Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: election 2014

Sambo ‘Bo’ Dul: From state government to private law

After weathering storm after storm as a state elections director, chief legal adviser to both the secretary of state and the governor, Sambo “Bo” Dul, exited state government. Her work leaves her battle ready as she steps in to co-lead the election and public law practice at Coppersmith Brockelman.

How did you find your way to the law? What drew you to election law, to political law? 

When I was a kid, I really wanted to be a pediatrician, and then I came of age and got to learn more about my family’s experience. I was born in Cambodia in the immediate aftermath of the genocide, and then we fled the country right after that. I was a year old, and we went into a refugee camp, lived there for four years, and my dad was killed right before we got into the refugee camps. As I grew older, I became more curious and asked many questions, learning more about politics, the law, and their impact on our lives, both in Cambodia and after we moved to the US. 

The Khmer Rouge is just your quintessential example of what can happen when the rule of law, democratic institutions and any semblance of due process and equality under the law just completely falls away. It’s terror, and it’s genocide. 

My family lived firsthand a very grim alternative to democracy. And then, when we arrived in the US, we had to navigate rebuilding our lives in a country we weren’t familiar with. To have gone through all of that trauma and loss and to leave everything behind and come to a new country where you don’t know anything, you don’t understand anything, you don’t know the language, and you’re trying to rebuild your life, but you’re also trying to navigate this very bureaucratic immigration system. 

I had to become my family’s immigration lawyer. As a kid in middle school, I was filling out immigration forms for us and attending the meetings and translating, because I spoke the most English in my family. I became the family translator and immigration lawyer, navigating that process for my family from a very young age. A very prominent part of my adolescent years was the anguish and frustration of dealing with immigration bureaucracy. So all of that compelled me to study political science and economics in college and go to law school and public policy school afterward. 

What have been your most significant takeaways from your time in public practice?

We as a state have a lot of big, seemingly intractable problems, but none of these problems are not solvable if everyone is willing to come to the table and to talk to those you disagree with, and to put aside pre judgments, and to be genuinely willing to listen and to try to understand the perspective of those that you disagree with, and to be willing to give and take to think creatively about a way we could come at this problem that is acceptable to everyone, despite different kinds of priorities and stakeholders that we’re prioritizing. 

The point of pride for me is that I consistently took this approach and perspective, both in the Secretary of State’s Office and the Governor’s Office. In both instances, we operated in a divided government environment, despite the odds being completely stacked against us. 

The 2020 election was just unreal. The challenges that confronted the state and election officials during that cycle included the pandemic, false claims of election fraud, election denialism, threats and harassment against election officials, the influx of audits, the Cyber Ninja’s audit, and issues with public confidence and processes.  Those were all incredibly challenging to navigate. They would have been challenging to navigate under the best of circumstances, but with a divided government, limited resources, and the pandemic, it was particularly difficult. But we, as an office, and to the governor and secretary’s credit, were able to put aside these differences and work together with the county officials, who were from different political persuasions and served different constituents across various segments of the Arizona community. 

In your work for the governor, what have been your biggest accomplishments and challenges?  

I’ll start with challenges. There were a lot of challenges. Governing is hard. I really believe that government can and should be a force for good in people’s lives. Our work has to work for the people we represent, the people we serve. And making all the trains move together, in the right direction, and on the right schedule is hard, especially in a divided government. But I’ll say it’s getting harder and harder in the dysfunctional information environment that we’re in and in the “always on” news cycles and social media environment — I think these create incentives for political theater over the less glamorous but critical work of coming together and actually solving the problem at hand. I’d point to that as a significant, overarching challenge I’ve seen. 

In terms of accomplishments, I’m proud of so much … As a general matter, I’m immensely proud of the teams that I built both as the state elections director in the Secretary of State’s Office and as general counsel in the Governor’s Office. Those offices were able to accomplish what we accomplished because of the significant contributions and collaboration of great people on our team. We all worked so hard and supported each other through all the challenges. We learned together and tackled problems together. I’m so thankful to have gotten to work with such dedicated public servants. 

What prompted your decision to transition out of the Governor’s Office? 

It was a very hard decision. It was very hard to decide to leave work that I care immensely about, at a time when it seemed more important than ever in the midst of the upheaval from the Trump Administration. It was hard to leave the team — people I care a lot about, that I’d been through so much with, and I love Governor Hobbs as a leader and as a human being. It’s been such a privilege to have her trust and to work alongside her all these years. 

But a confluence of factors led to the decision. I’d spent almost seven years in the state government. Even during the 8 months I was at the nonprofit organization in 2022, my work was still representing the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office and other states’ chief election officials in administering and defending free and fair elections. It was still a lot of short-fuse, rapid response, emergency litigation. So I see it as a continuous stretch. And those seven years were preceded by nearly a decade in private practice, at big national law firms that were very demanding of my time and energy. I have two young daughters and an aging mom (and I am aging myself), and I needed a break and a recharge. I had some family and personal health issues come up around that time also — everyone’s fine — but that was ultimately the final push to pull the trigger and step back, and take some time to take care of my family and myself. 

That’s the push factor, but there were also pull factors. I am very excited about returning to private practice. I’m really a law nerd at heart. I love the practice of law, reading cases, researching the law, developing arguments and writing briefs. Because of the nature of the work, pace and demands of my roles as general counsel in the Governor’s Office and in the Secretary of State’s Office, I didn’t often have the time to do those deep dives myself. I was managing all the cases and giving strategic direction — when you’re so busy putting out a hundred fires at once and keeping the trains moving through the fire zones, you just can’t be lead litigation counsel on cases, you can’t be the one actually standing up in court. You have to hire outside counsel, a lawyer in private practice, for a lot of that. So a part of me was itching to get back to that, and to bring to that work everything I’ve learned, the incredible perspective I’ve gained in these public service positions. 

Why Coppersmith Brockelman? 

I’m really looking forward to returning to private practice, and to doing that at Coppersmith particularly, just because I’ve worked closely with the attorneys here from my positions at the Secretary of State’s Office and Governor’s Office for so many years, so I know first hand the high caliber of their legal work as well as their character. Hard work is always easier and the outcome better when you’re doing it with people you like and work well with and I know that will be the case here. 

How would you define your ethos in approaching the law? What guides you in the work you do? What is your north star as you take this next step? 

I believe I wouldn’t have done the work that I did if I didn’t believe in it. But I believe that government can be a force for good in people’s lives. And I believe that, despite our historical and present day shortcomings, this country can live up to its constitutional promises — of equal protection and due process under the law, of freedom of conscience and freedom of association, of government that serves all people, not just those with wealth and power. And I believe that America can be pushed and nudged to live up to its ideals through the just and moral application of the law. That’s what guides me in the work that I do.  

Despite that optimism and idealism, though, I’m also a pragmatist and incrementalist at heart. I will take slow, incremental progress over letting “perfect” be the enemy of the good, any day. And I think enduring progress requires us to meet people and communities and institutions where they are — especially those who disagree with you, who come from a different perspective than you. We have to come to the table with a willingness to truly listen and understand. And to be done well, that work is often slow and incremental. As the famous MLK Jr. quote goes, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. I think we all have a part to play in that bending. 

The long road to election integrity

Key Points:
  • Election trust still on shaky ground despite less tension, no litigation  in 2024
  • Former elected official tours tabulation center to spread word of reliable elections
  • Former and current election officials see trust challenges ahead 

Election trust remains a moving target, despite a less explosive aftermath in 2024, leaving election officials and outside parties on an eternal path to disseminate voter information and dispel misinformation. 

In contrast to 2020 and 2022, the 2024 election left few claims of fraud and no election challenges in its wake. But more than a year out from another major election, those working in and watching the electoral system do not believe more latent voter distrust means it disappeared entirely. 

As part of ongoing education efforts, RightCount, a nonprofit aimed at educating and assuring voters of the electoral systems’ integrity, sent its board members – including former Governor and Secretary of State Jan Brewer, former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell and former Congressman Matt Salmon – to tour the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on July 29, led by election director Scott Jarrett. 

Jarrett ran through the fast facts as part of Tour Tuesdays, a weekly offering by the county to show any interested parties the inner workings of elections up close and personal. 

He reminded members of RightCount – some former elections officials themselves – of Maricopa County’s position as the third most populous voting district, centrally located in a swing state and intersecting eight of the nine congressional districts and 22 of the 30 legislative districts.

Jarrett ran through the mechanics of creating, printing, sending out and tabulating ballots on Election Day and beyond in continuously high turnout elections, with rates hovering at about 80% in 2020 and 2024. 

And, Jarrett acknowledged the stopgaps, the failsafes, the steps taken by the office to shield election data from tampering, to ensure all ballots are counted, to assure voters of a solid outcome. 

Though more than a year out from the 2026 general election and coasting in the wake of a far less-contentious 2024 election, Jarrett said he expects continued challenges to public trust to continue.  

“I’d say right now, we’re not hearing at the same level the distrust in elections. I’d say a large part of that is due probably to the results of the last election,” Jarrett said.
“I think we’re going to continue to have issues, and I think this is going to be on all sides of the election, with distrust if they don’t like the outcomes.” 

And in some ways, distrust is already popping up.

Kari Lake, former gubernatorial and Senate candidate, who kept steadfast in her claims of a stolen or sabotaged election after her failed run for governor, continues to use her platforms to call for investigations into election fraud, prosecutions for alleged past crimes. 

She recirculated a video from 2022 of the Maricopa County Tabulation Center claiming election workers of “illegally breaking into sealed election machines” and reprogramming them. 

Mark Finchem, an acolyte of the same election skepticism, posted on X that he was “right about the stolen election,” and linked to an article in which Donald Trump called for another look at the 2020 election via special prosecutor. 

Jarrett noted the county’s ongoing effort to keep correct information at the forefront. 

“And as much as we offer these tours and publicize these tours and inform voters of our website, we just don’t compete with the platform that others may have. May have distrust or a reason for why they want to institute distrust in elections,” Jarrett said. 

RightCount has an eye on the same goal of voter education. 

Brewer said the last time she had been to the tabulation center was during her tenure on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  She recalled her time overseeing state elections, too, as secretary of state. 

“I am just impressed with the staff, the equipment and leadership here,” Brewer said. “I have no doubt that our elections are honest and they turn out the right data.” 

As far as the current temperature on voter trust and future work to extend her own sentiment, Brewer said she believed there will always be doubters.

“They don’t understand the elections, and they might repeat something that somebody else has said to them,” Brewer said. “Unfortunately, I think a lot of this rhetoric sometimes is for people to be able to go out there and get a reaction from the public as they campaign. They want that reaction. They’ve got to talk about it so they get fired up, rather than going out there and saying how wonderful it is.” 

As for RightCount, Brewer said she planned to continue to work with her fellow board members to “explain to people what we have known and learned about elections in our time.”

“It works,” Brewer said. “Checking our democracy. And as a prior candidate, and the candidates today, they want to be sure that it works. So they should begin everyday learning more and more about it.”

Here’s why Hobbs vetoed GOP election reform bills — again

Key Points:
  • The governor vetoed bills to create Florida-style election system
  • Hobbs said the bills would restrict access to voting
  • Republicans say bill could rebuild trust and speed up results

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed several bills this past session that were aiming to speed up the state’s election results, forcing Republicans to wait at least another year to implement a Florida-style election system.

The bills would have changed the deadlines for early ballot drop off, required voters to update their names on the Active Early Voting List within a specific timeframe, and allowed schools to be used as polling places.

Another would’ve banned voting centers.

In her veto messages, Hobbs repeatedly cited concerns that the bills would restrict access to voting. Democrats agreed, and routinely voted against the legislation in committees and on the House and Senate floor.

Republicans made faster election results one of their top legislative priorities after many expressed frustration with the state’s slow count of ballots following the November 2024 general election.

“Arizona is a laughingstock across the country for how long it’s taking our state to determine winners and losers in this election,” said Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, in a Nov. 8 news release days after the election.

Mesnard recently said slow election results could cause voters to lose faith in the election system.

“The length of time that it takes to get a result is not just because we’re itching to know the outcome,” he said. “It’s not that simple. It’s because the longer it takes, and the more outcomes appear to shift in the process, the more it breeds mistrust or a lack of faith in the election system.”

Mesnard introduced SB1001, which would’ve required the signature and identification of a voter with an early ballot if they dropped it off after 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. The bill also would’ve removed a voter from the Active Early Voting List if they dropped off an early ballot without identification after the deadline. Mesnard introduced similar versions of the bill in recent years, but amended it this past session in hopes of seeing it through. 

Despite the changes, Hobbs still vetoed the measure on July 1.

In her veto message, Hobbs stated that the bill could have inconvenienced voters who require family members or caregivers to assist them in delivering their ballots.

“SB1001 still presents unacceptable challenges for voters who must rely on family members or caregivers to drop off their ballot and would be unable to appear in person, effectively imposing an earlier deadline for them to complete their ballots than others, or risk removal from the Active Early Voter List,” Hobbs said.

Mesnard disagreed with the idea that the bill would’ve made it more difficult for people to vote, saying the measure aimed to disincentivize people from waiting until Election Day to drop off their ballots.

“The idea is, you’re not mailing your ballot back, which was the point, and contributing to the cause of the delay. And so, if that’s going to be the approach, then we’re going to remove you from the early voting list,” Mesnard said. “It was a pretty soft disincentive, since you can just sign right back up again.”

He was unsure if he would revive the bill next session.

“I don’t know, maybe the third time would be the charm?” he said. “But I’m not sure what I could do differently. I’ve tried two different approaches. I could give some thought to what … another approach would be, but the governor seems pretty against the idea.”

Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, expressed a desire to pursue election reforms next year, although he acknowledged nothing might happen unless a Republican governor is elected in 2026.

Petersen introduced SB1011, which was one of the first election bills to be approved by the Legislature this year.

The bill, along with its twin bill HB2703, would’ve required early ballots to be dropped off at a voting location by 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. However, it would’ve still allowed early ballots to be delivered or mailed to a county recorder’s office by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

The legislation would’ve also called for early mail voters to confirm their address each election cycle if they lived in a county with more than 500,000 people, or every four years if they resided in a smaller county.

In addition, the bill would’ve restricted a school principal from denying a request to use their school as a polling place.

The bill passed the Legislature in February, but Hobbs rejected it because it would’ve effectively ended the Active Early Voting List, she said in her veto message.

The governor would’ve considered compromises such as implementing the Friday early ballot drop off restrictions while still protecting the early voting list and enacting other provisions such as same day registration.

In her veto message, Hobbs said, “Unfortunately, any potential compromise was rejected, leading me to believe the focus of this legislation is disenfranchising eligible voters, not delivering faster election results for Arizonans.”

Adelita Grijalva sails to victory in CD7 special primary

Key Points:
  • Adelita Grijalva wins two-thirds of initial vote count
  • Daniel Hernandez conceded race shortly after results 
  • Official tally will be days away

Adelita Grijalva beat out four other Democrats in the special primary election to replace her father in Congress, according to election results tabulated on July 15.

Grijalva was the favorite in the Congressional District 7 race since it was called after U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva passed away from cancer in March. She faced competition from former state lawmaker Daniel Hernandez and social media influencer Deja Foxx, but neither was able to match the younger Grijalva’s endorsements, fundraising or connections.

Hernandez conceded the race less than 15 minutes after results came in, with Grijalva easily winning over two-thirds of the vote. The Associated Press called the race at 8:19 p.m. for Grijalva, but official results will be finalized in the coming days.

“This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago,” Grijalva said in a statement. “We didn’t get distracted by the noise or national headlines. We kept our heads down, did the work, and delivered a message rooted not just in fighting back against a dangerous and tyrannical administration – but in fighting for something: for our democracy, for the dignity of working people, and for the values that truly define Southern Arizona – justice, equity, and opportunity for all.”

Foxx’s campaign did not release a statement regarding the results at the time of publication. 

Prominent supporters of Grijalva, like U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, celebrated her win on social media Tuesday night.

“In Adelita, Southern Arizona will again have a dedicated public servant in Congress—one who will always work to protect our state from gun violence,” Giffords said in a post on X. “Now, we must get her across the finish line in September.”

The special primary election drew statewide and national attention in the wake of Democrats’ widespread losses in 2024. It sparked questions about age in Congress and whether the moderate or progressive side of the party should lead the charge into the 2026 and 2028 elections. 

Foxx, known for campaigning on TikTok and getting her start in politics by going viral, attempted to pitch herself as the young newcomer running against an establishment career-politician. Hernandez formed his campaign around his moderate policy stances and ability to work across the aisle in the Legislature.

Ultimately, both of those messages fell flat with the voters in CD7, who seem determined to carry on Raúl Grijalva’s progressive legacy through his daughter, who brings her own fresh perspective to the seat.

Hernandez congratulated Grijalva in a post on X, but said his journey isn’t over.

“The fight doesn’t end here,” Hernandez wrote. “As a lifelong Arizonan, I’ll continue to work for the people of our state—for access to healthcare, strong public schools, and equal rights for all.”

Grijalva is expected to sail through the September 23 special general election given the district’s significant Democratic voter registration advantage. She will then have to run for the seat again in next year’s midterm elections. 

Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut Medicaid, let’s hold him accountable

Athena Salman

Last week, Rep. Juan Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program — all so that billionaires can enjoy bigger tax breaks. 

The GOP bill, which was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, will force 13.7 million people nationwide off their health care coverage. Here in Arizona, 2 million people stand to lose their health care coverage — including 186,000 people in Ciscomani’s district. 

That’s 186,000 of Ciscomani’s own constituents that he happily sent to the wolves. 

If that’s not bad enough, this law will also close 200 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide. Planned Parenthood is Arizona’s largest nonprofit reproductive health care provider. Without it, many Arizonans would have nowhere to go for health care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI treatment and testing. 

The truth is Ciscomani has betrayed hundreds of thousands of Arizonans by voting for this budget. And he knows it, too. 

That’s why he’s been refusing to meet with his outraged constituents. He knows that this wildly unpopular budget will devastate our families and communities. And it’s especially bad for pregnant women and their families. 

About 50% of births in Arizona are covered by Arizona’s Medicaid program called AHCCCS. Put bluntly, Ciscomani’s plan to cut Medicaid would result in more Arizona mothers dying preventable deaths. 

We can’t afford that in a state where maternal mortality rates quadrupled in the past two decades. 

To make matters worse, this budget will close hospitals in parts of the state where health care is already limited. Small hospitals that serve rural Arizonans — known as Critical Access Hospitals — are often the only health care provider within miles. 

In an emergency, every minute matters. With this budget now being law, these hospitals will close, and the lives of rural Arizonans will hang in the balance. 

The reality is we need Medicaid to keep our families and communities healthy and thriving. And Planned Parenthood is just as important —1 in 3 women have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. The majority of Americans see Planned Parenthood as a trusted provider. 

These programs need to be protected — not put on the chopping block. But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing. And instead of facing voters, they’ve resorted to hiding and lying.

Rep. Ciscomani doesn’t have the nerve to meet with his constituents, but he had the nerve to post on social media that the budget he voted for will “strengthen” Medicaid. He is also trying to pretend that he is a champion for protecting Medicaid — these are bold-faced lies. 

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis found that Republicans’ budget would cut Americans’ health benefits, kick them off of their health insurance, and slash payments to providers that are already struggling to stay open. 

And it’s not just Ciscomani who knows the truth. Months ago, Rep. David Schweikert, another Arizona Republican, knew that this bill was so bad for Arizonans, he called it “immoral.” But when push came to shove, neither he nor Ciscomani did anything to stop this wicked bill from becoming law. 

Ciscomani needs to be reminded that he answers to us, the people who elected him — not billionaires who only care about deepening their pockets. 

Ciscomani had the chance to protect our health care, but he ignored us in order to prioritize billionaires. 

He will face us in November 2026 when we vote him out of office.

Athena Salman is Reproductive Freedom for All director of Arizona campaigns.

This 25-year-old candidate for Congress is putting the spotlight on Gen Z

Key Points:
  1. Deja Foxx running to be the first woman of Generation Z in Congress
  2. Average age in AZ Senate is 57, while in the House it’s 51
  3. Deaths have sparked national conversation about age in Congress

When Deja Foxx talks to voters in the 7th Congressional District, she starts her pitch to them the same way nearly every time.

“If elected, I would be the youngest member of the body, the first woman of our generation, Gen Z,” she told one voter on May 16.

Foxx is 25, just old enough to run for Congress. If she succeeds in a July 15 primary for the seat in southern Arizona, she would be one of the only members of Generation Z representing the state at any level of government.

As members of Gen Z continue to come of age, they are left out of most areas of Arizona politics. Meanwhile Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials dominate the state Legislature, statewide offices and congressional seats. According to the Pew Research Center, Gen Z is the generation of people born between 1997 and 2012. Members of Gen Z are currently between 13 and 28 years old.

Those under the age of 30 running for office in the state often face an uphill battle due to opposition from party leaders, low salaries for lawmakers, the cost of campaigning and negative attacks from opponents. 

State statute requires those running for legislative and statewide offices to be at least 25 years old, so many members of Gen Z still are still too young to run for office. But some, like Foxx, will reach that age this year or next, making them eligible to run in 2026. 

“We have to do more than just say we want newer and younger leaders,” Foxx said. “We have to invest in them, and there’s an opportunity here in southern Arizona to meet that moment, to be the first referendum on 2024 and lead 2026 with a strong message to young people all across this country that their voice matters and that they have electeds in their corner.”

Age of Arizona politicians

At a time when politicians — Democrats especially — are dying in office, Foxx says the conversation around age is far overdue.

“Age is a defining factor in our political system, like it or not, it just is,” Foxx said. “This seat has opened up because somebody passed away while in office.”

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., died in March at age 77 after a battle with cancer. He was the eighth member of Congress to die in office since 2022 and the third House Democrat to pass away in 2025, according to Business Insider. 

Those deaths have sparked a larger national conversation about the need for younger representation in Congress. The rest of Arizona’s congressional delegation is relatively young, with U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both Republicans, tied for the oldest at age 66, while U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat, was the youngest at age 33. 

At the state Capitol, all of Arizona’s statewide elected officials are above the age of 50. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is by far the oldest, at 80, while Gov. Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Treasurer Kimberly Yee and Mine Inspector Paul Marsh are all in their 50s. 

In the Legislature, lawmakers have a much larger age range. Democratic Rep. Anna Abeytia is the youngest member in the House, at age 29, and Democratic Sen. Flavio Bravo claims that title in the Senate, at age 31. 

But still, based on the Pew Center’s definition of Gen Z, there isn’t a single person representing that generation in any legislative or statewide office. And the average age for legislators skews far older.

In the Senate, the average age is 57, while the House’s average age is slightly lower at 51. A few lawmakers are older than 80, including Democratic Sen. Lela Alston and Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, which pulls the average age up. 

Republicans in state government have an average age of 57, while Democrats’ average age hovers around 50. 

Hurdles for young candidates

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, is one of the Legislature’s younger members at age 32 and calls herself an “elder millennial.” She ran her first legislative campaign when she was 27 and said her age was often a hurdle she had to overcome when speaking with voters.

“When I first ran, I definitely experienced voters at the door who were taken aback by my age,” Ortiz said. “I had a lot of people say that they thought I was a high school student selling candy, and that’s why I was coming to their door.”

Ortiz said those issues did not stop when she was elected. She said she’s had to deal with pushback from her older colleagues in the Legislature since she first took office in 2023.

“I experience people that try to discredit me because of my age, and that’s something I’m used to,” Ortiz said. “I’ve had to experience that in a lot of different workplaces, and it’s challenging in this environment in the Legislature, but what has given me a lot of hope is all of the young people that have told me that they are so appreciative that I’m there at the table.”

Age can be an issue that impacts Gen Z candidates regardless of party affiliation; however, some of the struggles faced by younger candidates appear to be unique to the Democratic Party. Both Ortiz and Foxx spoke about the difficulty in getting support from the upper echelons of the state party and its leaders.

Ortiz said she has seen the state’s Democratic establishment be reluctant to hire young people as campaign managers or support their campaigns for chairmanships for local legislative districts. Foxx has seen top Democrats in Arizona — like U.S. Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly — endorse her competitor.

“When newer and younger comes around with 10 years of experience (running for) an open seat of a safer, bluer district, (electeds) put their thumb on the scale and make it even harder for somebody like me when we deserve a free, fair and exciting primary,” Foxx said.

That issue does not seem to impact young Republican candidates though. 

Ari Bradshaw, 26, ran for a House seat in Legislative District 2 in 2024, but ultimately lost to Democratic Rep. Stephanie Simacek. He said support for his campaign from the state GOP was easy to come by.

“I cannot be more grateful to the help I got from (House) Speaker (Steve) Montenegro, from (Arizona GOP Chair) Gina Swoboda,” Bradshaw said. “I remember Steve had said multiple times, ‘We need to get this guy in, he’s the future,’ and that meant so much.”

But Bradshaw said he did experience other hurdles that candidates like Ortiz and Foxx also mentioned. Both Bradshaw and Ortiz spoke about how low pay for lawmakers and busy campaign schedules create barriers to entry for Gen Z candidates. 

“I made less money in the two years I ran for office than I did in a quarter of the year that I did before,” Bradshaw said. “I own (a) business, and my own business took a big hit because I couldn’t focus on clients as much, as I was doing campaign work.”

He said he also felt like he went into his campaign a bit naive about how dirty state-level political campaigns can get. Bradshaw ran in one of the state’s swing legislative districts last year, making his race incredibly high stakes for both parties. 

“I was just so caught off guard by it, I wasn’t expecting any of that,” Bradshaw said. “And so I think that’s a hard thing, because young people go in bright eyed, thinking, ‘I can be the change I want to see.’”

The case for younger elected officials

Ortiz said she thinks it is time to have the age conversation at the state government level. Not because her older colleagues aren’t capable, but because they do not have the same experiences as younger candidates even if they share the same political views.

“There are many of us young people who feel like it is up to us to turn things around because the folks who’ve been in power for so long have not done a great job at delivering on the issues that our generation cares about most,” Ortiz said.

Foxx is hoping her campaign will help rewrite the script for Gen Z candidates who come after her, showing those currently in power that doing things the way they’ve always been done isn’t good enough anymore. 

“Some of them are wary or even a little bit frustrated that we’re able to skirt around some of their traditional gatekeeping, because we go straight to people, and we’re able to fundraise largely off of social and Substack, and are reaching voters that way,” Foxx said. “So, there are new tools that I think are a little bit outside of the reach of some of those establishment folks, and the way we’re using them is to go past having to ask for permission.”

And though Bradshaw lost his race in 2024, he said voters in LD2 can expect to see him on the ballot again next year. He hopes other Gen Z-ers also consider running for local or state office, especially if they feel like they’re struggling to make a difference.

“(Young people) feel like, ‘If I get involved, I can’t move the gears that I want to move in order to change the system,’” Bradshaw said. “What they have to understand is, you may not be able to move the gears all by yourself, but you can move them a little bit, or you can oil them up so that way a whole team can move them.”

Give voters a real choice, restore bipartisan compromise

Mark Cable

This May 1st was punctuated by protests around the country. Whether you agree with the protestors or not, we should all agree that these protests are evidence that the system is not providing a government that represents the will of the majority of the people. 

We all know in our hearts that this problem is more than just one man. If Mr. Trump were to disappear tomorrow, it would not solve our political problems. The divisiveness and the lack of accountability of government to the people would still be there. Beyond the Executive Branch, we know there is something wrong with the system when so many of our elected representatives in Congress refuse to meet with their constituents. How can we be living in a representative democracy when the representatives hide from those they are supposed to represent?” 

This situation will continue, and worsen, until we stop treating the symptoms, and start treating the underlying problem.

The problem we face is caused by our election system. As of 2022, here in Arizona, 83% of Arizona legislative districts lean so heavily toward one party that the only election of consequence is a low turnout partisan primary election. Here in Arizona, only about 40% of registered Republican voters vote in the primary, and those individuals tend to be the most extreme of the party. It is that group that decides who will be elected. The situation is similar on the Democratic side. The problem is even worse at the federal level. According to Unite America, in this past election, roughly 83% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were decided by approximately 7% of voters. 

This is why so many of our representatives are willing to hide from their constituents. Our current election system virtually guarantees that they will be reelected if they keep their base happy. It is important to realize that that base is often less than 15% of the people they are supposed to represent. They hide because they can, and they refuse to stand up for the majority of their constituency because doing so increases the likelihood of them being “primaried” in the next election.

Our current system disincentives the tools of better governance, including bipartisan discussion, compromise, and consensus building, and instead incentivizes partisanship, primary threats, hostility and negative campaigning.

The good news is that by changing election laws, we can change the incentives that govern our elected officials and make them accountable to everyone they represent. 

Voter Choice Arizona advocates a system known as Final Five Voting. This system would advance five diverse candidates to the general election. Voters would have the opportunity to rank those candidates. With real options, voters could choose a candidate they really want but then be able to select a backup choice. Voters would no longer be faced with the choice of just picking the lesser of two evils or be afraid that voting their conscience might inadvertently help the candidate they like the least. Voters would have actual choices and be able to focus more on voting for a candidate, and less about voting against their political enemies.

Reforms like this would change the incentives of the people who govern. Because they would be accountable to all of us, our elected officials would be incentivized to work together to solve actual problems, rather than sling mud at each other. Uniting people, rather than dividing them.

Voter Choice Arizona has been working relentlessly to bring about the change that we all deserve. We have a plan, and we continue to build across the state to give voters more voice, more choice, and more accountability in Arizona elections. We need your help to reach the critical mass needed to put the power back into the hands of the people. To learn more about our efforts, please visit vcaz.org today.

Mark Cable is a volunteer and executive team member for Voter Choice Arizona.

Grijalva, Hernandez and Foxx file nominations to replace the late Raúl Grijalva

Key Points
  • Late-U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s death left a vacancy in CD7
  • Three popular Democrats, including Grijalva’s daughter, have filed for the seat
  • The race will be a battle between moderate and progressive Democrats

The stage is set in the race to fill late-U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s seat in Congressional District 7 after candidates filed nomination petitions on April 14 to secure their spot on the ballot.

In a race that is all but certain to be decided in the primary, all eyes have been on the Democratic candidates Adelita Grijalva, Daniel Hernandez and Deja Foxx. 

All three submitted far more than the required 798 signatures to make the ballot by the deadline, with Grijalva submitting the most at 1,812. 

Grijalva, who hopes to fill her father’s seat, noted she reached the 798 signature requirement only four and a half hours after announcing her candidacy thanks to the state’s online signature gathering website. She told reporters at a press conference on April 14 that her success indicates that voters in CD7 are looking for someone to carry Raúl Grijalva’s progressive torch.

“Nobody’s going to be able to fill my father’s shoes, and I’m not going to try. But I do stand on really broad shoulders, and I’m standing on my own two feet,” Grijalva said. 

She recently resigned from her position on the Pima County Board of Supervisors, where she served for four years, to run for the CD7. Prior to that, Grijalva served for 20 years on the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board. 

Hernandez, a former state lawmaker, is also part of a political family with deep ties to Tucson. He and his sisters, state Reps. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, and Consuelo Hernandez, D-Tucson, are known for their moderate bent and pro-Israel stances.

Scott Jones, the state legislative director for the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, announced the union’s endorsement of Daniel Hernandez at a press conference on April 14 because of that centrist streak.

“They are very moderate, they can work with anybody and everybody that will work with them,” Jones said of the Hernandez siblings. 

Hernandez submitted 1,724 signatures and announced that his campaign has raised over $400,000 and secured another union endorsement from the Arizona Federation of Teachers. Grijalva and Hernandez will be fighting for crucial endorsements in the next few weeks from labor unions, environmental groups and progressive organizations.

Grijalva noted that many organizations are not yet ready to endorse because they were not expecting to have to make endorsements during an off-year for Arizona elections. But she has the backing of some of Arizona’s largest Democratic names, like U.S. Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords. 

The two candidates have split the state Legislature’s Democratic caucus nearly in half, with Hernandez claiming endorsements from state Sens. Eva Diaz, Sally Ann Gonzales and state Reps. Kevin Volk, Elda Luna-Najera, Myron Tsosie and Lydia Hernandez. Grijalva is backed by Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, Sen. Rosanna Gabaldon and Reps. Marianna Sandoval, Betty Villegas, Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, Nancy Gutierrez and Chris Mathis. 

The race is shaping up to be a fight between progressive and moderate Democratic ideas, with Grijalva pledging to uphold her father’s legacy and Hernandez arguing Democrats did not have a winning message in 2024. 

“I think the biggest problem that we’re having right now is the Democratic party is, frankly, out of touch with what the needs are of everyday Arizonans,” Hernandez told The Arizona Capitol Times. 

Hernandez did not directly respond to a question about whether or not he is the moderate candidate in the race, but emphasized his ability to work with people in both political parties during his time in the Legislature and said it is something he plans to carry over if elected.

Grijalva has yet to respond to inquiries from the Arizona Capitol Times.

While Grijalva and Hernandez are the highest profile candidates in the race, they are not the only Democrats on the primary ballot. Deja Foxx, a political influencer who worked on Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign in 2024, is also running for the seat.

Foxx has framed herself as an alternative to the traditional Democratic establishment and is one of several Gen Z candidates running for blue seats in congress this year. Her campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The candidates have limited time to get their message out to voters, with mail ballots going out on June 18 and the primary scheduled to take place on July 15. 

Appeals Court weighs in on politically charged elections manual

An elections guidebook, historically held to a law of its own and prone to the discretion of each secretary of state, now faces existential questions after an appellate court required it to comply with state rulemaking statutes.

Beyond consultation with county elections officials and a sign-off from the governor and the attorney general, the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has no set scheme dictating how it comes together.

But that could change after a ruling from the Arizona Court of Appeals, likely to ascend to the state Supreme Court, which places the EPM under the constraints of the Arizona Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a body of laws dictating how agencies promulgate rules.

In legal filings, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes claimed that bringing the EPM into compliance with the APA, which includes public notice, at least a 30-day public comment period and an opportunity to request oral proceedings, would be “impossible,” given the time constraints already levied on the manual.

The Republican Party of Arizona and the Republican National Committee contend compliance with the APA to be a plain requirement in statute, vital to ensuring public participation in a document threaded with the force of law.

As a 2025 draft comes together in the background, ongoing litigation prompts a point of reflection on the history and true purpose of the manual as a governing document and tees up battles on whether to exempt the EPM from the APA via legislation — or rethink the process and timeline entirely.

The EPM started in 1966 as a directive to the secretary of state to issue guidance on electronic voting systems. In 1972, the Legislature expanded the bill to prompt the creation of a comprehensive official procedures manual on elections, created in concert by the secretary of state and the counties and approved by the governor and attorney general.

An amendment, passed a year later, gave the manual the force of law, fashioning any violation of the EPM a Class 2 misdemeanor. In 1993, the law was updated again to demote the counties to a consultatory role.

What remains unchanged though, was the mandate to create rules “to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency on the procedures” for elections.

The law initially required a manual 30 days prior to each election. Later changes to statute then required it to be sent to the attorney general and governor 90 days before an election.

Then, after an administration’s first refusal then failure to see an EPM approved, state law now requires an EPM to be sent to the governor and attorney general no later than Oct. 1 and issued on Dec. 31 of every odd-numbered year preceding the general election.

Recent history shows, though, a new manual is never a guarantee, especially as election law and the EPM continues to grow in scope, authority, public consciousness and controversy.

The manual has historically been written for election officials and workers as a guidebook, but a renewed focus on the minutiae of elections, and an administration-by-administration buildout of the book increasingly puts it under a more public, litigious and microscopic lens.

In the past 25 years, spanning six secretaries of state and changes in political power, each administration has taken a different tact, with some seeing more success than others.

During Jan Brewer’s time in office as secretary of state, from 2003 to 2009, she issued three EPMs. She said she primarily consulted with and fielded feedback from county recorders and election officials, noting a lack of public input, and interest, at the time.

“Twenty years ago, the only people that really were concerned about the procedures manual were the counties, because that’s like the Bible for running elections. That’s what holds it all together,” Brewer said. “Every two years you would do that, because every two years, something would be changed … lots of effort went into it.”

Brewer, a Republican, saw her manual approved by both a Democrat governor and attorney general.

Former Attorney General Terry Goddard said he could only recall a single strong disagreement with Brewer over the years, though noted it was ultimately resolved amicably, sans litigation.

“It wasn’t very controversial,” Goddard said. “We had political divisions then, as we do now. We had individuals that had strong feelings about what was not appropriate election procedure, and we worked it out.”

Ken Bennett, successor to Brewer, opened up the EPM promulgation process further, inviting in political parties and advocacy groups, a departure from a former, fairly insulated meeting of county election officers.

“I said, I think we ought to really open up the process. Let’s invite all 15 county recorders and all 15 county election directors. And let’s invite the political parties, and let’s invite the advocacy groups,” Bennett said. “Oh my goodness, my staff looked at me like I was nuts. … We’re never going to get through these meetings if all those people are involved.”

Invitations went out, and people showed up, Bennett said.

“You could tell that there was kind of this pent up frustration from people that had not been included in previous versions. Oh man, they had lots to say,” Bennett said. “They thought they were going to have five minutes … we got people to realize that they were invited back to the second meeting, and that we were going to listen, and we were going to take things that we heard from everybody and anybody, if it was positive and made sense and everybody agreed.”

Bennett said he continued under the same system during his time in office, including a 30-day public comment period, culminating in a total of four manuals. His final manual, proffered in 2014, would outlast Bennett’s time in office, though, and govern elections until Katie Hobbs put together a manual in 2019.

Secretary of State Michele Reagan skipped the EPM entirely in 2016, claiming she read the statute to only require a new EPM if there were necessary changes, and faced backlash from county elections officials and a legal complaint because of it. The attorney general declined to investigate and found her interpretation of state statute “plausible.”

In 2018, Reagan did submit a manual, but then-Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich rejected it, given complaints from county recorders.

The four-year stint without an updated EPM led to legislation, sponsored by then-Rep. Kelly Townsend, requiring a draft manual by Oct. 1 and a final submission by Dec. 31.

Hobbs’ tenure brought forth two EPMs, though one was weighed down and ultimately nullified by legal challenge. Her 2019 manual was preceded by 30 days of public comment and two public meetings and was approved by both Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

Brnovich refused to sign off and challenged her 2021 manual, leaving the 2019 manual in place for the 2022 election.

Jennifer Wright, Brnovich’s former Election Integrity Unit lead, said in her combing through the EPM, the condensed schedule often put a damper on addressing every single issue within the manual, and the final say of the secretary of state, attorney general and governor means last-minute edits can get through with little public oversight.

Wright gave credit to Hobbs for holding public town halls. But she noted the general flaws inherent in the EPM process, including the “series of dark backroom negotiations,” isolating county election officials or the secretary of state, governor and secretary of state.

“There’s too much power and too much at stake for it to be a blackbox process,” Wright said.

In 2023, Fontes successfully saw an EPM off, with a 15-day public comment period prior. A string of litigation in both state and federal court followed the approval of the 2023 EPM, including the lawsuit from the state Republican Party and the RNC chiefly over compliance with APA.

Though the 2023 EPM lasted through the 2024 election, sans some select provisions blocked by the courts, a decision by the Court of Appeals on March 7 placed the EPM under the APA and found Fontes failed to substantially comply by failing to offer 30 days of public comment, calling into question the validity of the 2023 manual.

The office plans to appeal and claims the 2023 manual is still in effect, given a mandate has yet to be issued by the appellate court.

But if the Arizona Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals decision, the requirement of the APA could put the EPM on a much longer runway and generally complicate an already condensed timeline, leading to the potential need for legislation to exempt the EPM or a greater reflection on how the EPM should come together and operate generally.

All the while, JP Martin, a spokesperson for Fontes said the office is in the midst of meeting with county election officials to create a 2025 draft by reviewing it chapter-by-chapter. Martin said the office has been running monthly chapter assignments since February, with plans to wrap up in July.

As Fontes works through litigation and a new EPM, Bennett emphasized a focus on expanding the scope of input and metering the reach of the manual.

“My advice is transparency, including all the players as early as possible, and respecting the fact the EPM is supposed to fill in the details to effectuate the state statutes, not create new laws itself,” Bennett said. “Stay in your lane, do what you’re supposed to do and try not to go beyond that.”

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.

GOP leaders seek DOJ support in citizenship ID voting issue

Republican legislative leaders are hoping a new administration in Washington will help the state block anyone who does not provide proof of citizenship from voting in future presidential races.

In a letter to Pam Bondi, the new attorney general, House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen want the Department of Justice to now take their side in the fight over who can cast a ballot. That would be a departure from the position taken by her agency under the Biden administration.

Even if Bondi goes along, that does not guarantee the state will win its case. There are others involved in the lawsuit who contend Arizona is violating the rights of individuals to cast a ballot in presidential races.

But a switch in the official position by the Department of Justice still could affect the outcome.

At the heart of the fight is a 2004 Arizona law, the first in the country, that requires people to provide “documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

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

Courts have upheld the state’s ability to enact such a mandate for state and local elections. The fight has been over how much power the state has to control federal elections.

The key is the National Voter Registration Act. It requires that states “accept and use” the form designed by the Election Assistance Commission to let people register to vote in federal elections.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2013 ruling authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, said Arizona cannot demand more than what is required on the federal form.

In 2022, however, lawmakers sought to pick a new fight.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, conceded that the state has no control over people registering to vote in congressional races. That is because the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to control the time, place and manner of congressional races.

But Hoffman argued – and got Republican colleagues to agree – that the state still has a role to play in who can vote for president.

He bases that on laws that allow each state to choose how to select its presidential electors. And, strictly speaking, when Arizonans cast a ballot, they are voting for a slate of electors pledged to a specific candidate, not for the candidate himself or herself.

Last year, a divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed to let Arizona demand proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections – but only of those who sign up to vote using the state’s own registration form.

Steve Montenegro

But the justices upheld a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the state from including a line in the state form requiring would-be registrants to list the place of their birth.

More significantly, that order barred the state from imposing proof of citizenship requirements on those who use the federally designed form. And they would not let the state enforce another provision which said those who use the federal form cannot cast a ballot by mail.

That ruling, however, covered only the 2024 election. The justices sent the case back to the 9th Circuit to determine whether the state has a right to demand proof of citizenship from everyone who wants to vote in presidential races – including those using the federal form.

“The Biden administration teamed up with various left-wing groups in prosecuting a wide-ranging legal assault on these commonsense safeguards,” Montenegro and Petersen wrote to Bondi in seeking to have her agency side with them and against the groups that challenged the proof of citizenship requirements. “The arguments advanced by the Biden administration’s Justice Department conjoined a heedless disregard of clear constitutional text with a radical rewriting of federal law.”

No evidence was ever presented in the case showing that the people who have signed up in Arizona without presenting proof of citizenship are, in fact, not eligible to vote. That, however, did not keep the GOP leaders from arguing that Bondi needs to side with them to overturn the findings about who has to provide proof of citizenship.

“To the extent these misguided positions prevail in the 9th Circuit, the states’ constitutional authority to protect the integrity of their electoral systems will be gravely undermined,” they wrote. “Given the imminence of the 9th Circuit’s rulings, we respectfully urge your office to review this case and apprise the court of its current position at the earliest feasible opportunity.”

Aside from the unverified claims by the Republicans about non-citizens voting, the whole issue has other political overtones.

In legal filings, the Republican National Committee, seeking to defend the citizenship proof requirement, challengers pointed out that Republicans make up about 34% of the state’s registered voters. But the figures from the Secretary of State’s Office at the same time showed just 14.3% of these federal-only voters signed up as Republicans.

Another 27.4% are Democrats, with 53.6% listed as “party not designated” and the balance among minor parties.

And all that follows the fact that Trump lost to Joe Biden in Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes, far fewer than the number of federal-only voters, currently listed at nearly 49,000.

As to why there are that many voters without citizenship proof, Aaron Thacker, spokesman for Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, said there is evidence that the list includes students attending state universities, many from within the state, who did not bring their birth certificates or other proof of citizenship with them but may have an interest in voting in federal races. He said the ability to sign up using the federal form gives them that option.

 

Hobbs keeps promise – vetoes GOP election bill

Gov. Katie Hobbs delivered her promised veto Tuesday of a Republican bill to revamp the deadline to turn in early ballots.

But Hobbs, in her message to lawmakers, chose to focus her objections to HB2703 on a lesser-known provision of the measure, one that she said would undermine the system that allows people to get their ballots by mail without having to make annual requests.

And that change would affect far more Arizonans than the 265,000 who would lose their ability to drop off their early ballots on Election Day, which was the key provision in the now-vetoed bill.

Supporters argued that the practice slows up the process of getting faster election returns. That’s because early ballots submitted on Election Day cannot be counted until after the signatures are compared, something that can’t occur until after the polls are closed.

The bill’s Friday drop-off deadline, they argued, would allow those ballot envelopes to be opened and tallied before the big rush on Election Day.

People would still have been able to take their early ballots to vote centers on Election Day. But they would have had to produce identification, something not now needed for a simple drop-off.

Hobbs, in her veto message, said she would have accepted the Friday deadline but only if GOP lawmakers had agreed to other changes in law, like allowing people to register the same day they vote. Current law cuts off registration 29 days before an election.

The governor also wanted to ensure that those who move from one county to another would not have to reregister.

But that still left something in the measure Hobbs said she could not accept.

Right now, individuals can sign up for the Active Early Voting List to ensure they will get a ballot in the mail.

Of note is that under current law, individuals who use those early ballots on a regular basis continue to get them ahead of every election. Right now there are nearly 3.3 million Arizonans on that list, three out of every four people registered to vote.

HB 2703 sought to change all that, saying anyone who is an early mail voter would have to take an “affirmative act” before every election cycle in the state’s two largest counties — every other cycle elsewhere — confirming his or her address.

That could be done by mail, including responding to a notice from the county recorder, a phone call or through a county website or portal.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who was an architect of the legislation, said such confirmation is in the voter’s interest. The Scottsdale Republican said it ensures that person will get the early ballot at his or her address.

On the flip side, Kolodin said it prevents early ballots going out to homes where people no longer live, something he said is bad for election security.

Hobbs chided lawmakers for adding that provision and the additional hurdle into what was originally introduced as a measure to speed up final returns.

“This legislation effectively ends the Active Early Voting List, something that has nothing to do with faster election results, but disenfranchises voters by additional additional steps for the hundreds of thousands of voters who prefer to vote by mail,” she said. “Making it less convenient to vote is something I have consistently said I cannot support.”

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat like Hobbs, said he supports the governor’s decision.

“The reality is that early voting is the primary method of voting in Arizona,” he said. “Any attempt to erode that would be a mistake.”

Hobbs, in her veto, said she remains open to “good-faith negotiations.”

Republicans, however, have shown no interest in compromise.

On Monday, anticipating the veto, the House approved HCR 2013, which contains all of the same provisions but in a form where it would go not to Hobbs for her approval but instead directly to voters in 2026.

That measure, however, includes something not in the vetoed bill: A ban on election officials using any funds from foreign sources, directly or indirectly, to administer an election.

State law already prohibits foreign donations to campaigns. This is designed to say that such funds cannot be used by election officials to help them do their jobs.

 

 

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