Republican Natl Committee et al v Fontes et al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the Secretary of State argued that ARS 41-1030(A) renders a rule valid if the agency follows a specific legislative process, even if it differs from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), because the statute invalidates rules only when they fail to comply with the APA unless otherwise provided by law.
2. The Secretary of State’s counsel contended that ARS 16-444(B) and the specific procedures in ARS 16-452 constitute an express exemption from the APA under ARS 41-1002(A) and (B), as these statutes expressly provide otherwise regarding election rulemaking.
3. Respondents argued that the APA trumps other statutes unless they expressly provide otherwise, and because ARS 16-452 does not contain an express exemption formulation, the Secretary of State must comply with both the EPM statutes and the APA.
4. Justices questioned whether the Secretary of State had legal authority to solicit public comment for the 2023 Election Procedures Manual if ARS 16-452 does not explicitly require it and the APA does not apply, noting that such actions were not prohibited by the specific statute.
5. Counsel for the Secretary of State warned that applying the APA retroactively would harm rural counties with limited staff by forcing a reversion to older manuals and reducing the time available for county consultation due to extended public comment periods.
6. Respondents argued that legislative acquiescence is not a valid basis for exemption, noting that the EPM has grown significantly in scope and impact, thereby necessitating APA protections for rules of general applicability.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT58M24S · Captions available