Arizona Judge Declares Key Portions of 2024 Election Manual Unconstitutional, Siding with Election Integrity Advocates

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2011
63,624
57,219
3,600
They cannot make their own rules. Now they know. Citizens are rising up.


"They contended that the EPM imposed overly broad and vague restrictions on speech, particularly targeting those who raise concerns about election integrity.


The court’s ruling, issued by Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill, specifically targets Chapter 9 of the EPM, which outlined rules meant to preserve order and security at voting locations.


The plaintiffs contended that these rules, which included prohibitions on “harassment” and “intimidation” within and outside of polling locations, were vague and overly broad. They argued that such restrictions could be weaponized to silence voters and activists who sought to expose potential election fraud.


Judge Ryan-Touhill agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the language in the EPM was not only too vague but also expanded criminal liability in a way that could infringe upon free speech rights guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.


The judge highlighted that many of the prohibited actions, such as raising one’s voice or using “offensive language,” are protected forms of expression. The ruling emphasized that the government’s interest in maintaining order at polling places does not justify the suppression of free speech."

 
Trump won VA last time. I was paying attention and he was well ahead until the election theft kicked in.

election theft f-curve 2.jpg
 

RNC Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate Arizona's Citizenship Check Voting Laws​

Citizens are fed up and want laws to protect them not the people who would defraud them.

In an application for emergency relief filed on Aug. 8, the RNC asked Justice Elena Kagan to block a previous lower-court ruling that put the state law on hold.

The Committee centered much of its filing around how the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handled the matter.

The laws at the center of the debate are H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243—collectively known as the “Voting Laws”—which were passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2022.

Among other things, they require that people who register to vote in Arizona using a state form provide “satisfactory” proof of citizenship or residency, such as a birth certificate, to be eligible to vote.

The laws also require individuals to include their state or country of birth and mandate that counties conduct citizenship checks and remove non-citizens from the rolls.

Although a district judge partially blocked the law in 2023 after ruling that federal laws, not state, take precedence when it comes to proof of citizenship for voters, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit later stayed the injunction.

In July, another panel of judges granted a request from Republicans to reinstate some but not all parts of the laws.

However, the same panel turned down the RNC’s bid to require election officials to check records from the Social Security Administration and other databases to ensure individuals who do not provide proof of citizenship are actually citizens.

In its Aug. 8 filing, the RNC said the Ninth Circuit’s reversal violates what’s known as the Purcell principle, which bars federal courts from enjoining the enforcement of state election laws with an election impending.

The principle recognizes the important interests state officials have in protecting their elections and avoiding voter confusion,” the RNC wrote. “But the Ninth Circuit turned this principle against the enforcement of state election-integrity laws.
 

Forum List

Back
Top