- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
LOMBARDO v. AZ CLEAN ELECTIONS
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
RISA LOMBARDO, an individual; ) Arizona Supreme Court DUWAYNE COLLIER, an individual, ) No. CV-26-0346-PR
)
Petitioners, ) Court of Appeals ) Division One
v. ) No. 1 CA-SA 26-0368
)
ARIZONA CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS ) Maricopa County COMMISSION, a public entity; ) Superior Court THOMAS COLLINS, in his official ) No. CV2026-037740 capacity, )
) FILED 10/23/2026
Respondents. ) __________________________________)
O R D E R
On October 15, 2026, the Court granted review of Lombardo and Colliers' ("Candidates") Petition for Special Action, treated as a Petition for Review, and directed the parties to submit simultaneous briefing limited to the following questions:
1. Does the Citizens Clean Elections Commission possess legal authority to determine that the Secretary of State's certification of qualifying contributions was incorrect?
2. If yes, does the Commission have the authority to order repayment of funds on that basis?
The Court, en banc, has considered Candidates' Petition and Appendix; the Responses filed by Executive Director Thomas Collins ("Director") and the Arizona Citizens' Clean Elections Commission ("Commission"); the supplemental briefing by Candidates, Director, and Commission; the brief by Amicus Curiae Scott Neely ("Amicus"); and response to Amicus by the Commission.
This dispute arose from separate letters sent by the Director to
1
Page 2 of 4
the Candidates on August 25, 2026, outlining alleged violations of the Citizens Clean Elections Act, A.R.S. § 16-940, et seq., and seeking repayment of Clean Elections funds that were distributed to the Candidates. The Director cited § 16-956(A)(7) as his statutory authority.
In his letter to Candidate Lombardo, the Director lists among other concerns, "3. Evidence demonstrates that you should not have been certified for funding." Citing A.R.S. § 16-950(C), which describes the Secretary of State's ministerial role in calculating qualifying contributions for Clean Elections funding, the letter states that "the certification appears to have been in error." The paragraph concludes that "[b]ecause the evidence suggests you did not receive sufficient Qualifying Contributions, I will ask the Commission to consider repayment."1This is the only part of the Director's bill of particulars that is before us. In his supplemental brief, the Director states that "[t]he reference to a possible error by the Secretary concerned only the mathematical calculation underlying Ms. Lombardo's certification,"
that Candidate Lombardo later successfully refuted that allegation, and that "[t]hat issue is resolved and has nothing to do with the Director's ongoing investigation."
Although that appears to resolve the dispute for now, in
1 Similarly, the letter separately states the Director anticipates asking the Commission to issue a repayment order "based on the incorrect certification."
Page 3 of 4
responding to the Court's first question ("Does the Citizens Clean Elections Commission possess legal authority to determine that the Secretary of State's certification of qualifying contributions was incorrect?"), both the Director and Commission argue that the Commission does possess such authority.
It does not. A.R.S. §§ 16-950(B) and (C) assign to the Secretary of State and county recorders a discrete role in certifying qualifying contributions. The Commission's rules, Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-20-105, further define those roles. The statute does not confer authority upon the Commission over that process, nor do the rules contemplate it.
In their supplemental brief, the Candidates state that "[a]ny person has the right to file suit if there is something lacking in the performance of [the Secretary of State's] duties, but that never happened here." But we did not grant review of that issue, and the Secretary of State and county recorders are not parties to this action. Thus, whether and how persons can challenge the Secretary's and county recorders' compliance is not before us. Likewise, we do not address the Commission's authority to investigate any malfeasance in obtaining qualified contributions or the remedies that it may impose if malfeasance is found. Those issues are best addressed after the Commission investigates any alleged malfeasance and imposes a remedy if malfeasance is found.
Because the Director has assured us that the Secretary's
Page 4 of 4
certification is no longer part of the investigation, we need not resolve the second question we directed to the parties. All other questions raised in the Petition over which we did not grant review await resolution in proper course.
DATED this 23rd day of October, 2026. /s/
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER
Chief Justice
TO:
Timothy A LaSota William A Richards Samantha Fox
Craig A Morgan Bradley Greenberger Matthew J Martin Hon Melissa Iyer Julian Kory A Langhofer Thomas J Basile
Alert