Special Master Discovers Thousands Of Duplicate Signatures On Key Petition

Voter registration table with forms, pens, and brochures.

Special Master Christopher Skelly discovers 37,657 duplicate signatures on Proposition 140 petitions, raising serious election integrity concerns.

At a Glance

99% of reviewed signatures for Proposition 140 were duplicates.
Proposition 140 is short of the required signatures to qualify for the ballot by over 3,300 signatures.
The special interests behind Prop 140 allegedly attempted to delay the challenge despite knowing about the duplicate signatures.
The statutory calculation for the signature threshold has been upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.
A hearing on Wednesday will decide the fate of Prop 140’s open primary and ranked-choice voting initiative.

Discovery Highlights Significant Election Integrity Issue

Special Master Christopher Skelly’s recent review revealed 99% of the 38,000 signatures reviewed for Proposition 140 were duplicates. Out of 41,387 challenged signatures, 37,657 were invalid. This discovery has placed Proposition 140 thousands of signatures below the required threshold to qualify for the ballot, falling short by over 3,300 signatures.

The verification of signatures is a critical aspect of maintaining the integrity of our electoral system. Proposition 140, which aims to implement a California-style election system with ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries, now faces significant scrutiny due to these findings. Ensuring every step of the process is transparent and accurate is paramount to upholding democratic processes.

High-Profile Reactions and Legal Implications

Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, asserted that “Prop 140 lacked the necessary signatures from the start.” The special interests behind this proposition allegedly tried to delay the challenge, even though they were aware of the duplicate signatures. The Arizona Supreme Court has allowed the signature challenge lawsuit to proceed to ensure the removal of these duplicates.

“As we knew all along, Prop 140 lacks the signatures required for this measure to even make it to the ballot in the first place, let alone be considered by voters in November,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Even though they knew about the illegitimacy of these duplicate signatures, the special interests behind this initiative attempted to run out the clock on this challenge through obstruction and delay. They were caught, and now we hope the court does the right thing and enjoins the measure from tabulation in the fall.”

The removal of these duplicate signatures highlights a glaring issue in signature verification processes. Judge Frank Moscowitz of Maricopa County Superior Court will hold the next hearing on Wednesday, which could be decisive for the future of Prop 140 and the proposed changes to the election system.

Importance of Robust Verification Standards

This incident underlines the need for robust verification processes to prevent similar occurrences in future campaigns. The current statutory calculation for the signature threshold, which has been in place for over 25 years and was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in Mussi v. Hobbs (2022), plays a vital role in maintaining election integrity.

An evaluation of current practices and a reevaluation of verification processes are essential steps to ensure that our democratic systems work as intended. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s criticism of the “Make Elections Fair PAC” for their flawed signature gathering efforts should serve as a wake-up call to election officials and voters alike.

Judge Skelly’s report, proving the duplicity by “clear and convincing evidence,” highlights how critical it is to follow stringent verification methods. Nearly 40,000 duplicate signatures, some signed multiple times by individuals, mark a clear breach in the integrity of the process.

In conclusion, maintaining and enhancing our verification standards is crucial to preserve the trust and efficacy of our electoral system and ensure legitimate democratic representation.