The Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving the 2023 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual, which has sparked considerable debate about the limits of authority and legislative power. The case was filed by Warren Petersen and others against Adrian Fontes in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on November 24, 2025. The plaintiffs, who are key figures in the Arizona legislature, argue that the Secretary of State overstepped his bounds with certain provisions in the manual.
The complaint was initiated by Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, and other legislators who contend that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes exceeded his statutory authority by implementing four specific provisions in the 2023 Manual. These provisions pertain to county canvasses, juror questionnaires, circulator registrations, and active early voting lists. The legislators sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent these provisions from being enforced. They argued that these rules conflicted with existing statutes and encroached upon legislative powers as outlined in Arizona’s Constitution.
In a detailed decision delivered by Presiding Judge David B. Gass, with Judges Michael J. Brown and Andrew J. Becke concurring, the court upheld most of the superior court’s rulings. It found that three out of four challenged provisions indeed exceeded statutory authority: those concerning county canvasses, juror questionnaires, and circulator registrations were deemed unenforceable. However, it upheld one provision related to active early voting lists as within legal bounds.
The plaintiffs argued their standing based on alleged institutional injury caused by these provisions conflicting with express statutory mandates and infringing upon legislative prerogatives. This argument was bolstered by recent precedents such as Montenegro v. Fontes, which emphasized legislative standing in cases where governmental actions inflict institutional injuries without exhausting political remedies.
Ultimately, while affirming parts of the lower court’s decision regarding standing and certain enjoined provisions, the appellate court found one challenge moot due to changes proposed for future manuals that addressed concerns about county canvasses differently than before.
Representing both sides were prominent law firms: Statecraft PLLC with Kory Langhofer and Thomas Basile for Petersen et al., while Snell & Wilmer LLP provided co-counsel Joseph Kanefield and Tracy A. Olson; Adrian Fontes was represented by Karen J. Hartman-Tallez from Arizona Attorney General’s Office alongside Kara Karlson and Kyle Cummings.
This case underscores ongoing tensions between different branches of government over election procedures—a matter closely watched given its implications for electoral integrity across state lines amid evolving legal interpretations post-2020 elections landscape shifts nationwide.
Source: 1CACV250219_Petersen_v_Fontes_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf