Az Public Integrity v. Adrian Fontes, 475 P.3d 303

Background

Maricopa County Recorder replaced the Secretary of State’s prescribed overvote instruction (which told mail-in voters that overvotes won’t be counted and to request a new ballot) with a “New Instruction” in 2020 primaries instructing voters to cross out mistakes and fill in corrected ovals.
Plaintiffs (Arizona Public Integrity Alliance and Tyler Montague) filed a special action seeking to enjoin inclusion of the New Instruction in mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3, 2020 General Election; the superior court denied relief; the Arizona Supreme Court accepted transfer and review.
Key legal framework: A.R.S. § 16-452 delegates rulemaking for early-voting instructions to the Secretary of State, who issues the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM); the Recorder is statutorily limited to supplying the EPM’s instructions to voters.
Statutes and the EPM state overvotes are invalid and instruct voters to request a new ballot; recent statutory/EPM amendments require adjudication boards to attempt to determine voter intent for some rejected ballots, but do not authorize the Recorder to prescribe correction methods.
The Attorney General and Plaintiffs demanded removal of the New Instruction; the County ultimately removed it and met mailing deadlines; the Supreme Court held the Recorder acted unlawfully and enjoined use of the New Instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to promulgate mail-in ballot instructions	Recorder lacks authority; only Secretary may adopt instructions via EPM	Recorder claims authority to include guidance and that new practice is lawful	Recorder lacked authority; only Secretary’s EPM instructions may be supplied by Recorder
Whether New Instruction complies with Arizona law on overvotes	New Instruction contradicts EPM and statutes that tell voters to obtain a new ballot, risking invalid/uncountable ballots	Recorder says amendments and adjudication rules allow counting overvotes and justify instructing voters how to correct mistakes without requesting new ballots	New Instruction conflicts with EPM and law; it is unlawful and may produce invalid overvotes; EPM Overvote Instruction controls
Standing to bring mandamus/special action	Plaintiffs, as voters/citizens, are "beneficially interested" and may compel performance of non-discretionary duties under §12-2021	Recorder contends plaintiffs lack particularized injury and assert only generalized grievance	Plaintiffs have sufficient beneficial interest under mandamus principles and may sue to compel compliance
Injunctive relief / laches / timing	Plaintiffs likely to succeed on merits; public interest favors injunction; County not prejudiced by timing	County argues delay prevents reprinting before statutory mailing deadlines and asserts laches	Court enjoined use of New Instruction; County met mailing deadlines and laches/prejudice argument fails

Key Cases Cited

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (election regulation principle: vote integrity and structured electoral process)
Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs, 471 P.3d 607 (Ariz. 2020) (standing/role of courts in upholding law)
Fitzgerald v. Myers, 243 Ariz. 84 (Ariz. 2017) (de novo review of statutory and rule construction)
Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (standard of review for denials of preliminary injunction)
Armer v. Superior Court, 112 Ariz. 478 (Ariz. 1975) (public beneficiaries have standing to compel statutory duties)
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 231 Ariz. 366 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (mandamus for non-discretionary duties)
Burton v. Celentano, 134 Ariz. 594 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (where acts declared unlawful, injunction may issue without showing irreparable harm)