The Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision Sept. 29 reversing a lower court ruling in *Montenegro v. Fontes*, a closely watched election law case that pitted House Speaker Steve Montenegro against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. The court vacated the Court of Appeals decision from Division One and remanded the case to Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings.
The case, designated No. CV-24-0166-PR, originated in Maricopa County Superior Court under Judge Timothy J. Ryan before working its way through the appellate system. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled against Montenegro's position in a decision reported at 258 Ariz. 109 (App. 2024), but the state's highest court disagreed with that analysis.
Justice Clint Bolick authored the majority opinion, joined by Vice Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justices John Lopez IV, James Beene, Kathryn King and William Montgomery. The court's composition suggests broad agreement on the legal issues, though the specific reasoning remains unclear from the available court documents.
The dispute involves multiple parties beyond the primary litigants. Montenegro, represented by attorneys Kory Langhofer and Thomas Basile of Statecraft PLLC, serves as the lead plaintiff alongside other unnamed parties. Fontes, defended by Craig Morgan and Shayna Stuart of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, leads the defendants.
Additionally, several significant intervenors and amici participated in the case, indicating its broad implications for Arizona election law. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission intervened through attorneys Mary O'Grady, Eric Fraser, Emma Cone-Roddy and Alexandria Karpurk of Osborn Maledon. The commission's involvement suggests the case touches on campaign finance or public funding issues.
Voters' Right to Know, represented by Daniel Adelman and Chanele Reyes of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest along with David Kolker, Tara Malloy and Elizabeth Shimek of the Campaign Legal Center, also intervened. This organization typically focuses on transparency and disclosure requirements in elections.
Attorney General Kristin Mayes joined as an intervenor through her office's attorneys Alexander Samuels, Nathan Arrowsmith and Luci Davis. The attorney general's participation often indicates significant state interest in the legal questions presented.
Several business and advocacy organizations filed amicus briefs supporting different positions. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, represented by Nate Curtisi, participated as an amicus party. Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, conservative advocacy groups, filed briefs through attorneys Dominic Draye of Greenberg Traurig LLP.
The Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, also submitted an amicus brief through attorney Timothy Sandefur of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. The diverse array of participants suggests the case addresses fundamental questions about election administration, campaign finance, or voting rights.
The case appears to stem from actions or decisions made by the Secretary of State's office that Montenegro and other legislative leaders challenged. Given the parties involved, the dispute likely centers on election procedures, campaign finance regulations, or the Clean Elections system that provides public funding for certain campaigns in Arizona.
Montenegro's role as House Speaker adds political significance to the legal dispute. As a key legislative leader, his challenge to the Secretary of State suggests potential tension between the legislative and executive branches over election administration.
The involvement of clean elections advocates, voting rights organizations, and business groups indicates the case could impact Arizona's broader electoral landscape. The Clean Elections Commission's intervention particularly suggests issues related to public campaign financing or related regulations.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand indicates the justices found legal error in either the trial court's initial ruling or the Court of Appeals' analysis. The remand suggests the case requires additional proceedings at the trial court level rather than a final resolution of the underlying dispute.
The timing of the decision, filed in late September, could affect ongoing election preparations or future campaign cycles. Arizona's election laws have faced increased scrutiny since the 2020 election, with various stakeholders pushing for changes to procedures, transparency requirements, and oversight mechanisms.
The case represents the latest chapter in ongoing legal battles over Arizona's election system. With the state playing a crucial role in national politics, court decisions affecting election administration often draw attention beyond state boundaries.
The remand to Judge Ryan's court means the litigation will continue at the trial level, where additional factual development and legal arguments may occur. The ultimate resolution could establish new precedent for election law disputes or clarify existing requirements for election officials.
Montenegro's legal team at Statecraft PLLC specializes in election law and constitutional litigation, suggesting the case involves complex legal questions requiring specialized expertise. The high-profile nature of the dispute and extensive party participation indicate its potential significance for Arizona's electoral system.