Home Keep Up Election Integrity Judge Rejects GOP Challenge to Mail-In Voting in Arizona

Judge Rejects GOP Challenge to Mail-In Voting in Arizona

June 7, 2022

MAGA News Central: Making American Businesses Great Again

A judge has ruled that Arizona’s legislature is within its constitutional rights to allow “no-excuse” mail-in ballots, denying the state GOP’s legal challenge ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Mojave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen ruled against the Arizona GOP and its chair, Dr. Kelli Ward, in support of a 1991 law that permits no-excuse mail-in ballots.

“Defendants for the past thirty years have applied the laws of Arizona as written,” Jantzen wrote in his ruling (pdf). “The laws are far from perfect and nobody anticipated thirty years ago that approximately 90 percent of Arizona voters would vote by mail-in ballot during a pandemic, but these laws are NOT in violation of the Arizona Constitution.”

No-excuse mail-in ballots “are not inapposite of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution,” he added.

The Arizona GOP signalled their intention to “explore their next steps” following the ruling, including to appeal it in a higher court.

Election integrity in Arizona has been pressing issue since the 2020 general elections, the results of which have been vigorously disputed. In 2020, around 89 percent of voters voted by mail before election day.

“The Republican Party of Arizona, under Chairwoman Dr. Kelli Ward, is concerned that if this ruling stands, Arizona’s most vulnerable voters will be deprived of the protections to which they are constitutionally entitled,” the Arizona GOP said in a statement on Monday.

The Arizona GOP said it seeks to restore mail-in ballots for the “sick, elderly, and other absentee voters” to ensure they have the constitutionally guaranteed protection of election officials safeguarding their votes from “ballot traffickers.”

“We are sorry that the most vulnerable voters of Arizona will not receive the protections to which they are constitutionally entitled if this ruling stands—people who truly cannot make it to the polls versus those who find convenience voting in the comfort of their homes,” said Alex Kolodin, the attorney representing the case.