In win for voters, Arizona Supreme Court rejects string of anti-voting lawsuits

Arizona voters notched sweeping, back-to-back victories Friday after the state Supreme Court declined to hear three separate challenges backed by Republicans and right-wing groups — leaving in place key safeguards for mail-in voting, election administration and certification.

In three orders issued Friday, the conservative-leaning court refused to take up appeals in cases that sought to restrict how mail-in ballots are verified, allow counties to hand count ballots and weaken rules governing early voting and election certification.

By turning the cases away, the court let lower court rulings stand — preserving systems that make voting more accessible and election results more secure.

At the center of one case was a challenge from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections — a group founded by former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr — targeting how the state verifies signatures on mail-in ballots. Under Arizona law, voters who cast a mail ballot must sign the outside envelope. Election officials then compare that signature to ones already on file to confirm identity.

The plaintiffs argued officials should only be allowed to compare signatures to a voter’s original registration record — a narrower standard that could increase the number of rejected ballots. State officials, however, use a broader set of records, including past ballot signatures, to make more accurate matches.

Lower courts rejected the challenge, and the state Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case means that system will remain in place. 

The outcome protects voters whose signatures may change over time — including elderly and voters with disabilities — and reduces the risk that valid ballots are wrongly tossed out.

A second case, brought by Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould, attempted to upend how ballots are counted altogether.

Gould argued counties should be allowed to abandon voting machines and conduct full hand counts of ballots — a process election experts widely agree is slower, less accurate and more vulnerable to human error.

Arizona courts dismissed the lawsuit, reaffirming that state law requires ballots to be counted using certified tabulation machines. 

The appeals court warned that full hand counts would introduce unnecessary risk into the process. By declining to hear the case, the state Supreme Court left that ruling intact — blocking efforts to replace standardized counting systems with ad hoc local practices.

The third case was a sweeping challenge led by Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R) and former House Speaker Ben Toma (R) targeting the state’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual — a rulebook that guides how elections are run.

Among other things, the lawsuit sought to undermine provisions governing the Active Early Voting List — the system that allows voters to automatically receive mail ballots — and rules requiring counties to certify election results.

Lower courts issued mixed rulings, but crucial protections survived — including the rule that voters remain on the early voting list unless properly notified and removed, and the requirement that county officials certify election results once votes are counted.

Republican lawmakers asked the state Supreme Court to revisit those decisions. And the court declined.

That leaves intact two core pillars of Arizona’s election system: stable access to mail-in voting and a clear obligation for local officials to finalize election results — preventing efforts to delay or refuse certification.

Taken together, the high court’s rejections mark a significant victory for voting rights in a battleground state that has been at the center of repeated efforts to reshape election rules since 2020.