Replies

-- Perhaps you can point me to the section that supports:

The SoS certifies eligibility, and that decision may not be challenged.

Arizona Statutes: 16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper

A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper ...
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.

My contention is that for presidential candidates (those covered by 16-242), the challenge procedure of 16-351 is not available. Now, there might be a separate, stand-alone statutory right to challenge ballot access for presidential candidates, in an AZ court. Given the structure of the AZ election statutes, I don't think there is. Absent a statutory right to challenge in court, my belief is that an AZ court would assert something akin to "no standing."

-- A challenge does not appear to expire once ballots are printed. --

I don't disagree with that, but the timing of the challenge (which is NOT available under 16-351 for presidential candidates) aims to have the issue settled before the ballots are printed.

Let me finish by noting that while Section -351 applies to voters and denies them standing, it does not expressly deprive a “candidate” of a challenge, nor does such a prohibition appear elsewhere.

Ergo, on the face of it, judicial review of the SoS’s certification is not prohibited and the single gate keeper concept continues to hold promise for patriots. But is judicial review otherwise available?

Interestingly, AZ judicially overturned SoS Brewer’s formal certification of voting machines (Chavez v Brewer). Because of their unique circumstances the plaintiffs had standing, brought suit via statutes and the state’s Constitution, and prevailed in meaningful parts.

While the facts are different than what we would expect here, this statement from Chavez is helpful:
That the authority to certify voting machines is not constitutionally committed to the secretary of state but is prescribed as one of her duties by the legislature is an important factor in our determination that judicial review of her actions is not inappropriate.

Cboldt, you can have the last word.

Red Steel, this has been a good thread, I hope we didn’t drive folks away.