Key Points: 

• Elections Procedures Manual get executive approval

• Changes reflect court rulings, public comments and executive edits

• Legislature undertaking a close review to ensure compliance with state law

With the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual in effect, the Legislature is now taking a fine-toothed comb to each provision, potentially teeing up another round of litigation. 

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Gov. Katie Hobbs all signed off on the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual on Dec. 23, bringing to a close the odd-year process of promulgating a playbook for election workers and officials.

But as the 2025 EPM takes effect, ongoing litigation over the prior draft puts some provisions in limbo, and a new set of eyes could spark another round of legal challenges. 

“While the Elections Procedures Manual has been approved, that does not mean it is beyond scrutiny,” Senate President Warren Petersen said. 

Per state law, the secretary of state, in consultation with county election officials, must draft a new manual every odd-numbered year and seal it with a final sign-off from the governor and attorney general. 

The Secretary of State’s Office, in consultation with election officials from all 15 counties, conducted a section-by-section review of the prior manual and publicly unveiled the first draft of the 2025 manual on August 1. 

What they found was a departure from the 2023 manual in a few respects. 

For example, the new manual no longer contains a provision delineating voter intimidation and harassment, following two parties successfully arguing that there was a potential for chilled speech in the state and federal courts. 

Fontes also struck a provision requiring the state to move forward without the votes of a county that fails to certify on time, similarly in response to successful litigation. 

And during the drafting process, the courts weighed a legal challenge from the Republican Party of Arizona and the Republican National Committee on whether the manual had to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and thus, was required to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 30 days. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals found the EPM had to comply with the APA, though the decision was later overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. 

But, in yielding to the momentarily successful court challenge, and in the name of best practice, Fontes solicited public comment for 30 days.

On Oct. 2, Fontes posted a second draft, with notes of the changes responsive to public input. 

The office took into account one legislative recommendation, clarifying a footnote on petition circulators, but did not include a number of other requested changes, particularly those pertaining to proof of citizenship. 

Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro took issue with a provision they said purportedly allows county recorders to cure registrations when they have found evidence that an applicant is not a citizen. 

The legislative leaders instead recommend the EPM require county recorders to cancel registrations and refer applications to the attorney general and county attorney for further investigation. 

And in a similar vein, the two also flagged a provision empowering recorders to attempt to secure proof of citizenship on a registrant’s behalf and wanted to strike a provision that made a lack of proof of citizenship an “invalid ground” to challenge an early ballot. 

With select edits, Fontes then sent the manual to Hobbs and Mayes in early October for the final round of executive edits. 

According to a transmittal letter from the Secretary of State’s Office, Hobbs and Mayes requested a footnote detailing the pending litigation regarding the Arizona Independent Party’s name change. 

Per the letter, the secretary of state’s guidance to counties instructing them to honor the name change remains valid but is not included in the manual due to the ongoing lawsuit. 

Mayes and Hobbs also requested slight tweaks to the observer section to align with state law, which requires observers at voting and central count locations and allows county election officers the discretion to admit observation elsewhere. 

The prior draft listed places such as “early voting locations, emergency voting centers, and County Recorder processing procedures, where permitted by the County Recorder or other officer in charge of elections,” while the final EPM allows observation “at any other location where observation is permitted.”

Mayes and Hobbs also added a section instructing counties to develop a process to accept documentary proof of citizenship and residency at voting locations.

The manual now requires voters providing proof of citizenship or residency to provide photocopies and complete a form to be sent to recorders with the voter’s provisional ballots, either on the spot or by 7 p.m. on Election Day. 

Though final, the manual still has some provisions in limbo. 

Ongoing challenges by the Legislature, as well as the state and national Republican parties, are still pending a final say from the court, leaving issues of documentary proof of citizenship, non-resident juror questionnaire responses, county canvassing and active early voting list removal subject to change. 

Litigation against the 2025 EPM could materialize as well, as the new draft did not accommodate every requested edit submitted in public comment by past litigants, including the Legislature, the Republican Party of Arizona, and the Republican National Committee.

The Legislature is actively reviewing the manual, according to Petersen, the Senate president.