Concerned voters are requesting a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s Election Procedures Manual (EPM), alleging that its provisions allow election workers to disenfranchise voters based on their political speech, conduct, or apparel.
The request comes hot on the heels of the accompanying lawsuit filed by the Oversight Project earlier this week (Winn, et al. v. Fontes, et al.).
That lawsuit challenges the 2025 EPM, granted the power of law through 2027 by the state’s Democratic trifecta at the top: Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Attorney General Kris Mayes, and Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Similar provisions in the 2023 EPM — also put forth by Fontes — were enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last September. That didn’t stop Fontes from refashioning those provisions for the 2025 EPM, voters argue, with the blessings of Mayes and Hobbs.
Kathleen Winn, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, told The Arizona Daily Independent that election integrity means protecting voters from the political discrimination she says is encouraged by Fontes’ EPM.
“Arizona has statutes that define how elections must be run. The EPM interprets those laws in a way that allow election officials to turn away some voters and party boosters under vague, discriminatory standards,” said Winn. “If we’re serious about election integrity we need rules that apply to everyone, everywhere, full stop.”
Pima County voters behind the lawsuit allege in their lawsuit and injunction request that the 2025 EPM empowers election officials to remove or arrest individuals near voting locations perceived to be intimidating, deterring, or harassing based on clothing or apparel, language, questions, behaviors like photographing or videotaping, or even daring to raise more than one “frivolous” challenge not rooted in “good faith” to a poll worker.
The 2025 EPM also prohibits audible electioneering or political activity in public areas, even if they’re abiding by the 75-foot distance required by the law.
The voters behind the lawsuit argued that these provisions are unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
In the December 2025 announcement on the 2025 EPM’s approval, Fontes said the end product represented bipartisan approval from all 15 county election officials, and four weeks’ worth of public input.
Gov. Hobbs claimed the 2025 EPM allowed election officials to “do their jobs without partisan political interference.” It may be that the provisions do ensure that, in a way, by allowing the removal of any and all perceived partisan political presence.
Fontes recently lost in another court case on other EPM provisions, but within the 2023 version addressing out-of-precinct voters. Just as the voters claim to be the case with the 2025 EPM in this latest lawsuit, a superior court found Fontes’ EPM rules would have disenfranchised voters.
Fontes attempted to force counties with precinct voting to allow out-of-precinct voters to vote. Fontes’ rule required counties to grant provisional ballots be cast using accessible voting devices, which are reserved for voters with disabilities.
In effect, Fontes’ EPM rule abolished precinct voting without the counties’ consent. Pinal County refused the rule, and he sued them in 2024. The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled earlier this month that Fontes’ EPM not only violated state law by usurping county authority, but would ultimately disenfranchise voters with disabilities by requiring them to share access to their specialty equipment with all voters.
Be the first to comment