Background
Arizona law requires the Secretary of State to publish an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) every odd-numbered year. Drafted in consultation with county election officials and submitted to the Governor and Attorney General for approval by October 1, the EPM must be issued by December 31. Once issued, the EPM carries the force of law and violations constitute a class 2 misdemeanor. The Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (APA), A.R.S. § 41-1002(A), separately mandates that all agency rules — including those carrying the force of law — be promulgated through a formal notice-and-comment process unless an agency is “expressly exempted.”
In 2023, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes published a draft EPM and invited public comment for fifteen days, characterizing that solicitation as a voluntary good-government practice rather than a legal obligation. After the Governor and Attorney General approved the revised manual, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and allied plaintiffs filed suit. The RNC argued the Secretary had bypassed the APA’s mandatory thirty-day notice-and-comment period and sought to invalidate the 2023 EPM. In the alternative, the RNC challenged eight specific EPM provisions as conflicting with state or federal law.
The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that § 16-452’s EPM process constituted an independent legislative scheme that satisfied the APA’s “unless otherwise provided by law” savings clause in § 41-1030(A). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the APA applied and that the Secretary’s fifteen-day comment period fell short of substantial compliance. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review and, in an October 2025 decision order, vacated the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s ruling; this opinion sets out the Court’s reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that the EPM is not subject to APA rulemaking requirements. Writing for all seven justices, Justice Montgomery first acknowledged that the EPM meets the APA’s definition of “rules” and that the Secretary qualifies as a covered “agency” — concessions the Secretary himself made. The Court then rejected each of the Secretary’s five claimed irreconcilable conflicts between the APA and § 16-452, finding that, on the face of the statutes, none of the asserted timing, consultation, publication, approval, or judicial-review differences made simultaneous compliance impossible. Because no actual conflict existed, the Court held the EPM was not “expressly exempted” from the APA through conflict alone.
The Court nonetheless held that the EPM falls outside the APA’s reach under § 41-1030(A)’s “unless otherwise provided by law” clause. Applying ordinary-meaning analysis rooted in 1992 dictionary definitions and prior Arizona precedent, the Court construed “otherwise provided by law” to mean that when the Legislature has prescribed a separate, specific statutory method for accomplishing the same task — here, the biennial EPM process under § 16-452 — that alternative process is the governing procedure and a rule issued under it is not rendered invalid for failure to follow APA rulemaking. The Court emphasized that § 16-452’s tailored framework — fixed deadlines, consultation with county officials (rather than open public notice-and-comment), and dual approval by the Governor and Attorney General — reflects deliberate legislative choices for the time-sensitive, recurring demands of election administration, distinct in purpose and structure from the APA’s generally applicable rulemaking regime.
The Court further supported its reading by noting that the Legislature has amended § 16-452 five times and § 41-1030(A) seven times since 1992 without ever cross-referencing the two statutes or signaling that the EPM process and APA rulemaking are interrelated. The Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal on the APA issue, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The Arizona Election Procedures Manual is not subject to APA notice-and-comment rulemaking; § 16-452’s specific process for consulting county officials and obtaining executive branch approval constitutes an alternative procedure “otherwise provided by law” under § 41-1030(A).
- A statutory conflict between an agency-specific process and the APA is not, by itself, an “express exemption” from the APA under § 41-1002(A) — the Court rejected the argument that irreconcilable conflict can substitute for express exemption language.
- The “unless otherwise provided by law” clause in § 41-1030(A) operates as a substantive carve-out, not merely a remedial provision: where the Legislature has enacted a distinct alternative rulemaking scheme for the same subject matter, that scheme controls validity without the need for express APA exemption language elsewhere.
- Although the Secretary’s voluntary public comment period during the 2023 EPM cycle was praised as good practice, the Court confirmed there is no statutory requirement for public notice-and-comment in the EPM process; citizen input is channeled through county election officials during the consultation phase.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves a significant structural question about Arizona election administration: the Secretary of State may continue to issue biennial EPMs on the Legislature’s fixed timeline without layering the APA’s thirty-day notice, publication in the Arizona Administrative Code, and formal comment requirements onto the process. For election lawyers and administrators, this confirms that legal challenges to EPM provisions must be brought under § 16-452’s own framework — including the special-action route the plaintiffs used here — rather than the APA’s petition procedure under § 41-1033.
More broadly, the opinion clarifies how Arizona courts should read the “unless otherwise provided by law” savings clause that appears across multiple APA provisions. The Court’s holding that a specific alternative legislative scheme can displace APA requirements even absent magic-words exemption language may have implications beyond elections, potentially affecting other agencies operating under subject-matter-specific statutory frameworks. Defense counsel in APA compliance challenges will likely cite this decision when arguing that a tailored enabling statute occupies the field, while regulated parties and public-interest groups will point to the Court’s equally clear warning that implied conflicts alone cannot do the work of express exemptions.