Arizona, California Score Separate Court Wins Over Election Rules

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

Election officials in Arizona and California won separate court victories Friday in disputes over voting rules, with a federal appeals court upholding key provisions of an Arizona voter-registration law and a California judge temporarily blocking a local election overhaul.

Arizona Voter Registration Law

In Arizona, an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that voting rights organizations lacked standing to challenge two provisions that dictate how counties should maintain their voter rolls.

The Arizona law, enacted in 2022 as Senate Bill 1260, requires county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration after receiving confirmation from another county that the person has moved and registered there. Another provision makes it a felony to knowingly provide a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered in another state.

The Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Voto Latino, and Priorities USA sued the Arizona attorney general, secretary of state, and the state’s 15 county recorders in 2022, arguing that portions of the law violated federal voting law and constitutional protections.

The groups argued, among other things, that the cancellation provision could improperly remove eligible voters from the rolls and that the felony provision was vague enough to expose organizations conducting voter registration and education activities to prosecution.

A federal district court initially issued a preliminary injunction blocking the cancellation and felony provisions. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel later reversed that order, finding that the organizations lacked standing to challenge the cancellation provision and were unlikely to prevail in their challenge to the felony provision.

The plaintiffs successfully sought review by the full court, but Friday’s en banc ruling reached the same conclusion.

The groups argued that they were forced to spend extra time and resources educating voters about the law and helping them cancel prior registrations. The court, however, concluded that this did not count as a concrete injury needed to prove standing.

“Because the organizations have not clearly shown that the cancellation provision affects or interferes with their voter-registration and voter-education efforts, they have not established an injury-in-fact,” U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony D. Johnstone wrote for the court.

The court also rejected the organizations’ request to block the felony provision pending the litigation.

“Although the stand-alone phrase ‘mechanism for voting’ arguably encompasses voter registration and education, the full text and statutory context of the Felony Provision show that it likely does not criminalize those activities,” Johnstone wrote.

California Court Blocks County Measure

Also on Friday, a California judge temporarily blocked Shasta County from implementing a voter-approved measure that would dramatically change how elections are conducted in the Northern California county.

Measure B, approved by about 56 percent of voters in June, would require government-issued photo identification for voter registration and in-person voting, restrict vote-by-mail and early voting, require ballots to be counted by hand, and establish a county voter-registration system separate from California’s statewide system.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber sued to block the measure, arguing that Shasta County’s status as a charter county does not mean it can adopt its own election rules conflicting with those of the state.

State officials had sought an expedited ruling, since election preparations were already underway for November and the county’s 116,000 registered voters needed certainty about how they would cast their ballots.

On Friday, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna sided with the state in granting the preliminary injunction, meaning the county will conduct the Nov. 3 general election under existing California election laws while the lawsuit proceeds.

A Shasta County official confirmed that the measure’s provisions would not be implemented unless the court issues another order.

“Following a preliminary injunction by the Shasta County Superior Court regarding a proposed amendment to the Shasta County Charter titled, Measure B, Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative, the election and voting policies described in Measure B will not be implemented for the November 3, 2026, General Election, unless further order of the court,” the county said in a statement.

Bonta welcomed the decision, saying it would provide clarity for voters ahead of the election.

“Today’s ruling prevents Measure B from taking effect while our litigation proceeds, providing certainty that the November election will be conducted under California’s established election laws,” he said. “We will continue fighting to permanently strike down the measure.”