Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: early ballots

Arizona Republicans reignite push for Florida style elections

Key Points:
  • Arizona Republicans propose Secure Arizona Elections Act
  • Measure requires 7 p.m. Friday deadline for early ballots
  • Democrats claim the measure is a voter suppression tactic by Republicans

Arizona Republicans who want to speed up and secure state election results are planning to subvert the state’s Democratic governor by pushing a controversial election measure to voters on the 2026 general election ballot.

GOP lawmakers in both chambers at the Capitol prefiled identical resolutions that they say would make the state’s elections more secure. The resolutions, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1001 and House Concurrent Resolution 2001, are both titled the Secure Arizona Elections Act. The provisions are similar to Florida election laws.

The measure would require all early ballots to be submitted by 7 p.m. the Friday before an election and require voters to provide identification when casting their ballots. It also requires voters on the Active Early Voting List to confirm their ballot-delivery address each election year. 

“Arizonans are tired of excuses and chaos on Election Day,” said the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, in a statement. “The Arizona Secure Elections Act gives voters clear rules, strong identification standards, and the confidence that only citizens are taking part in our elections. These are straightforward reforms that put voters first. They ensure our elections run on time, follow the law, and earn the public’s trust. I look forward to sending it to the ballot so the people of Arizona can make it the law.”

During the 2025 legislative session, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed House Bill 2703, a GOP proposal that carried several similar election reforms, including the 7 p.m. Friday deadline for early ballots and the address verification requirements for Active Early Voting List voters. 

In her veto letter, Hobbs wrote she was unwilling to speed up election results at the expense of restricting Arizona citizens’ freedom to vote and warned that HB2703 would “effectively” end the Active Early Voting List. 

If the measure is approved as a resolution by both the House and the Senate, Republicans would be able to ask voters for approval of these new election rules directly rather than seek the governor’s signature.

The House resolution is cosponsored by several Republicans affiliated with the Arizona Freedom Caucus who have been pushing for faster election results and stronger voter identification requirements. 

Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, is sponsoring the Senate measure as a top priority for Senate Republicans that would also prohibit foreign donations in state elections. 

“Election integrity is paramount to maintain our Republic,” Bolick said in a statement. “For years, voters have asked for reforms that protect their voice and restore confidence in the system. It’s time we give them the chance to secure those protections permanently.”

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, told the Arizona Capitol Times that she believes both the mirror resolutions are written vaguely and could lead to voter suppression in 2026. 

“I think that we’re going to see these voter suppression efforts amplified this year because I think Republicans are terrified by the election results that we saw in Virginia and New Jersey,” Ortiz said. “Arizona Republicans are reading the tea leaves and are recognizing the only way they can win is to cheat and that’s what they are trying to do.”

Ortiz said she was alarmed by a particular provision that states that votes shall not be cast or accepted after poll closing times on general election day. She said such language could be interpreted to not allow people standing in line past the deadline to vote at a polling place on election day.

Kolodin told the Arizona Capitol Times that it is not his intention with the measure and that the resolution does not do that. It would also guarantee that all qualified voters have a right to vote in person at a conveniently located polling place. 

The founder of the state’s Freedom Caucus, Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, accused other Republicans at the Legislature of attempting to kill the Arizona Secure Act in a Nov. 18 post on X due to the address verification requirements of the bill. 

If the measure were to make it to the ballot, Ortiz said she believes voters would be unlikely to pass it, but anticipated a well–funded campaign leading up to the election. 

“If voters understand this, there’s no way it’s going to pass,” she said. 

A housing organization in the state is warning new federal homelessness rules could push more Arizonans onto the streets. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week announced $3.9 billion in competitive grant funding for federal assistance to local homelessness programs, taking a different approach from former President Joe Biden’s “housing first” model for individuals experiencing homelessness to transitional programs with enhanced drug-treatment requirements, mandatory use of a federal immigration-verification system and a focus on “self sufficiency” rather than the “perpetuation of slush funds.”

The Arizona Housing Coalition warned in a Wednesday news release that the new rules for grant funding could negatively impact tribal and rural communities which depend on long-term housing options.

According to the coalition, Arizona cannot meet the new rule requirements currently. One of the rules requires full statewide participation in federal sex-offender reporting systems but Arizona’s law enforcement and tribal police agencies use different reporting systems that don’t connect to federal systems. Many tribal and rural areas also don’t have 24/7 detox and inpatient treatment facilities set up in accordance with the new rules.

“Our members see the reality every day,” said Nicole Newhouse, Housing Coalition Executive Director Nicole Newhouse said in a statement. “Some rural counties don’t have a detox bed, an inpatient center, or a crisis team within 100 miles. You can’t require services that don’t exist and then punish communities for not having them. That doesn’t solve homelessness — it makes it worse.”

The new federal grants also cannot be awarded until May 2026 and some contracts in Arizona end earlier than that date, which could result in some people losing housing services. 

The coalition is pushing for Congress to extend all existing HUD grants for one additional year while local communities work to meet the new grant requirements. 

According to the federal housing department, about 90% of homelessness grants supported housing first programs and transitional housing programs never received more than 2% of annual grant funding during Biden’s presidency. 

The new rule changes would also substantially increase competition for grant funding, rising from about 10% of projects to 70% under the Trump administration.

Republican leaders challenge secretary of state’s new draft of election procedures manual

Key Points:
  • Top Republican lawmakers threaten to sue Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over proposed election rules
  • Lawmakers claim Fontes’ planned changes go beyond state law and amount to creating law on his own
  • Judges have previously declared some of Fontes’ actions to be illegal

Two top Republican lawmakers have a message for Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes: Change your proposed elections rules, or we’ll see you in court.

Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro contend that what Fontes is planning to put into the new Elections Procedures Manual goes beyond what is in state law. And that, they say, means he is trying to create law on his own, something he cannot do.

The questioned provisions range from changes to the voter registration process to whether party representatives can challenge early ballots over proof of citizenship.

“If the secretary of state wants rules changed, he should propose legislation like everyone else,” said Petersen in a prepared comment.

“Arizona law is clear: The Legislature writes the rules for elections,” said Montenegro.

“The secretary of state does not get to invent new ones,” he continued. “If Fontes refuses to correct these unlawful provisions, the courts will.”

Aaron Thacker, spokesman for Fontes, called the threats of litigation “premature,” saying the process of adopting a new manual is still underway. He declined to address any of the allegations raised by the GOP lawmakers.

“Let’s allow that process to unfold before jumping to conclusions or engaging in political theater,” Thacker told Capitol Media Services. “Once the ink is dry, we’ll be better positioned to have a substantive conversation.”

But this isn’t the first time the secretary’s actions have been questioned. And judges previously have declared some of his actions to be illegal.

State laws provide the specifics on how everything from voter registration to elections are to be conducted, but the law also requires the secretary of state to craft a manual on a biennial basis to provide guidance for election officials.

Some provisions address logistical issues, such as posting notices at polling places for write-in candidates and those who have withdrawn from the race. But it also spells out, in greater detail than in statute, procedures and rules for polling places.

What makes that important is that what’s in the Elections Procedures Manual has the force of law, with violators subject to criminal prosecution. But what’s also clear is that what’s in the manual cannot directly conflict with or overrule what’s in the Election Code.

Petersen and Montenegro contend that’s what’s happening here.

For example, they cite a provision in the draft manual that says when a database check provides affirmative evidence someone is not a citizen, election officials should give that person up through 7 p.m. on Election Day to “cure” the defect.

They contend that applies only when mandated information is “incomplete or illegible.” However, they state that once an election official has actual indication that the person is not a citizen, the application must be rejected, and a letter must be sent to the applicant before the case is referred to state and local prosecutors.

Also being questioned is a provision that if an applicant does not furnish “documentary proof of citizenship” — required under a 2004 voter-approved law — that the county recorder must attempt to acquire that proof on the applicant’s behalf using other records, like from the Motor Vehicle Division.

And they challenge another provision which says that a “mistake or inconsistency” in the required registration of someone to circulate initiative petitions for pay can be excused. The GOP lawmakers say that runs contrary to state law and Supreme Court rulings which require that all laws dealing with initiative petitions must be “strictly construed.”

Thacker said the comments by Petersen and Montenegro will be considered, along with any others submitted by this past Saturday’s deadline for feedback, with the possibility for changes to the manual before its submitted to Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes. Once there, they, in turn, can also ask for changes.

“This entire process is designed to be deliberative and transparent, and is scheduled to conclude by the statutory deadline of Dec. 31,” Thacker said.

There actually was more time for comment this year after the state Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that Fontes had broken the law last time by allowing just 15 days for public comment. The judges said Arizona law requires at least 30 days for comments on any proposed regulations, elections or otherwise.

And, time issues aside, this isn’t the first time a court has concluded that Fontes tried to put items into the Elections Procedures Manual that are not allowed under state law.

Last year, a federal judge blocked Fontes from enforcing a provision in his 2023 version of the manual which would have allowed him to refuse to include a county’s vote in the statewide totals if the local supervisors failed to certify the results.

In a strongly worded ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi acknowledged the 2022 effort by the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to delay certification. And that action threatened to hold up the formal canvass of all the votes through the entire state — and even change the outcome of some races.

But Liburdi said the solution Fontes incorporated in the Elections Procedures Manual — allowing him to skip over those uncertified votes simply to finalize the state results — would unfairly and illegally disenfranchise the voters who had cast their ballots.

“If the right to vote is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted, then the canvass provision imposes the most severe burden: state-sanctioned disenfranchisement,” the judge wrote.

Consider, Liburdi said, what would happen if Maricopa County supervisors balked.

Under the rules Fontes enacted in the manual, he would have been permitted to certify the state results without including those votes. And that, the judge said, would mean all 2.4 million votes from Maricopa residents would not count when the state finalized the results — meaning the results would be determined based on the votes only from the 14 other counties.

What’s worse, Liburdi said, is that none of this would be the fault of the disenfranchised voters.

“A registered voter in Arizona may perfectly comply with all voting requirements and obligations but nonetheless have her vote excluded based on the mal- or nonfeasance of public officials,” he wrote.

Liburdi also barred Fontes from enforcing another provision which would have prohibited “any activity by a person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters … inside or outside the 75-foot limit at a voting location.”

The judge said there’s no problem in general with barring intentional threats, intimidation or coercion. The issue, he said, is that it also outlaws actions that have the effect of doing so, regardless of the intent of the person.

Then there’s the fact that the manual, as written by Fontes, governed not just actions inside the 75-foot perimeter in which certain activities are forbidden by statute, like campaigning or taking pictures, but also beyond that line.

“Thus, speech that a listener finds too loud, too offensive or too insolent — potentially anywhere in Arizona — is prohibited,” Liburdi wrote. “But it has long been established that speech may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending our sensibilities.”

And then there’s the fact that the prohibition is solely based on the reaction of the listener.

“Plaintiffs do not have fair notice of what speech is prohibited,” Liburdi wrote. And he said that, as worded, the provision could be enforced by a poll worker who would have the ability to have someone ejected from a polling place, even before they cast their own ballot.

“Moreover, the rule prohibits ‘offensive’ or ‘insulting’ speech without defining what categories of speech rise to the requisite level of offense or insult,” he continued. “Without any limitation, election officials and poll workers have nearly unfettered discretion in categorizing and regulating a voter’s speech.”

And that, said Liburdi, increases the likelihood the provision would be arbitrarily enforced.

Fontes has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review Liburdi’s decision. It has yet to rule on the issue.

What do Arizona voters want on election reform? We asked.

The debate over election reform in Arizona is active, ongoing and likely headed to the ballot. As policymakers and voters alike weigh in, it’s critical that we ground the conversation in what Arizona voters think.

That’s why Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA) asked voters directly through our nonpartisan public opinion research.

Here’s what we asked:

Dr. Sybil Francis
Dr. Sybil Francis

Here are two statements regarding the timing of election results:

  • Voter A believes we need to have election results sooner even if it means limiting convenient voting options. We should stop early ballot drop-off a few days before Election Day to speed up results.
  • Voter B believes it should be easy and convenient for eligible citizens to vote. We should continue allowing voters to drop off their early ballots up to and including on Election Day. It’s worth it to ensure every voter has a chance to vote even if it means waiting longer for final election results.

Which of the two best represents your opinion? (Response options: Voter A, Voter B, Not sure)

Here’s what Arizona voters told us:

  • 69% chose Voter B, supporting continued access to drop off early ballots up to and on Election Day, even if it means waiting longer for results. This position crossed party lines: 
    • 56% Republicans
    • 72% independent and unaffiliated voters
    • 82% Democrats
  • 25% chose Voter A, prioritizing faster results even if it means limiting voting options:
    • 38% Republicans
    • 21% independent and unaffiliated voters
    • 14% Democrats

In other words, the vast majority of voters like the current rules and are not calling for change that would speed up results. That’s a meaningful consensus in a politically diverse state like ours.

Voters want pragmatic solutions, not false choices.

Of course, we’d all welcome faster election results, but not at the cost of convenience. The debate has often been framed as a binary choice: speed or access. Voters are rejecting that premise.

The fact that voters across the political spectrum value the convenience of dropping off ballots through Election Day does not mean they wouldn’t like results sooner. What they’re rejecting is the idea that faster results must come at the expense of accessibility and convenience.

The challenge for policymakers isn’t to pick one side of the equation. The real question to answer is: What would it look like to improve how quickly we finalize results while maintaining the ease and security that voters expect? That’s the conversation worth having. 

Trust is the real issue at stake

Election reform is about more than policy, it’s about trust. CFA’s polling also shows that 70% of Arizonans believe democracy is at risk, yet a majority — 58% to 34% — say they trust local election officials to run elections fairly. That trust is reinforced or eroded by whether voters feel their voices are reflected in the decisions being made.

For nearly 20 years, CFA has listened to Arizonans through public opinion research. One of the seven shared public values we’ve consistently found among Arizonans of all demographics, geography and ideology is a belief in civic engagement and a democracy that works for all. That includes a secure, fair and accessible election process.

In addition to the timing of election results, our research consistently shows majority support across party lines for:

These are areas where there is broad agreement. Of course, we ask about many issues, and some generate more debate, but these are priorities on which the vast majority of Arizona voters find common ground.

What comes next?  

Arizonans are also asking for collaborative leadership. Two-thirds say they want elected leaders to work across the aisle to solve problems. They’re not looking for ideological battles, they want common-sense collaboration.

This moment presents an opportunity. The data are clear: voters have told us what they value most. As the Legislature debates the next steps — and the issue potentially referred to the ballot — the question isn’t what voters think. We know that now. The question is: will they be heard?

Sybil Francis, Ph.D., is chair, president & CEO of Center for the Future of Arizona, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that brings Arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.

State Republicans push early ballot election reform, ID requirements for voting

Republican leaders are determined to reform the state’s election system to speed up tabulation of election results — even after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill last month that aimed to accomplish that goal.

The new measures would change the deadlines for early ballot drop off, require voters to update their names on an Active Early Voter List within a specific timeframe, allow schools to be used as polling places, and create new laws to ensure all votes are counted within a day of the election.

These provisions are similar to those vetoed by Hobbs in the past.

In that veto letter, Hobbs said she proposed compromises to quicken results while protecting the Active Early Voter List, but felt the bill could disenfranchise eligible voters.

Some observers view the debate as part of a political back-and-forth where lawmakers are looking to appeal to their constituents rather than work across the aisle to potentially address issues within the state’s voting system.

“The Republicans are trying to, in some instances, make voting more difficult. And Democrats … [are] claiming that an early vote is dropped off on election day, which is not an early vote.” said GOP consultant Chuck Coughlin, who is CEO and president of HighGround, Inc. “So they’re really not concerned about speeding up on election day returns. They’re just playing political ‘gotcha’ with the other side.”

A resolution introduced by Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, mirrors the bill Hobbs vetoed. The measure, HCR2013, passed the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee on March 5 and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee.

Like the vetoed bill, Kolodin’s resolution would also require early ballots to be dropped by 7 p.m. on Friday instead of by the same time on election day. It would also require early mail voters to confirm their address every election cycle if they live in a county with at least 500,000 people, or during the four-year period that accounts for two election cycles if they live in a smaller county.

Kolodin’s resolution also includes a provision prohibiting election officials from using any money from foreign governments or foreign nongovernmental organizations to administer an election.

Another resolution introduced by Sen. J. D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, SCR1030, would ask voters to require the legislature to create laws that would ensure that 95% of ballots are counted within 24 hours of an election.

Mesnard said during a Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee hearing on Feb. 19 that his premise was to let voters mandate the legislature to speed up the timeline for election results.

“Fundamentally, is this the right policy for the timeline and counting votes by election day, 95% within the day of the election?” he said. “If the voters pass that, then obviously we’ll be all more empowered to actually achieve a voter mandate.”

The resolution passed the Senate and was assigned to the House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections Committee, where it awaits a hearing.

Mesnard also introduced SB1001, which would require the signature and identification of a voter with an early ballot if they drop off the ballot after 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. That bill was awaiting a hearing in the Senate Committee of the Whole.

A number of other bills contain proposals that are either similar or overlap with the provisions in Kolodin’s resolution.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, introduced a bill that would require schools with gymnasiums to provide sufficient space as a polling place when requested by a county election official, and for the school itself to be closed on an election day.

However, teachers would have to come to work and conduct training or professional development, and would be prohibited from taking time off on that day unless it’s required by statute. The bill would also prevent a county’s board of supervisors from using voter centers in place of designated polling places.

Hoffman acknowledged during the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee hearing on Feb. 19 that the concept of the bill was similar to the measure vetoed by Hobbs and now in Kolodin’s resolution.

“The reality is we need more polling places. Our county recorders know we need more polling places,” he said.

Hoffman also introduced another bill that would require early voters or their representatives to show identification when dropping off a ballot or face a class 5 felony for knowingly violating identification requirements.

Both bills passed the Senate.

Coughlin said he believes there are ways for Democrats and Republicans to compromise on these issues and speed up the election process — if they make more of a bipartisan effort.

“It requires somebody to step up and be a leader, and we just haven’t seen that yet,” he said.

Republicans move to bypass governor’s veto on election legislation

With Gov. Katie Hobbs signaling opposition to a Republican proposal to speed up election results in Arizona, the measure is on a path for voters to decide. 

The House approved an amendment to HCR2013, called the “Arizona Free and Fair Elections Act,” on Tuesday that incorporates language from other election measures Republican legislators have introduced that would model Arizona’s elections after Florida’s. 

Speeding up the state’s election results is a major priority for Republicans in the legislature, but Hobbs views the bills as partisan measures that will make it harder for people to vote. 

“It’s abundantly clear these partisan bills are not about speeding up election results, but rather about disenfranchising voters to advantage one political party over the other,” Hobbs’ spokesman Christian Slater said in a written statement Tuesday. “The bills make it harder to vote by restricting late early drop-off, they effectively end the Active Early Voting List, and they unfairly burden public school districts.”

The two bills Republicans have introduced are HB2703 and SB1011. The mirror bills would stop allowing people to drop off early ballots on Election ay, called “late early” ballots. 

Under the proposal, the deadline to drop off an early ballot at a polling place would move to 7 p.m. the Friday before Election Day. Voters who try to deliver an early ballot on Election Day or the days after Friday would be required to present identification and sign an affidavit. 

Election officials have attributed delays to election results from the time it takes to verify late early signatures.

Schools would also be forced to provide space for use as a voting location for an election if the measure becomes law. 

Slater said Tuesday that Republicans have not tried to work with Hobbs and negotiate on the issue, and he promised a veto from the governor if the bill makes it to her desk “without real compromise.”

“Policies that make it harder to vote, without counter-balancing reforms to increase voter access, are a poison pill,” Slater said. 

With the House concurrent resolution, the measure could still become law if a majority of voters approve it. The resolution will likely make it through the House and Senate with GOP majorities, although the House did not vote on the measure Tuesday afternoon. 

“We don’t want the voters of Arizona to miss out on an opportunity to improve their election system,” said the sponsor of HCR2013, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale.

House Democrats attempted to implement their ideas to speed up election results with an offered amendment to HB2703 from Rep. Brian Garcia, D-Tempe, but Republicans voted against it. . 

Garcia’s amendment would still allow voters to drop off early ballots on Election Day by 7 p.m., but counties would be able to allow voters’ signatures to be corrected during the five business days after an election that includes a federal office and for three business days after any other election. 

“My amendment is voter-centered and responsibly works to speed up election results,” Garcia said.

Other provisions of the amendment include allowing two election workers to remove early ballots on election day to deliver them to a designated receiving site for tabulation and giving schools a choice in being used as a polling place.

“This is exactly what we should be doing. Putting power back into the hands of voters instead of trying to take it away,” said House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen. 

Republicans opposed the amendment and said it counters their attempt to get election results more quickly. 

“(It) would extend the tabulation time; the voting time, and essentially remove all the good functions of the bill,” said House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee Chairman Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman.

HCR2013 also includes other provisions that would require early mail voters to confirm their address with their county recorder’s office before every election cycle if they live in a county with a population of at least 500,000 or every four years if they live in a county with fewer than 500,000 people. County recorders could also provide on-site tabulation of early ballots during the early voting period.

“What the bill also will do is provide a more secure election system, but also a more convenient one,” Kolodin said. 

The resolution would also prohibit election officials from using foreign money services for election administration, but Arizona Association of Counties Executive Director Jen Marson said during a Jan 15 House ad Hoc Committee on Election Integrity and Florida-Style Voting Systems she wasn’t aware of any county that uses foreign money for election administration. 

 

Opinion: Vote today to determine winners and losers without delay

We’re in the final stretch of the 2024 election cycle. In just a matter of days, we should know the outcome of races and issues on the ballot that are important to the lives and livelihoods of Americans and the Grand Canyon state.

The key word is “should”. Unfortunately, as recent history has shown us, receiving results on winners and losers may not happen in a timely fashion in our all-important swing state.

Petersen, Toma, monument, lawsuit, Biden
Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert

During the last several election cycles, Arizona was in the national spotlight with embarrassing headlines because of election issues.  Citizens have been rightly frustrated over delayed results and day-of voting problems.  However, we don’t have to perpetuate these narratives again come November.  By voting early in-person, people can avoid day-of voting problems and know the final outcomes of races on election night, instead of weeks later.  

If more people understood how votes are counted, they would probably change their voting behavior.  The first batch of results appearing on TV screens at 8 p.m. on Election Day are the ballots that were dropped off, or mailed in, before 7 p.m. the Friday before Election Day.  Then, from 9 p.m. until about midnight, results start coming in from people who voted in person on election day.  If this was how everyone voted, we would likely know the results by midnight despite close races. But close races, and the phenomena known as “late earlies,” have thrown a wrench into the process and are prolonging results.

Arizona has been the epicenter for close races.  In 2022, several races, with millions of votes cast, were decided by just a few hundred votes.  These close races have not only made your vote more important than ever, but they have also created a situation where the winners of races cannot be determined until nearly every single vote is counted, and that takes quite a bit of time.  

Many people don’t realize this, but if you drop off your early ballot on election day, which is also known as a “late early,” it does not get counted for days.  When ballots are dropped off on election day, they must go through the signature verification process. If there are problems with your signature or ballot, then your ballot needs to be “cured.”  The county has five days to cure a ballot, and if the county cannot reach you to cure your ballot within that time frame, then it does not get counted at all.  

It can be frustrating that election officials have not been able to administer elections without this issue, but citizens can take action to avoid voting delays and election result delays.  Vote early in person, Monday through Saturday, until Election Day.  Some vote centers in Maricopa County are even open on Sundays. Early voting locations can be found at www.beballotready.vote.  

Don’t let our elections drag on, and don’t let yourself become disenfranchised because of an issue with a ballot dropped off on Election Day. The future of our state and our nation are dependent on every single vote. The country is watching and waiting for our important swing state to get this right and to provide results in a timely manner.

Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14. You can email him at wpetersen@azleg.gov.

AZ Supreme Court upholds decision to count votes for Prop 140

Arizonans will get to decide if they want to scrap partisan primaries.

In a brief order Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to block election officials from counting the votes for and against Proposition 140.

The measure already is on ballots. They had to go to the printer in late August to ensure early ballots could be sent out this Wednesday and others were available for on-site voting through election day.

Initiative foes pointed out, however, that there was still no final legal resolution to their argument that there were not actually enough valid signatures on petitions. So, they sought a court order to keep the votes from being tallied.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz refused, citing three alternate legal reasons why that was not an option. That sent the case to the state’s high court.

In Friday’s order Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer said the court reviewed the arguments and concluded Moskowitz is correct, dismissing the challenge.

But Timmer did not say which of the three theories she and her colleagues found to be persuasive, saying only that “an opinion explaining the court’s reasoning will follow in due course.”

The measure, if approved, would outlaw public funding for partisan primaries at any level of government where each party gets to nominate candidates for various offices.

In its place would be a single nonpartisan primary where all candidates from all parties – or no party at all – run against each other. And all registered voters could participate regardless of political affiliation.

Then the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election.

But it also would allow the Legislature to permit up to five candidates to be on the ballot. And in that case, the initiative would require use of a ranked-choice system where voters rate their candidates in order of preference and multiple rounds of counting and elimination could be needed before someone gets to the required 50% and is declared the winner.

Friday’s ruling came despite the legal efforts of the business-oriented Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

Its attorneys presented evidence to Moskowitz that 37,657 signatures on petitions to put Proposition 140 on the ballot were duplicates. Deducting those from the totals that were preliminary found valid by state and local election officials would have left the effort short of the 383,923 valid signatures needed.

Moskowitz, however, concluded that once the ballots went to the printer at the end of August – with the language for Proposition 140 on it – that ended the matter.

Friday’s ruling drew a disappointed reaction from Scot Mussi, president of the Free Enterprise Club.

“Our organization proved that the special interest groups attempting to hijack Arizona’s elections systems lacked the minimum number to qualify for the ballot to even be considered by voters in November,” he said in a prepared statement.

Mussi also charged, though offered no proof, that the backers, operating under the banner of Make Elections Fair, were aware of the duplicates and that their signature-gathering effort had fallen short.

“Yet they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month,” he said, essentially guaranteeing that there would be no final resolution before the ballot printing deadline.

Chuck Coughlin who is managing the Proposition 140 campaign, had a simpler reaction.

“We won,” he said.

Yet to be disclosed is exactly why the Supreme Court decided that voters will get the last word.

Moskowitz, likely anticipating a challenge to his ruling that the printing of the ballots made the whole case moot, included two other legal theories that the justices could use to uphold his decision to give voters the last word.

One goes to that question of whether there were enough signatures.

Backers turned in about 575,000 signatures. But a preliminary review of petitions and signatures by state and local election officials concluded that just 409,474 were valid.

That led foes to hire an outside firm to go through the signatures where, according to testimony presented in court, they found nearly 40,000 were duplicates where people had signed at least twice. Moskowitz said they proved their case for 37,657 of those, a calculation which, on paper, would leave the initiative drive short.

But he accepted the argument by a statistical expert hired by Make Elections Fair that deducting the duplicate signatures after some had likely already been removed by the state and county would amount to “double counting” the bad signatures. He said that was a basis to toss the challenge.

And Moskowitz proffered an ultimate fall-back position. He said even if there really are not enough valid signatures, and even if the ballot printing did not make the case moot, there is nothing in state law that would allow him — or the Supreme Court — to do what the Free Enterprise Club was asking: tell county election officials not to tally the votes for or against Proposition 140 and telling Secretary of State Adrian Fontes not to include the totals in the official state canvass.

Fontes agreed.

In his own legal filing, Fontes, a Democrat, said he is not taking a position on the initiative.

“But it is too late to continue litigating whether this initiative qualifies for the ballot given the fact that ballots for more than half the state, and all information relating to this measure for the publicity pamphlet, have already gone to the printer,” Fontes said through his lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office.

Similar arguments were submitted by Sen. Ken Bennett who formerly was secretary of state, and Helen Purcell who had been the Maricopa County recorder. Both are Republicans.

The latest campaign finance reports show that supporters of Prop 140 have collected more than $6.9 million.

There is $600,000 from Robson Walton who is a former chairman of the board of directors of Walmart who lives in Scottsdale.

David Tedesco, CEO of Outlier, and Robert Bertrand, founder of Concord Servicing Corp., also each gave $500,000. Both also were active in supporting Proposition 211, the successful 2022 measure designed to force the disclosure of “dark money” in campaign spending.

Another $500,000 is listed as coming from Mary Bernal who is listed as a trustee of the Brown Foundations that provide various grants.

And Tucsonan Saran Smallhouse, who chairs the Make Elections Fair Committee, gave $365,00. She is president of the Brown Foundations.

There are not any financial disclosure reports filed by opponents.

Lake supporters launching new effort to void her loss

Less than a month after having his claim rebuffed by the Arizona Supreme Court, Kari Lake supporters are mounting a new effort to void her loss in the 2022 gubernatorial...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Ducey wants major change in state election law

Gov. Doug Ducey wants a significant change in state election law that he said should lead to people knowing the outcome of all contested races that...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.