CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

No Relief from the Ballot-Petition Signature 

Requirements for Arizona Initiatives 

During a Pandemic 

Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs 

(Dominic W. Lanza, D. Ariz. 2:20-cv-658) 

A district judge declined to order Arizona to accept electronic signatures to get initiatives on the November ballot during social distancing made necessary by a global infectious pandemic. The judge was 

not confident that the proposed remedy would not conflict with Arizona’s constitution, which the plaintiffs had not challenged. Moreover, the judge was not convinced that the pandemic would persist 

or that the plaintiffs could not have qualified their initiatives for the 

ballot had they collected the signatures required before the pandemic. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; getting on the 

ballot; Covid-19; intervention; matters for state courts; laches. 

Two organizations formed to promote two ballot initiatives and a voter filed 

in the District of Arizona a federal complaint against state and county election 

officials on the afternoon of April 2, 2020, seeking relief from ballot-petition 

signature requirements for initiatives in light of social distancing necessary 

because of the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic.1 In particular, the plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the defendants to accept electronic signatures.2

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.3

On the next day, Judge Dominic W. Lanza set the case for hearing on April 

14.4 On April 10, he issued a docket-text order providing the news media and 

other members of the public with instructions on how to listen to the telephonic hearing, cautioning that audiotaping the proceeding would be prohibited.5

 There were approximately sixty persons on the call, although only a few 

needed to speak, and the telephonic hearing went well.6 Judge Lanza began 

with an allusion to the ground rules: 

1. Complaint, Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 

2020), D.E. 1; Scheduling Order, id. (Apr. 3, 2020), D.E. 9; Arizonans for Fair Elections v. 

Hobbs, 454 F. Supp. 3d 910, 916 (D. Ariz. 2020). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 13–14, 21. 

3. Motion, Arizonans for Fair Elections, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2020), D.E. 29; 

Arizonans for Fair Elections, 454 F. Supp. 3d at 916. 

4. Scheduling Order, supra note 1; Arizonans for Fair Elections, 454 F. Supp. 3d at 917; 

Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs, 335 F.R.D. 261, 265 (D. Ariz. 2020); see Transcript, 

Arizonans for Fair Elections, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2020, filed Apr. 15, 2020), D.E. 

102. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Lanza for this report by telephone on August 17, 2020. 

5. Docket Sheet, Arizonans for Fair Elections, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2020) (D.E. 

68); see Arizonans for Fair Elections, 454 F. Supp. 3d at 917. 

6. Interview with Hon. Dominic W. Lanza, Aug. 17, 2020 (noting appreciation for the 
No Relief from the Ballot-Petition Signature Requirements 

 for Arizona Initiatives During a Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 

I know that before we came on board the courtroom deputy spoke to you 

about the ground rules so that we can all understand each other. But please 

keep your phone on mute unless you are speaking. And I will let each party 

know when it’s their turn to speak so that there’s no confusion.7

On April 9, Judge Lanza granted Arizona’s April 6 motion to intervene.8

“Although the Court understands Plaintiffs’ objection to the State’s intervention request from a tactical standpoint, the issues raised here are too important 

to be resolved through a one-sided process where all parties agree with each 

other.”9 On April 10, Judge Lanza denied an April 8 motion to intervene by 

the leaders of Arizona’s legislature, because the legislature’s interests were already adequately represented by the state.10

Judge Lanza dismissed the action on April 17.11 Although the plaintiffs argued that their proposed remedies would substantially comply with Arizona’s 

constitution, Judge Lanza could not be certain that they were right, and the 

plaintiffs did not seek an injunction against constitutional provisions in their 

complaint.12 In addition, “although it is impossible to predict how the pandemic will play out in the coming weeks and months, it is possible that conditions will abate to the point that in-person signature gathering again becomes 

viable before the July 2020 submission deadline for signatures.”13 Judge Lanza 

also noted that the plaintiff organizations could have collected the required 

number of signatures before the pandemic hit.14

After Arizona’s supreme court also declined to order Arizona to accept 

electronic signatures,15 the federal plaintiffs dismissed an appeal voluntarily.16

authorization to invite public auditing of the hearing). 

7. Transcript, supra note 4, at 6. 

8. Arizonans for Fair Elections, 335 F.R.D. 261; Intervention Motion, Arizonans for Fair 

Elections, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6, 2020), D.E. 46; see Arizonans for Fair Elections v. 

Hobbs, 335 F.R.D. 269, 273 (D. Ariz. 2020). 

9. Arizonans for Fair Elections, 335 F.R.D. at 269. 

10. Arizonans for Fair Elections, 335 F.R.D. 269; Intervention Motion, Arizonans for Fair 

Elections, No. 2:20-cv-658 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020), D.E. 60. 

11. Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs, 454 F. Supp. 3d 910, 910 (D. Ariz. 2020); see

Howard Fischer, Judge Throws Out Petition Groups’ Request to Collect Signatures Online, Ariz. 

Daily Star, Apr. 18, 2020, at B1. 

12. Arizonans for Fair Elections, 454 F. Supp. 3d at 917–20. 

13. Id. at 915. 

14. Id. at 925–26. 

15. Opinion, Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs, No. CV-20-98-SA (Ariz. Sept. 4, 

2020); see id. at 4 (noting a May 13, 2020, decision); see also Andrew Oxford, Arizona Supreme 

Court Rejects Bid for Gathering Signatures Online, Ariz. Republic, May 14, 2020, at A10. 

16. Order, Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs, No. 20-15719 (9th Cir. May 19, 2020).