A Tempe city councilman has taken his challenge to the state’s highest court in an effort to keep a sweeping election reform measure off the ballot, arguing the proposal illegally bundles separate questions into one take-it-or-leave-it proposition that could force voters to accept provisions they oppose.
Loading post…
Councilman Randy Keating told the Arizona Supreme Court that while each element of Proposition 144 may have merit on its own, the Arizona Constitution’s rules on separate amendments prevent lawmakers from packaging multiple, distinct changes into a single ballot measure. Keating has singled out one provision in particular that he opposes: language that would require proof of identification from every voter, including those who cast ballots by mail.
Ballots are handled and sorted during a local count as legal challenges surrounding Proposition 144 continue.
Keating’s legal filing, submitted by attorney Daniel Arellano, acknowledges that “any of these proposals may be valid — even laudable — as its own amendment.” But the filing contends that bundling the state’s five central election-related proposals into one measure violates the separate-amendment rule because each provision could stand alone and addresses distinct subjects. Arellano pointed to the provision that would bar foreign nationals from spending money to influence Arizona elections as an example of an item that bears no logical relationship to other aspects of the package, such as rules about ballot counting.
“Whether foreign nationals can give or spend money to fund Arizona campaigns has no facial relationship to who may vote, what kind of identification is necessary to vote, how votes are counted, or how legislative power concerning elections is exercised,” Arellano wrote. “Barring foreign nationals from influencing Arizona elections does not logically imply, say, counting ballots faster.” That argument formed the core of Keating’s appeal to the Supreme Court after an earlier setback in lower court.
Opponents of Keating’s challenge, including legal counsel for top Republican legislative leaders, counter that every provision in the measure relates to a single, unifying theme: election integrity. In filings to the court, attorney Kory Langhofer argued that the Arizona Constitution’s Separate Amendment Rule permits constitutionally consistent provisions to be combined when they are “sufficiently related to a common purpose or principle.” Langhofer told the justices that is exactly what the measure does, and that bundling these provisions into one constitutional amendment is therefore lawful.
Keating lost the first round of the dispute when Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce ruled the provisions are “topically related” to election integrity and allowed the measure to remain on the ballot. With that ruling, the case advanced to the Arizona Supreme Court, where Keating is now pressing his contention that voters should not be forced to accept some provisions simply because they support others in the same package.
The proposed change contains multiple elements. One portion restates that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections, and adds language that state elections shall be decided solely by votes cast by eligible citizen voters. Another section would prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence Arizona elections. The measure would also direct counties to provide an option for immediate tabulation of ballots that are dropped off on election day, contingent on the voter providing identification at the time of drop-off rather than sending such ballots elsewhere for later processing. Perhaps the most controversial element for some critics is an amendment requiring “valid government issued proof of identity” before casting a ballot, applicable “whether voting in person or by any other method.”
In addition, the proposal would add a constitutional provision stating that future election laws enacted by lawmakers or voters must be “rationally connected to a legitimate state interest,” with “legitimate state interest” defined to include timely and accurate results, election security and “preserving public confidence in the integrity of elections.” Supporters argue the language provides a standard for future election legislation; opponents view it as another distinct policy choice that should not be tied to other changes in a single up-or-down vote.
Keating’s attorneys emphasized the practical effect of combining the different topics in one ballot question: voters could be compelled to approve provisions they oppose in order to obtain changes they support. The filing asks the Supreme Court to apply the separate-amendment rule and require that the individual pieces be presented to voters separately, rather than as a bundled constitutional amendment. Langhofer and the legislative leaders’ legal team maintain that the constitution allows multiple, consistent provisions addressing a common theme to be presented together and that the measure meets that standard.
With the Supreme Court now considering the matter, the future of the package of election provisions remains uncertain. The outcome will determine whether voters will be presented with the single Proposition 144 measure as currently drafted or whether the court will order some or all provisions removed or separated for individual consideration. The challenge represents the latest legal fight over how election policy questions are framed for voters and whether the boundaries of constitutionally permissible ballot measures protect voters from being forced to accept unrelated changes when they cast their ballots.
A conservative legal group separately sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes this week, accusing him of using biased and misleading language in the official ballot explanation to steer voters against Proposition 144. The Arizona Capitol Times reported the suit adds another legal front to the ongoing disputes over the measure's wording and presentation ahead of the November election.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce issued her ruling on July 27, 2026, finding the measure’s provisions to be “topically related” and allowing Proposition 144 to remain on the November ballot.