Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English ( 2023 )

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO
ARIZONA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, INC.,
AND STEPHANI STEPHENSON,
Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
TOM CROSBY, ANN ENGLISH, AND PEGGY JUDD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
AS THE COCHISE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND DAVID STEVENS, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COCHISE COUNTY RECORDER,
Defendants/Appellants.
No. 2 CA-CV 2022-0136
Filed October 18, 2023
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. CV202200518
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Herrera Arellano LLP, Phoenix
By Roy Herrera, Daniel A. Arellano, and Jillian L. Andrews
and
Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, D.C.
By Aria C. Branch, Lalitha D. Madduri, Christina Ford, Mollie DiBrell, and
Daniel Cohen
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Sherman & Howard L.L.C., Phoenix
By Craig A. Morgan, Shayna Stuart, and Jake T. Rapp
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
Davillier Law Group LLC, Phoenix
By Alexander Kolodin and Veronica Lucero
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant David Stevens
Blehm Law PLLC, Scottsdale
By Bryan James Blehm
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Cochise County Board of Supervisors Tom
Crosby, Ann English, and Peggy Judd
OPINION
Judge Kelly authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge
Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
K E L L Y, Judge:
¶1 Cochise County Board of Supervisors members Tom Crosby,
Ann English, and Peggy Judd, and Cochise County Recorder David Stevens
(“the County”) appeal from the trial court’s injunction barring an initial
hand-count audit of all election-day (“precinct”) and early ballots in
Cochise County for the 2022 General Election. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 On October 24, 2022, the Cochise County Board of
Supervisors (“the Board”) adopted a resolution requiring the County
Recorder (“the Recorder”) to conduct “a hand-count audit of all county
precincts for the 202[2] general election.” On October 31, the Arizona
Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. and Stephani Stephenson (“the
AARA”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or in the Alternative Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. The AARA asked the Cochise County Superior
Court to (1) order the County to conduct hand-count audits of early ballots
only in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-602 and the Arizona Secretary of State
2019 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which the parties agree is the
current edition, and (2) preclude the County from conducting a hand-count
audit of all early ballots. The court set an evidentiary hearing on the
petition for November 4.
2
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
¶3 At the hearing, the Recorder answered, “[c]orrect,” when
asked whether he intended to conduct a hand-count audit on “every ballot,
early or otherwise.” On November 7, the trial court granted the AARA’s
petition, concluding that the Board had acted unlawfully by “ordering a full
hand count” audit of both precinct ballots and early ballots. The court
subsequently granted the AARA’s request for attorney fees. The County
timely appealed and we have jurisdiction to address the November 7
injunction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(5)(b).1
Discussion
¶4 The County challenges the trial court’s judgment, reasserting
on appeal that an initial hand-count audit of all votes cast in Cochise
County is permissible under § 16-602 and the EPM. “We review issues
construing statutes and rules de novo.” Ariz. Pub. Integrity All. v. Fontes,
250 Ariz. 58, ¶ 8 (2020).
Mootness
¶5 The AARA asserts that the County’s appeal is moot because
the County’s resolution was directed at the now-concluded 2022 General
Election. However, we may consider a moot question where the issue is
one “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Phx. Newspapers, Inc. v.
Molera, 200 Ariz. 457, ¶ 12 (App. 2001). This exception to the mootness
doctrine typically applies where “time constraints” prevent an appellate
court from deciding an issue that may recur. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614,
¶ 7 (App. 2012). Our supreme court has applied this exception where an
election’s occurrence initially rendered the issues moot, but the same issues
were likely to recur in a future election. See Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge 2 v.
Phx. Emp. Rels. Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 126-27 (1982). Because the County has
indicated that it intends to conduct “full” hand-count audits in future
elections, this case presents the precise concerns that this exception was
1The County also seeks reversal of the trial court’s order awarding
attorney fees to the AARA. However, because that award was entered after
the County’s notice of appeal had been filed, did not contain the requisite
finality language, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c), and was not separately appealed,
we lack jurisdiction to consider the County’s challenge to that award, see
Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, ¶ 13 (2011) (subject to an exception inapplicable
here, “notice of appeal filed in the absence of a final judgment . . . is
‘ineffective’ and a nullity” (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections
Comm’n, 212 Ariz. 407, ¶ 39 (2006))).
3
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
intended to address. Phx. Newspapers, Inc., 200 Ariz. 457, ¶ 12. Therefore,
we will decide this appeal on the merits.
Hand Count of Precinct Ballots
¶6 We first examine whether the County has the discretion to
perform a hand-count audit of all precinct ballots in the first instance, which
requires us to interpret § 16-602. The goal of statutory interpretation is “to
effectuate the legislature’s intent.” SolarCity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue,
243 Ariz. 477, ¶ 8 (2018). The best evidence of that intent is the statute’s
plain language. Id. Furthermore, this court will “avoid an interpretation
that makes ‘any language superfluous or redundant.’” City of Tucson v.
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, ¶ 33 (App. 2008) (quoting Thomas
& King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 208 Ariz. 203, ¶ 9 (App. 2004)).
¶7 Although a full hand-count audit of electronically tabulated
precinct ballots is ultimately provided for in § 16-602, the statute also
prescribes specific criteria that must be satisfied first. An initial hand-count
audit will include “[a]t least two percent of the precincts in that county, or
two precincts, whichever is greater,” which “shall be selected at random
from a pool consisting of every precinct in that county.” § 16-602(B)(1). If
this initial hand audit results in a vote difference in any race that is less than
“the designated margin” of error2 compared to the electronically tabulated
ballot count, the hand audit ends and the electronic tabulation results
constitute the official count for that race. § 16-602(C). However, if the hand
audit for any race results in a vote difference “equal to or greater than the
designated margin,” a second hand count of the same ballots will be
performed. Id. If that second hand count also results in a difference in any
race equal to or exceeding the designated margin, the hand count shall be
expanded to include “a total of twice the original number of randomly
selected precincts.” Id. It is only thereafter, if the vote difference from the
expanded count in any race is equal to or exceeds the designated margin,
that “the final hand count shall be extended to include the entire jurisdiction
for that race.” § 16-602(D).
¶8 The County argues that because § 16-602(B)(1) states that an
initial hand-count audit must include “[a]t least two percent of the precincts
2 The“designated margin” of error is a publicly available figure
established by the “vote count verification committee” at least ten days
before each primary and each general election and may be revised every
two years. A.R.S. § 16-602(K)(4).
4
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
in that county, or two precincts, whichever is greater,” the statute’s plain
language gives the County discretion to audit a larger number of
precincts—up to and including the entire jurisdiction—in the first instance
(second emphasis added). The AARA disagrees, and during oral argument
maintained that § 16-602(B)(1)’s “at least two percent” language merely
provides for a circumstance in which two percent of a county’s precincts is
more than two precincts, but less than a whole number of precincts. For
example, the AARA argues, a county with 175 precincts would be required,
in an initial hand audit, to count two percent or two precincts, whichever is
greater. See § 16-602(B)(1). Two percent of 175 precincts is 3.5 precincts.
Because 3.5 is the greater number, but half a precinct cannot be audited in
accordance with statutory procedures, the county would be required to
hand-audit four precincts (2.29%) to comply with the “at least two percent”
requirement, as three precincts would only equate to 1.71% of the total. The
AARA’s interpretation is correct.
¶9 When § 16-602(B)-(E) is viewed as a whole, a complete
hand-count audit is permitted only after a multi-step process that includes
conducting the preliminary and expanded audits described in
§ 16-602(C)-(D). Interpreting § 16-602(B)-(E) to allow a county to begin with
a full hand-count audit of all precincts would render the statute’s multi-step
process superfluous. We will not interpret a statute in a manner that
renders a provision superfluous. See Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz.
172, ¶ 33. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that the County
is not authorized under Title 16 to conduct a hand-count audit of all precinct
ballots in the first instance.
¶10 The County additionally asserts, for the first time on appeal,
that Title 11 (specifically A.R.S. § 11-251(3)) grants it “broad authority and
discretion” in election matters, to include conducting an initial hand-count
audit of every ballot cast, notwithstanding the language of § 16-602. 3
Generally, arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. Torres
v. Jai Dining Servs. (Phx.), Inc., 253 Ariz. 66, ¶ 12 (App. 2022). However, we
may exercise discretion where, as here, consideration of an issue better
serves the public. Id. ¶ 13.
3 Section 11-251(3) provides that “The board of supervisors, under
such limitation and restrictions as are prescribed by law, may . . . [e]stablish,
abolish and change election precincts, appoint inspectors and judges of
elections, canvass election returns, declare the result and issue certificates
thereof.”
5
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
¶11 The County provided no legal authority for this position in its
briefing, but at oral argument cited McDonald v. Cochise County, 37 Ariz. 90(1930) for support. In McDonald, our supreme court held that in the absence
of statutory guidance, a county board of supervisors acting under a
legislative grant of authority may prescribe certain election procedures. 37
Ariz. at 101. However, and in contrast to McDonald, statutory authority
under Title 16 establishes detailed procedures for conducting hand audits
of electronically tabulated ballots. Because there is not an absence of
statutory guidance here, but rather a detailed legislative scheme, neither
Title 11 nor McDonald supports the County’s position.
Hand Count of Early Ballots
¶12 The County also challenges the trial court’s injunction
preventing it from conducting an initial hand-count audit of all early ballots
for the 2022 General Election. The County argues that both Title 16 and the
EPM grant it the discretion to hand count all early ballots in the first
instance.
¶13 Early ballots, unlike election-day ballots, are not voted by
precinct but rather are centrally collected and may be dropped off by a voter
or the voter’s agent at any precinct location. A.R.S. § 16-548(A); 2019 EPM
at 195. Consequently, § 16-602(B)(1) specifies that early ballots shall not be
subjected to the same hand-count procedure as precinct ballots and “shall
be grouped separately by the officer in charge of elections for purposes of a
separate manual audit pursuant to subsection F of this section.”
¶14 Section 16-602(F) states that auditors “shall randomly select
one or more batches of early ballots” counted by each tabulation machine
and sequester them. The auditors “shall randomly select” from these
ballots “a number equal to one percent of the total number of early ballots
cast or five thousand early ballots, whichever is less,” to conduct a
hand-count audit. Id. If the results of that manual audit equal or exceed a
designated margin of error compared to the electronic tabulation results,
the audit will be repeated. And, if the second manual audit also equals or
exceeds the designated margin in any race, it “shall be expanded only for
that race to a number of additional early ballots equal to one percent of the
total early ballots cast or an additional five thousand ballots, whichever is
less, to be randomly selected from the batch or batches of sequestered early
ballots.” Id. If that expanded audit results in a difference equal to or greater
than the designated margin in any race, “the manual counts shall be
repeated for that race until a manual count results in a difference in that
race that is less than the designated margin.” Id. “If at any point in the
6
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
manual audit of early ballots the difference between any manual count . . .
is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic
tabulation,” the electronic tabulation results “shall be included in the
canvass and no further manual audit of the early ballots shall be
conducted.” Id.
¶15 Notwithstanding the procedures prescribed by Title 16, the
County asserts that the EPM also grants it the discretion to hand count all
early ballots in the first instance. The AARA contends that, to the extent the
EPM does grant such discretion, it directly contradicts Title 16’s express
procedures and is therefore unenforceable. The AARA is correct.
¶16 Section 16-452(A), A.R.S., requires the Secretary of State to
“prescribe rules” related to “collecting, counting, tabulating and storing
ballots” after “consultation with each county board of supervisors or other
officer in charge of elections.” The Secretary must assemble the rules “in an
official instructions and procedures manual” called the Elections
Procedures Manual. Ariz. Pub. Integrity All., 250 Ariz. 58, ¶ 16 (quoting § 16-
452(B)); see Arizona Secretary of State, 2019 Elections Procedures Manual.
“Once adopted, the EPM has the force of law; any violation of an EPM rule
is punishable as a class two misdemeanor.” Ariz. Pub. Integrity All., 250
Ariz. 58, ¶ 16.
¶17 Consistent with § 16-602(F), the EPM directs that “[t]he officer
in charge of elections is required to conduct a hand count of 1% of the total
number of early ballots cast, or 5,000 early ballots, whichever is less.” 2019
EPM at 215. But it goes on to say that “Counties may elect to audit a higher
number of ballots at their discretion.” Id. (emphasis added). This latter grant
of discretion on which the County relies is not provided for in Title 16.
Although we must “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony
when possible,” Johnson v. Mohave County, 206 Ariz. 330, ¶ 11 (App. 2003),
the plain language of § 16-602(F) establishes with precision the number of
early ballots that must be hand audited in the first instance (“a number
equal to one percent of the total number of early ballots cast or five
thousand early ballots, whichever is less”). It gives auditors no discretion
to begin the hand audit with any number of ballots greater than five
thousand, and no authority to either deviate from the gradual increase in
the hand-count number or continue counting once any audit falls within
the designated margin.
¶18 Although the EPM must be “approved by the governor and
the attorney general” before release, § 16-452(B), an EPM regulation that
either exceeds its statutory authority or contradicts statutory requirements
7
ARIZ. ALL. FOR RETIRED AMS. v. COCHISE CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
“does not have the force of law.” Leibsohn v. Hobbs, 254 Ariz. 1, ¶ 22 (2022);
see also Leach v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 572, ¶ 21 (2021). Because the EPM provision
relied on by the County here directly conflicts with the express and
mandatory procedures of A.R.S. § 16-602(F), it exceeds the scope of its
statutory authorization, and is therefore void. See Leach, 250 Ariz. 572, ¶ 21.
Accordingly, the EPM did not authorize the County to begin its hand-count
audit of early ballots for the 2022 election by counting every ballot in the
first instance.
¶19 Arizona’s constitution provides our legislature with the
principal obligation and responsibility to safeguard Arizona’s elections by
enacting laws to govern election procedures. See Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 12
(“There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of
elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise.”). The
legislature exercised this power by devising a precise system for the hand
auditing of electronic voting results in Title 16. Accordingly, the County
was required to follow the procedures mandated by the plain language of
§ 16-602, which creates a gradual, multi-step process that must be satisfied
before a jurisdiction-wide hand-count audit of all precinct or early ballots
may occur. See A.R.S. § 16-444(B) (providing, “[t]he provisions of all state
laws relating to elections . . . apply to all elections where electronic
tabulating devices are used”). Because the legislature provided for a
detailed method to verify the results from electronically tabulated voting
machines, counties must follow that method unless and until the legislature
determines otherwise. Accordingly, the County did not have independent
authority to conduct a hand-count audit of all precinct or early ballots in
the first instance for the 2022 election.
Attorney Fees and Costs on Appeal
¶20 The AARA requests attorney fees and costs pursuant to Rule
21, A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-348, 12-1840, 12-2030, and Ansley v. Banner Health
Network, 248 Ariz. 143, ¶¶ 38-39 (2020) (describing “the private attorney
general doctrine”), but provides no further explanation supporting its
entitlement to attorney fees. In our discretion, we deny the AARA’s request
for attorney fees, but, as the prevailing party, the AARA is entitled to its
costs upon compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See Planned
Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Brnovich, 254 Ariz. 401, ¶ 25 (App. 2022); § 12-341.
Disposition
¶21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.
8