The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling in *Smith v. Fontes*, a consolidated election law case that drew significant attention from political organizations and election reform advocates. The decision, filed Aug. 6, 2025, involved multiple plaintiffs challenging Arizona's election procedures.
The case consolidated two separate lawsuits filed in Maricopa County Superior Court under case numbers CV2024-019846 and CV2024-019880. The plaintiffs included April Smith, Nira Lee, Joshua Davidian, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg. They appealed Superior Court Judge Frank W. Moskowitz's ruling to the state's highest court.
Defendants in the case included Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and other election officials. The Make Elections Fair PAC served as a real party in interest, indicating the case likely involved ballot initiative procedures or election reform measures. This designation typically occurs when a political action committee has a direct stake in the outcome of litigation.
Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer Lopez authored the opinion for a unanimous seven-member court. Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel and Justices Clint Bolick, John R. Lopez IV, James P. Beene, Kathryn H. King, and William G. Montgomery joined the opinion. The court's unanimous decision suggests the justices found the legal issues straightforward or the lower court's reasoning particularly compelling.
The case attracted substantial legal representation from multiple law firms and organizations. Roy Herrera, Daniel A. Arellano, Jane W. Ahern, and Austin T. Marshall of Herrera Arellano LLP represented individual plaintiffs Smith, Lee, and Davidian. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club and other organizational plaintiffs were represented by Andrew Gould, Drew C. Ensign, Dallin B. Holt, Brennan A.R. Bowen, and Daniel Tilleman of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC.
Defending the state's position, Arizona Attorney General Kristin K. Mayes assigned multiple assistant attorneys general to the case, including Kara Karlson, Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, and Kyle Cummings, who represented Secretary of State Fontes. Legislative leaders Warren Petersen and Ben Toma were represented by Brunn Roysden III and Katlyn J. Divis of Fusion Law PLLC.
The Make Elections Fair PAC engaged Mary R. O'Grady, Andrew G. Pappas, Travis C. Hunt, and Emma Cone-Roddy of Osborn Maledon P.A. to represent their interests in the litigation.
Several organizations filed amicus curiae briefs, demonstrating the case's broader significance within Arizona's political and legal communities. The Goldwater Institute, represented by Timothy Sandefur of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, filed a brief supporting one side of the dispute. Former Maricopa County Recorder Stephen I. Richer was represented by Stephen W. Tully of Tully Bailey LLP.
The Arizona Attorney General's Office filed its own amicus brief through assistant attorneys general Hayleigh S. Crawford, Nathan T. Arrowsmith, and Joshua G. Nomkin. Former election officials Ken Bennett and Helen Purcell also participated as amici curiae, represented by Joseph Kanefield and Charlene A. Warner of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
The extensive legal representation and multiple amicus briefs suggest the case addressed fundamental questions about Arizona's election procedures that could affect future elections and ballot initiatives. The involvement of the Make Elections Fair PAC as a real party in interest indicates the dispute may have centered on ballot measure procedures, signature verification requirements, or other aspects of the initiative process.
While the Supreme Court's opinion affirmed the lower court's ruling, the specific legal issues and reasoning behind the decision remain unclear from the available court documents. The case number CV-24-0222-AP/EL indicates this was an accelerated election case, suggesting time-sensitive issues that required expedited judicial review.
The unanimous nature of the Supreme Court's decision provides finality to what appears to have been a closely watched election law dispute. The affirmation means the Superior Court's original ruling stands, though the practical implications for Arizona's election procedures depend on the specific issues that were litigated.
The case represents another chapter in ongoing legal battles over election procedures across the United States, with Arizona serving as a frequent battleground for election-related litigation. The involvement of multiple political organizations, election officials, and advocacy groups demonstrates the high stakes surrounding election law disputes in the state.
With the 2026 election cycle approaching, the resolution of this case may provide clarity for election administrators, political organizations, and voters about the procedures governing Arizona's electoral processes.