Arizona GOP Sues Gov. Hobbs Over Election-Related Executive Orders

The leader of the Arizona Republican Party wants the state Supreme Court to invalidate two executive orders issued by Gov. Katie Hobbs aimed at making it easier to register and vote.

In a new lawsuit filed late Thursday, Gina Swoboda accuses the Democratic governor of exceeding his authority by ordering certain state agencies to make voter registration forms available to the public. Swoboda said Hobbs also acted illegally by ordering those agencies, including the adult and juvenile prison systems, to act as drop-off locations.

As we read in the lawsuit, this latest order does not resolve at least such important issues as voting security.

Andrew Gould, the lead attorney on the case, said there were other issues as well.

He said state law gives the Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, the authority to decide where people can vote and cast ballots, as well as pass voter registration laws. It is the county registrar who authorizes people to receive registration forms and designates locations where forms can be distributed and picked up.

Swoboda in a statement called the governor’s actions “a gross overreach of her authority.”

“We will not passively watch as our constitutional rights are violated,” she said.

Gould took the unusual step of filing the suit directly with the Arizona Supreme Court rather than using the standard procedure that would have required first obtaining a ruling from a trial court.

But he told the justices there was no need for a trial because there were no facts in dispute. Gould said it was a simple legal question: Are the orders legal or not?

But there is something else behind this decision.

The Republican Party wants the matter resolved as soon as possible, saying the legality of the executive order will have “immediate statewide implications for the upcoming 2024 elections.”

Liliana Soto, a spokeswoman for Hobbs, called the lawsuit “frivolous.”

She said that while Hobbs was secretary of state, she “oversaw two of the most secure election cycles in history,” meaning 2020 and 2022, which remain the subject of accusations and even pending lawsuits by Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh, who lost their respective elections for governor and attorney general. All challenges were rejected by the courts.

Soto also said Hobbs is using her “legal authority” to protect the right to vote.

The governor is not the only one defending the decision.

Before filing his own lawsuit, Gould tried to get Attorney General Kris Mayes to go to court to stop the governor’s actions, which drew skepticism.

“I fail to see how increased access to voter registration forms or polling locations could harm anyone, including your customers,” Mayes said.

The legal dispute is based on a series of executive orders issued by the governor last November that deal with voting.

One of them orders the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reintegration to provide instructions on how to restore civil rights, and by extension, the right to vote, to prisoners who have been released. And for those who have already been released, Hobbs ordered the agency to make the same information available on its website.

This order cannot be challenged.

The subject of the dispute is Executive Order No. 23, which aims to designate state buildings as places for voting or casting votes in the current and future.

In the lawsuit, Gould specifically cites the fact that this applies not only to the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reintegration, but also to the Department of Juvenile Corrections.

“EO 23 fails to address important issues regarding completed ballots and voting procedures, such as where to store completed ballots until they are mailed to the appropriate election officials, or maintaining a chain of custody record for those completed ballots,” Gould wrote.

He acknowledged that Hobbs, in issuing the order, was claiming authority under a constitutional provision that allows her to “conduct all executive business with the officers of the government … and to see that the laws are faithfully executed.” But that, Gould said, is insufficient.

First, he said, the order has no expiration date, meaning it remains in effect until a future governor revokes it or until a court finds it unconstitutional, which is what he is seeking in this case.

By comparison, Gould said a 2020 executive order issued by then-Governor Doug Ducey during the Covid pandemic regarding polling places was set to expire after 180 days.

In that regard, he noted that Ducey was acting under state laws granting the governor certain emergency powers.

“To the contrary, here, in issuing EO 23, Governor Hobbs is not invoking any national emergency but rather is invoking his limited and general grant of executive power” in the Arizona Constitution.

Gould also wants the Supreme Court to invalidate Executive Order 25, which requires agencies to post a link on their public websites that directs users to the Secretary of State’s voter registration website or to an online voter portal operated by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

It also says agencies should make paper registration forms available in “conspicuous public places.” And it says that if a form is completed and filed, the agency must return it to the Secretary of State or appropriate county officials within five days of receipt.

All of this, Gould said, “materially and fundamentally exceeds her constitutional and statutory authority.”

Gould sent a letter earlier this month asking the governor to rescind or modify her orders.

In response, Bo Dul, the governor’s chief legal adviser, defended the legality of her actions.

“These executive orders further advance the important goals of increasing access for Arizonans to voter registration,” Dul wrote. She also said one reason state-run polling places are being allowed to be used is because some counties have complained that there are fewer suitable locations available to do so.