A Trump-linked law firm should not get to rewrite a description of a Republican-backed ballot referral that would make sweeping changes to Arizona election laws, the Democratic secretary of state argued to the state’s highest court. 

America First Legal Foundation on Friday appealed a decision by a trial court judge, striking down its challenge to the description — written by Fontes — of Proposition 144 that is set to be printed on the November ballot. 

The America First Legal Foundation was created by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, an architect of Project 2025 and one of President Donald Trump’s closest advisors.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Representing three supporters of Prop. 144, attorney James Rogers argued that the description leaves out some of the most important provisions of the measure and includes “unresolved assumptions.”

Rogers contends that Fontes illegally left out of his description a principal part of the measure requiring Arizonans to be U.S. citizens to register to vote and for their votes to be counted. 

The description of Prop. 144 to be printed on November ballots reads that it “(r)equires all voters, including voters who vote by mail, to show government-issued ID to vote in each election; makes other changes to election administration and campaign finance prohibitions.”

America First Legal Foundation argued that because the language of Prop. 144 says that “only citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections,” as well as that elections “shall be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters,” those points should be included in the description. 

In a response to the America First Legal Foundation’s appeal, Assistant Attorney General Kara Karlson argued on Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ behalf that the citizenship requirement is not a key provision because citizenship has always been a prerequisite to register to vote in Arizona. 

“The most consequential provisions of this measure for voters are the new vote by mail and ID requirements,” Karlson wrote. 

Prop. 144, also known as the “Fast Accurate Secure Transparent Election Results Act,” would prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence state elections — they are already barred from giving to candidates, but can give money to other political committees — require every voter to show government identification before casting a ballot in every election and require all polling locations to provide on-site tabulation of ballots for voters who want it. It would also create a new standard for challenging election laws enacted by the state legislature. 

Rogers urged the court to strike down the secretary of state’s description of the proposition as illegal, and to replace it with language provided by the America First Legal Foundation. 

In its response, the Secretary of State’s Office explained why it did not mention the citizenship requirement directly in the ballot description for Prop. 144. 

Rogers contended that Fontes “must use language that misleadingly implies that Arizona voters can presently register to vote and cast a ballot without being citizens,” Karlson wrote. “But Arizona has required voters to be citizens since statehood; this is not a change for voters.” 

Karlson said that Fontes instead focused the description on provisions that would result in changes to state law that would directly impact voters. 

Written by state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican who will go up against Fontes in the race for secretary of state in November, Prop. 144 was one of five controversial last-minute ballot referrals that the Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature approved along party lines in a marathon night of voting on the last day of the annual legislative session in June.

Kolodin is an attorney and election denier who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2023 for his part in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election that made implausible and evidence-free claims of massive election fraud.

In response to the appeal, Karlson wrote that ballot descriptions of propositions are legal if they “can reasonably be regarded as an attempt to provide” a summary of the principal provisions of the measure and are not “false nor clearly misleading.”

Rogers argued that Fontes overstepped the discretion afforded to him in authoring the description, but Karlson answered that Rogers and his clients just don’t like the way the description is worded. 

“The citizenship requirements are not one of the ‘principal provisions’ of the measure, nor an ‘essential change in the existing law’ because they will have no effect on Arizona voters,” Karlson wrote. “These repetitive provisions were omitted to ensure that voters are accurately informed about the way this measure will impact them and avoid the impression that citizenship is a new requirement to vote (or register to vote).”

The trial court judge ruled last week that the three supporters of Prop. 144 on behalf of whom the America First Legal Foundation brought the legal challenge, did not have standing, or a stake in the ballot measure or its outcome that was specific to them, ahead of voters as a group. 

Rogers asked the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse that ruling, claiming that because the three men are on the record showing support for the proposition before it was passed by the legislature, they would suffer more specific harms from reportedly misleading ballot description than other voters. 

“They suggest that the Ballot Language exposes them to unique harm in the form of potential credibility and reputational harm, and frustration of their participation in the legislative process,” Karlson wrote. 

If that was true, she continued, any ballot language with which advocates for it disagreed could be challenged in court on that basis alone. 

“That simply cannot be the case,” Karlson wrote.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE