PROTECT OUR ARIZONA v HOBBS/HEALTHCARE RISING (Decision Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA PROTECT OUR ARIZONA, a political committee, ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) 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. ) __________________________________) Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0203-AP/EL Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-009335 FILED 08/24/2022 DECISION ORDER Before the Court is an expedited election appeal regarding the Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act (Serial No. I-052022), 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 the Our Arizona initiative, challenged initially the raising legal sufficiency of 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 “[d]oes not objectively was change false legally insufficient existing or law misleading; because regarding and (2) the secured certain phrase debt” was 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 qualified to appear on the general election ballot. the Act 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. lack of signatures compliance gathered with by § 19-118 these But any circulators’ does not circulators on invalidate the record the 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 circulator. See Declaration of Kori Lorick 5. affidavit per 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 Constitution. 1, sections Stanwitz v. (1) Reagan, and (2) of 245 Ariz. the 344, Arizona 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 deficiencies Circulator every in Portal expectation the and submission that of accommodate required information in the interim. the SOS information the manual will remedy through submission the of 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 sufficient and further alerted a unanimously finds reasonable person provisions’ general objectives. 20 (2020). The summary, the to summary the is principal See Molera v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 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. A written Opinion detailing the See § 19-118(F). 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
