election no matter how much fraud took place.
In the manual put out by Fontes under the heading of Speech Provision, the plaintiffs argued that the overly broad provision could be used to shut down free speech. Fontes could claim voter intimidation and shut down speech protected by the First Amendment. On the Canvass Provision, the plaintiffs claimed that giving the Secretary of State the authority to proceed with the state canvass process without the input from county clerks would risk disenfranchising voters.
The plaintiffs cited the 2022 election in Cochise County, where election officials delayed certifying results, as an example of how this rule could be misused to throw out legally cast votes.
In the judge’s ruling, they referred to the “Winter factors,” which come from a 2008 Supreme Court case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and are used to evaluate whether a court should issue a preliminary injunction.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELA preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily halts a specific action while a case is ongoing, preventing potential harm or injustice.
The Court concluded that all four Winter factors weighed decisively in favor of granting the Plaintiffs preliminary relief. As a result, the Court has issued an injunction preventing the Defendants from enforcing the controversial Canvass Provision during the course of the ongoing litigation.
The Winter test, derived from the Supreme Court case Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., establishes the criteria for courts to grant preliminary injunctions. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, (2) a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Here, the Court found that the Plaintiffs met all four prongs:
-
- Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The Court determined that the Plaintiffs presented strong legal arguments suggesting that the Canvass Provision, which allows the Arizona Secretary of State to exclude county votes from the state’s final tally if a county withholds certification, is unconstitutional. This provision potentially disenfranchises entire counties and undermines the integrity of the electoral process. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had a strong chance of succeeding in proving that this provision violated federal law and the Constitution.
-
- Irreparable Harm: The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that enforcing the Canvass Provision would cause irreparable harm to Arizona voters by depriving them of their constitutional right to have their votes counted. Once voters are disenfranchised, the harm cannot be undone after the fact, making this a key factor in favor of the Plaintiffs.
-
- Balance of Equities: The Court weighed the potential harms to both sides and found that the harm to voters and counties if the Canvass Provision were enforced outweighed any inconvenience to the Secretary of State. The ability to certify election results must be balanced with the need to ensure that those results are accurate and representative of all votes cast. In this case, the balance of equities tipped in favor of preventing potential disenfranchisement.
-
- Public Interest: Finally, the Court determined that the public interest favored halting the Canvass Provision’s enforcement. The integrity of the electoral process and the right of all eligible voters to have their voices heard are paramount in a democratic society. Allowing the provision to remain in place during the legal proceedings could undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections.As a result the judge issued an injunction saying that the election manual written by Fontes could not be put in play.
