As an Arizonan, I value the freedom to vote conveniently and fairly, which is why I am deeply concerned about the growing number of bills being introduced in our Legislature that limit voting freedoms. A few weeks ago, I attended a session of the Committee on Federalism, Military Affairs, and Elections, where no one in the room spoke in favor of HB2017, a bill that seeks to limit early voting and restrict mail-in voting access, while several people voiced strong opposition.
In a surprising turn, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap suddenly appeared to speak in favor of HB2017—not as a representative of his office, but as an individual. (Of course, we’re supposed to believe that Mr. Heap just happened to show up at that exact moment purely as a concerned citizen, and not at all as a political insider with an agenda.)
Molly Jisa
It honestly felt as though the committee, seeing the overwhelming opposition in the room, quickly texted Mr. Heap, saying, “Quick, get over here, we need someone to speak in favor of this.” During this session, Rep. Alexander Kolodin continued to claim that he was advocating for his constituents, but with no one in the room speaking in favor of the bill, can we really believe that he is truly representing the will of the people when the committee voted in favor of HB2017, despite overwhelming public opposition?
I’m especially concerned about SB1011, which would prohibit voters from dropping off their mail-in ballots at polling locations on Election Day without waiting in line. This bill directly threatens the accessibility of our elections, adding unnecessary obstacles for people like me, who rely on the flexibility to drop off ballots quickly.
From a political psychology perspective, these types of restrictions can have a profound psychological impact on voter behavior. Removing convenient methods like ballot drop-offs risks discouraging participation, especially for parents balancing childcare and work, people juggling multiple jobs, elderly voters, and those with disabilities or health concerns who may find waiting in line an undue burden.
This pattern of pushing anti-voter legislation, like HB2017 and SB1011, shows a fundamental disconnect with the needs of everyday Arizonans. We deserve elections that are accessible, fair, and reflect the will of the people. These bills would only make it harder for us to vote, despite the overwhelming majority of Arizonans supporting efforts to make voting easier.
I urge our elected officials to reject these restrictive bills and stand with Arizonans who want to protect our voting rights, not take them away.
Molly Jisa, a Phoenix resident, is an advocate for voting rights, environmental justice, and gun violence prevention.
Republican legislators have introduced a series of bills that would require a supermajority of voters or lawmakers to approve tax increases and fees for cities and towns, school districts and state agencies.
The proposed legislation would align current policies with laws that require a supermajority of the Legislature or voters to approve any tax increase at the state level.
Republicans and other supporters view the bills as a way to protect constituents from increased taxes and fees at the local level while promoting government efficiency. However, opponents say the bills interfere with local control and could make it harder for municipalities, school districts and agencies to increase funding for essential resources.
Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, introduced a ballot referral that would require a school district bond and override election to receive approval from 60% of voters in order to pass. Bolick decided to introduce the measure after a voter asked her to run a bill that would bring school districts into alignment with the 2022 voter-approved Proposition 132, which requires a 60% voter approval for a tax increase.
Shawnna Bolick
“He asked for basically the same percentage to apply to the school board bond elections as we do with all their taxes that we have before the voters,” Bolick said.
The referral, SCR1028, was assigned to the Senate Education and Rules committees but hasn’t received a hearing yet.
However, a couple of education groups have already warned against the potential consequences of requiring a supermajority to pass a bond and override election.
“It puts the minority of the community in charge, because if a minority of the people vote against it, it doesn’t pass,” said Chuck Essigs, director of governmental relations for the Arizona Association of School Business Officials. “So basically, even if the majority of the citizens in a school district were in favor of the bond or in favor of the override, the override still could fail … because it’s really difficult to get a … super majority.”
The number of successful overrides would diminish and the lack of funding would affect student resources and teacher salaries, Essigs said.
“We don’t elect senators and representatives that way. We don’t require that a super majority vote for whoever gets elected in the community,” he said. “But why then require a super majority to decide which bonds and which overall elections are successful.”
The Arizona School Boards Association also spoke out against the bill, saying it could further hinder school districts that are already struggling financially.
According to a statement released by the organization: “These districts already face barriers in passing bonds and overrides due to smaller tax bases and lower voter turnout. A higher threshold would make it nearly impossible for them to secure funding. Without these funds, many schools will struggle to maintain buildings, update technology, and pay staff, negatively impacting students. School funding should remain a community decision. Raising the threshold strips control away from local voters.”
While Bolick’s measure awaits a committee hearing, two similar measures targeting municipalities and state agency fees are advancing through the Legislature.
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, dropped a legislative referral that would amend Proposition 108, the measure voters approved in 1992 that requires a two-thirds majority approval in the Legislature for state tax and fee increases. Prop. 108 excluded most state agency fees from the two-thirds rule, allowing them to increase fees for certain programs through the traditional regulatory review process.
Mesnard said the referral, SCR1009, would prevent the Legislature from deferring fee assessments and increases to state agencies to circumvent the Legislature. The Senate Finance Committee approved the referral along party lines on Feb. 3.
“The current law is highly attractive to those who wish to game the system and impose fees that they know will not receive a supermajority vote from the legislature,” Mesnard said in a press release statement on Jan. 28. “This bill is a significant step towards protecting Arizona taxpayers from unchecked financial burdens while ensuring the legislature cannot shirk its sacred duty.”
Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, introduced a bill, SB1013, that would require a two-thirds vote for cities, towns and counties to approve new taxes, fees and assessments. The bill was approved by the Senate along party lines on Feb. 3, and sent to the House.
Petersen said the legislation was introduced to curtail local governments that have raised taxes although those municipalities are “flushed with cash.”
“I’ve received a number of concerns and complaints from Arizonans who are frustrated with recent hikes on taxes and fees, especially in this era of inflation. We want government to be more efficient with taxpayer dollars, and this is a step in the right direction,” Petersen said in a statement released after the bill was approved. “This commonsense taxpayer protection requires the same threshold from local governments as the Legislature when raising or imposing fees.”
During the Senate Committee of the Whole on Jan. 29, Petersen said municipalities could still raise taxes but the increased threshold shouldn’t provide much of an obstacle to lawmakers who serve cities, towns and counties.
“It raises the bar from a simple majority to a two thirds vote, the same bar that we have here at the Legislature. It is much easier to pass things at the local level, the cities and the counties,” he said.
Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, criticized the bill as legislation that “stomps on freedom” and restricts local control for municipalities looking to serve their residents.
“It’s not your business what a city does with their budget,” she said. “That’s up to the people of that city and the people they elect to their city council.”
Republican lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to a plan to scrap the ability of voters to drop off their early ballots at polling places on Election Day.
And they are daring Gov. Katie Hobbs to follow through with her promise to veto it. That could occur as early as Monday.
The measure, approved without a single Democratic vote, is being promoted by supporters as a way of ensuring that it does not take days for Arizonans to learn who won the election. That has been an issue, particularly in close races, because of how counties now deal with what are called “late-early ballots.”
HB2703 would keep in place existing law that says early ballots can be dropped in the mail so long as they reach county offices by 7 p.m. on Election Day.
Gov. Katie Hobbs gives her third State of the State speech Jan. 13, 2025 (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
But if voters do not, they could no longer walk in to any polling place on Election Day and deposit their ballot envelopes into a box and walk out. Instead, they would have to deliver their voted early ballots to the county recorder or whoever is in charge of elections by that 7 p.m. deadline, a move that foes said could require people to drive hundreds of miles in some rural counties.
There would still be an option for Election Day voting by those with early ballots. But under those circumstances the person would have to present identification, which is the same procedure they would need to do if voting in person, foregoing the option to skip the line of those waiting to vote in person. And that, in turn, could add to what sometimes have been long lines and delays at polling places.
All that goes to what Republicans say are unacceptable delays in getting results.
The problem is the way counties count ballots.
Any “early” ballot that is simply dropped off at a polling place is set aside.
The envelopes only can be opened after the signature on the outside is first verified, something that cannot be done on site but has to be done at county election offices. And that process doesn’t start until the votes cast personally on Election Day are tallied.
What makes all this a problem is that in Maricopa County alone there were more than 290,000 of these “late-early” ballots dropped off.
Hobbs has made it clear that the bill is headed for a veto.
She said it would disenfranchise Arizonans who like the idea of filling out their ballots at home and then waiting until Election Day to drop them off at a nearby polling place.
And Rep. Myron Tsosie said the option of bringing them to a county office on Election Day is not a realistic alternative.
Rep. Myron Tsosie, D-Chinle
“If you want us to drive to our nearest recorder’s office, I would have to drive 3 1/2 hours,” said the Chinle Democrat.
Hobbs, a former secretary of state, has not disputed the time it takes to get final election results. But she contends that the earlier deadline will end up disenfranchising voters.
“My line in the sand has been and will continue to be if you make it harder for Arizonans to continue to cast their ballot, that’s a ‘no’ for me,” she said even before the first hearing on the bill.
That view had not changed as of Thursday, with the governor saying Republicans were trying to “jam through a partisan bill that guts vote by mail and makes it harder to vote.”
None of that is a surprise for Republicans. They already are preparing to enact the same restrictions, but this time as a proposal for voters in 2026, a process that bypasses the governor.
Hobbs said there were efforts to negotiate a compromise and that she was willing to discuss other options to speed up the process, but only ones that left the Election Day ballot drop-off in place.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, sponsor of the House version of the measure, said the governor really wasn’t interested in coming up with a deal.
He said there were committee hearings where county officials showed up to provide input and make suggestions.
“Then, when the bill gets out of committee and is about ready to go on the (voting) board, she comes to us with an unclear and vague laundry list of demands, although it’s not clear which demands need to be satisfied to supposedly get her approval,” Kolodin said. And many of these, he said, would take months to “refine.”
Alexander Kolodin
“That is not a tactic of good-faith negotiation,” said Kolodin. Instead, he said Hobbs was trying to protect herself from being challenged in her 2026 reelection by fellow Democrat and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes who has made it clear he opposes anything that curtails voter access.
That got a curt response from Christian Slater, the governor’s press aide.
“That’s been the governor’s position since she was secretary of state,” he said of allowing same-day ballot drop-off. Anyway, he noted that Fontes has said he’s running for reelection to his own post.
Fontes himself has questioned the need for the change, even in the name of speed.
Spokesman Aaron Thacker said most voters seem content to wait for official results. He said the only people who seem to want early results are the TV networks so they can “call” races, something that has no actual official meaning.
As to the timing of the governor’s objection, Slater said the measure wasn’t in its final form until Monday.
He also said that there was nothing vague about what Hobbs wanted. He said she would agree to an earlier deadline for ballot drop-off but only if there were trade-offs designed to ease the whole voting process.
One would be allowing people to register the same day they cast a ballot. That has been a non-starter for Republicans who want to preserve the current deadline to register 29 days before an election.
She said there also should be options for people to be able to remain registered when they move between counties.
And then there’s easing up on restrictions on what Republicans have called “ballot harvesting.”
A 2016 law, pushed by Republican lawmakers, makes it a felony to handle anyone else’s early ballot, with violators subject to a year in state prison and a $150,000 fine. Proponents said it was designed to preclude fraud – none was ever proven – or, at least, the potential of fraud.
There are exceptions for family members, those who live in the same home, and “caregivers” who work with people in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and similar places.
But the real aim appears to have been to end the practice of community groups going door-to-door shortly before an election, asking people if they had returned their early ballots, and then offering to deliver them, especially if it was too late to drop them in the mail.
Both parties had engaged in such efforts. But Democrats were more successful.
If nothing else, the governor said that lawmakers should give some time to see if legislation approved last year can help ease the Election Day crunch.
It allows, but does not require, counties to set up a procedure where someone who brings in an early ballot to show identification and be able to have it verified, without further signature verification. But it preserved the ability of those without ID, or who were dropping off a spouse’s ballot, to simply drop it in a box for verification later rather than having it discarded, what she said would be the result of what the Legislature approved.
But then the governor’s problems with the bill go beyond scrapping Election Day drop off. She pointed out that the final bill includes provisions that have nothing to do with speeding up the counting process.
One requires someone who wants an early ballot to first verify their address, once a year for Pima and Maricopa counties and once every two years for other counties.
The governor said that throws an additional hurdle in the ability of individuals to remain on what is called the “active early voter list” and automatically get an early ballot before every election, without having to make a request, as long as they continue to regularly vote.
Hobbs also found fault with another provision to repeal a law that allows a school principal to refuse to allow a building to be used for a polling place, either because space is not available or the safety or welfare of children would be jeopardized.
Supporters of this change said it would help ensure there are sufficient voting locations while foes said it ignores what could be real concerns.
The earliest Hobbs can act is Monday as the measure has not yet been sent to her.
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.
Republicans lawmakers advanced legislation Jan. 22 aimed at banning the use of voting centers.
With Gov. Katie Hobbs unlikely to sign any measure that would do so, GOP lawmakers are hoping to get approval from voters on the issue.
The House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee passed both HB2017 and HCR2002. The measures are identical, except the concurrent resolution won’t require the governor’s signature to become law.
Instead, the resolution would go to voters on the 2026 general election ballot if it gets through the Legislature.
“I also did it in the form of an HCR so it can go to the people and the people can choose to vote for this on the ballot,” said Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, the sponsor of the measures.
Both pieces of legislation would require election precincts to have no more than 1,000 registered voters and to prohibit the use of voting centers across the state.
Each measure passed out of committee on party lines. Keshel ran identical legislation last year but her bill didn’t get through the Senate because former Sen. Ken Bennett, who also formerly served as secretary of state, voted against the measure along with Democrats.
The bill becoming law would present some logistical issues for election administrators across the state, according to Jen Marson, the executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties.
“The reason that vote centers became popular is because we didn’t have enough places to be polling places in a traditional sense,” Marson said Jan. 22. “That’s the piece in terms of logistics that this bill is missing. If it’s mandated that we have to go to a precinct model and we literally cannot find enough spaces, what do we do then.”
The use of voting centers, where registered voters can vote at any eligible voting center instead of a locally assigned precinct-based polling location, is a relatively new practice. Maricopa County used precinct-based voting up until the 2020 election cycle.
Almost all counties in the state allow the use of a voting center in some way. Some counties like Gila County use a hybrid model with both precinct voting and vote centers while only three counties exclusively use precinct voting: Apache County, Mohave County and Pinal County.
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap is supportive of the precinct model, although the county Board of Supervisors oversees elections. He said he believes the voting center model has led to greater disenfranchisement of voters with long lines or technical issues that have occurred in prior elections.
“It certainly is easier to use the voting center model on the elections officials, who have to staff these offices and find poll workers,” Heap said.
More than two million ballots were cast in Maricopa County in the 2024 general election, which would require about 2,000 polling places under Keshel’s measure.
Heap said the 1,000 registered voters per precinct cap that Keshel is proposing could be an issue for a large county like Maricopa. He recommended bumping up the cap to 1,500 registered voters, but said that would still require staffing for about 950 precincts.
“If we limited it to precincts, we’d have an increase in volunteers and an increase in locations. A lot of locations don’t want to necessarily serve as a polling place anymore because they know they might have 10,000 people show up on Election Day at one location,” Heap said.
Some Republicans also view the early voting period as a balancing act between precinct and centralized-location voting, but Keshel’s measure would repeal state law that allows county recorders to establish on-site early voting locations. Voters could still return early ballots by mail or at a dropbox.
That provision is one of the main issues for civil rights advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
“Arizonans want the ability to return their signed, sealed and voted early ballot, whether that’s by mail or in person at a voting location,” said Katelynn Contreras, a policy strategist for ACLU of Arizona.
The bill is flexible in giving a polling location the ability to serve as an on-site early voting location, but Marson said it would be unusual for a place like a school or church to be open the same amount of time that designated voting centers are open and noted precinct locations have only been used on Election Day.
“Right now, I don’t believe the statutes contemplate that scenario at all and also, you have to have all those places willing to be open for the days of early voting and on (Election Day) Tuesday,” Marson said.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said he sees the measure as a way to increase voter access for in-person voters on Election Day for many rural voters who may have to drive farther to participate rather than going to their local polling place at a school or church in their community.
He said he views voting centers as an unconstitutional poll tax because some voters might not be able to access a voting location by walking.
“If I have to pay to have a car, put gas in that car, in order to go drive to go vote, I have to pay in order to vote. If I have to pay bus fare in order to ride to a polling location, then I have to pay in order to vote,” Kolodin said.
A bill that aims to accelerate vote counting in Arizona passed its first test Jan. 15 after the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee approved it 4-3 along party lines.
SB1011 would eliminate early ballots delivered on Election Day and instead require those voters to drop off their ballots by 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. An amended version of the bill removes the requirement for voting locations to be open on the Saturday and Monday before the Election Day for in-person early voting and would allow county recorder offices to send ballots up to 29 days before an election. The previous version called for ballots to be sent up to 27 days before an election.
Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert
Other provisions would prohibit public school principals from denying a request to use their school as a polling place and allowing voters to show identification instead of having to verify their ballot signature.
The bill is part of a larger effort gaining momentum among Republicans in both chambers who want to emulate Florida and get results on election night instead of days later.
The House ad hoc Committee on Election Integrity and Florida-Style Voting also met Jan. 15 to consider a concurrent resolution that would ask voters if they prefer an election system similar to Florida’s.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, filed HCR2013, which proposes moving the late-early ballot drop off date to the Friday before an election like the Senate bill.
The House measure would also eliminate the signature verification process by giving early voters a unique voter ID number. Kolodin said this was a faster way to verify ballots for election officials and it eliminated changed or irregular signatures from voters who may have difficulty signing their signature consistently.
One provision of Kolodin’s measure that some election officials say could be a challenge is a requirement for early voters to verify their addresses with county recorders before every election. Kolodin said county recorders in Florida do this practice through online web portals or even some county recorders will have their staff call voters directly.
Alexander Kolodin
Critics say the move to a Florida-style election process would potentially limit voting access, especially in rural areas, cause confusion among voters and not provide contingencies for unforeseen circumstances that may hinder someone from dropping off their ballot in a timely manner, such as forgetting their identification card.
There are concerns regarding potential obstacles for voters with disabilities and others who may need a caregiver to drop off their ballot.
Republicans have countered by saying the bill would provide voters plenty of time to return their ballots.
Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, who introduced the Senate bill, testified before the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, saying speedier elections are a “constituent issue” rooted in frustration over slow election results.
“I think I received more frustration over this issue, more texts, more comments than almost any other issue since I’ve been here,” Peterson said. “So I committed to making sure Arizona could be a state, just like so many other states, who have election results (the) night of instead being the state who delivered their electoral results last.”
Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, said she disagreed with the idea that people want quicker election results so much that they’re willing to sacrifice voter access.
“I think this bill is an absolutely atrocious attempt to make it harder to drop off your early ballots,” Ortiz said. “This nonsense about so many people wanting election results right away, and therefore we have to jeopardize voter access, is just ridiculous.”
Ortiz said the Democrats have a plan of their own to speed up election results that would include expanding in-person voting during the weekend and Monday before Election Day, removing duplicative identification requirements and increasing the funding for county election departments.
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap spoke in support of the bill, citing concerns over the security and integrity of the state’s elections.
“I think that, across the board, concerns over election integrity have been a major issue in Arizona for a very long time,” said Heap, a former state lawmaker and an attorney.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly expressed concerns over accessibility, especially in rural areas outside of Tucson where there are limited buildings to set up voting facilities, she said. Cázares-Kelly also said there are no drop boxes in Pima County.
“There’s major concerns about reducing the time of being able to return a ballot, especially for household members who are returning (a ballot) on behalf of another in a rural area,” she said. “I think that is very much an issue.”
Speeding up Arizona’s election results will be a major policy goal for Republican leaders at the Legislature this session.
Legislative leaders in the House and Senate have outlined a plan to make the state’s election systems similar to Florida, with the intent of having nearly all votes tabulated by the end of election night.
The proposal is being pushed by many Republicans, notably Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert. Petersen prefiled SB1011, which aims to eliminate mail ballots delivered on Election Day, or so-called “late earlies.” Election officials attribute delays in election results to late earlies because of the time it takes to verify signatures.
The measure is also supported by Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin, who said on Jan. 6 he plans to have the county’s election system undergo a comprehensive audit conducted by a reliable party.
“People want election results faster and when misinformation has time to fester, it breeds mistrust in our system,” Galvin said.
The proposed law would move the deadline to drop off an early ballot at a polling place to 7 p.m. the Friday before Election Day instead of on Election Day. It also proposes to eliminate emergency voting centers to instead just expand early voting to include the Monday and weekend before an election.
If the bill becomes law, anyone who tries to deliver a late early ballot on Election Day would be required to present identification and sign an affidavit in order to turn in their ballot.
Galvin said he hopes the proposal can gain bipartisan support in the Legislature, but Democrats want to ensure any election bill doesn’t make it more difficult for people to vote. Galvin’s vision is to have 95% of votes tabulated on election night.
“Faster election results should not come at the expense of voters’ rights,” said Gov. Katie Hobbs’s spokesman Christian Slater in a written statement. “Governor Hobbs is open to proposals to speed up the counting process, but any solution must protect Arizonans’ freedom to make their voices heard at the ballot box. She remains committed to a voting process that maintains accessibility and integrity for all Arizona voters and guarantees safe, secure and fair elections.”
There is growing momentum for the idea. A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights that showed nearly 52% of respondents expressed frustration with how long it takes the state to finalize election results, despite having increased confidence in the election process.
Republicans have also been united on the issue. Political consultant Doug Cole said that aspect was particularly key since there has been infighting within the party in recent years on trust in elections.
“There’s a lot of parties that have not been on the same page recently that are coalescing around the idea,” Cole said.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said Jan. 8 he’s expecting the House to have an ad hoc committee specifically examining Florida’s election model. The bill will get a hearing in the Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee, but he said because of the complexity of the issue, he wants to work the bill out in multiple hearings with the ad hoc committee.
“A committee is supposed to do substantiative work on a bill,” Kolodin said. “Improve the bill and then present it on the House floor as something pretty close to a finished work product that the members can have confidence it’s been properly vetted and thoroughly thought through.”
SB1011 will likely be a major negotiating piece between Republican leaders and the Governor’s Office during the legislative session. Another Republican idea that Hobbs won’t consider is banning vote centers.
Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, prefiled HB2017, which would prohibit a county board of supervisors from authorizing the use of voting centers. Voting would be done at the precinct level with no more than 1,000 registered voters per precinct.
Keshel had a similar bill last year, but it died in the Senate because then-Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, voted against the measure.
Bennett isn’t returning this session and Republicans have gained a seat in the Senate. Hobbs will most likely veto the bill if it makes it to her desk, but Keshel has a similar measure in the form of a concurrent resolution, HCR2002, which bypasses the governor and goes to the ballot, allowing voters to decide if the measure should become law.
Cole said he doesn’t expect voters to support the measure if it makes it to the ballot.
“Generally, the public wants easy access to voting,” Cole said. “Especially here in Maricopa County, voting centers have proven to be very popular and effective.”
Cronkite News reported in November that the county had 246 vote centers during the general election, and wait times at vote centers were on average 10 minutes to 11 minutes.
A Scottsdale Republican lawmaker has concluded that Democrats were right all along – it’s not fair to have ballot order determined by who won the last governor’s race.
But Rep. Alexander Kolodin said the fact that there’s now a Democrat in the top office – and that prior GOP advantage has disappeared – has at least something to do with his legislation to alter the system.
His HB2045 would require that the order of candidates for each race on the general election ballot be rotated among voting precincts in each county so that each party gets an equal chance of being in that first position.
The current system – the one based on who won the last governor’s race – meant that in the 2022 election Republicans were listed ahead of Democrats in all races in 11 of the state’s 15 counties where Doug Ducey outpolled Democrat David Garcia. That included Maricopa County, which has more voters than the other 14 counties combined.
The Democratic National Committee and its allies thought that system is so unfair that they filed suit in 2019 asking a federal judge to rule the system illegal.
To back their arguments, they cited research from a political science professor who estimated that first-listed candidates get an average advantage of 2.2 percentage points. And the margin, according to Jonathan Rodden, can reach 5.6 percentage points.
All that, argued attorney Sarah Gonski, explains why Arizona law requires rotation of names on primary election ballots. And she urged U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa to extend that rotation to general elections.
The judge refused. And the Democrats had no better luck going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, however, Kolodin says they have a point.
“It provides a statistical advantage to the group of candidates listed first,” he said – exactly what the Democrats were arguing in court.
So what’s changed?
One thing is that Democrat Katie Hobbs beat Republican Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial race. And that meant Democrats got top billing in the just-completed election in five counties, including Maricopa and Pima, where three out of every four registered voters reside.
That would be repealed if the Republican-controlled Legislature approves his plan and the governor signs it, replaced by the system of random rotation.
But Kolodin also conceded there is some politics behind his move to have the Legislature revamp the law versus having it decided by a federal judge.
“The Democrats were suing to try to change the law to suit their purposes,” he said. But Kolodin said Humetewa was right in concluding it was not the role of the courts to make such decisions.
Instead, he said, that’s the role of the Legislature which then – and now – has been controlled by Republicans.
“The Legislature saw fit to, fairly in my view, provide that advantage to the party that had won the Governor’s Office,” he said of the law in place when Ducey had won his races for governor.
Put another way, Kolodin said, Republican lawmakers had every right to set up a system that was designed to benefit their candidates.
“It’s not fair to take that advantage away from a political party in the middle of a gubernatorial term,” he said, saying the GOP, having won 11 counties in 2018, including Maricopa, was entitled to “get the prize” of first position in future elections.
“And you get to keep that prize for the four years,” Kolodin said.
Anyway, he said, it’s not like he’s trying to take away the current Democratic advantage – at least not right away.
“It doesn’t take effect until 2027,” Kolodin he said.
What that means, he said, is that even if his measure becomes law the Democratic candidates still will be listed first in the five affected counties for the upcoming election. That’s the one in which Hobbs herself will seek a new term.
But it will make irrelevant beyond that, at least for ballot order, whether she wins or loses.
Mark Finchem has apparently given up on his perennial bid to require that all ballots be counted by hand.
The Republican senator, in an online letter to his new constituents in Prescott, conceded a majority of his colleagues aren’t buying his arguments that having election workers at every voting location hand counting the ballots is the only way to ensure accurate results.
Mark Finchem
“While I prefer hand-counting paper ballots at the precinct level, not all my colleagues do,” he wrote.
But Finchem, a former representative from Oro Valley who moved to Prescott after losing his 2022 bid to become Secretary of State, has a fallback position. He wants a law that says if Arizona sticks with machine counting, which is the only method allowed by statute, the tabulators must “meet Department of Defense-level cybersecurity standards.”
It’s just one of a series of ideas to revamp the state’s election system being introduced by Finchem that he wants adopted when lawmakers return to the Capitol on Jan. 13. And the package even includes a fairly radical proposal to change the date of some elections.
The fight over machine tabulation is not new. There have been proposals for years from some Republicans who insist that the machines can be hacked and reprogrammed to give incorrect results. Those claims have been rebuffed by counties who say the machines are not connected to the internet.
And then there’s the fact that state law requires a random hand count of selected races from selected precincts. That would reveal any discrepancies between the votes cast and what the tabulators report.
Finchem and Kari Lake, both candidates for statewide office in the 2022 election, even tried to get a federal court to declare that voting machines are unreliable and should be banned. That was a direct outgrowth of claims by both that the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump, a position that, to this day, neither have disavowed.
U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi tossed the lawsuit, saying that their claims were based on a lot of “what if” speculations. And even the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear their case.
That leaves the tabulation machines in place and Finchem’s new proposal to require they meet certain cybersecurity standards.
“If the machines cannot guarantee stand-alone security, they will be prohibited from use in Arizona if the bill passes,” Finchem said in his letter to constituents.
Finchem, who declined to comment, also is pushing another measure that could provoke opposition: Moving some elections to odd-numbered years.
The problem, he wrote, is the sheer length of ballots: In some counties in the just-completed election, the races for federal, state and local offices, coupled with special district elections, bond questions, judicial retention and 13 ballot measures meant voters were faced with two double-sided pages to fill out.
That may be less of an issue for those who vote at home. But it presents potential problems for those who choose to fill out their ballots at local vote centers.
Finchem’s proposal would move all ballot measures to odd-numbered years. Also moved to that cycle would be the votes for judges.
“This will streamline the system and help to reduce the size of the even-year ballots,” he wrote.
But what Finchem is trying to do actually works against what Republican lawmakers have been adopting for nearly three decades.
More recently, lawmakers in 2012 declared that all elections must be conducted in even-numbered years and only on dates spelled out by the Legislature.
That was primarily aimed to force certain cities, including Tucson, to give up its own system of having elections in odd-numbered years.
City officials argued that a separate date ensures that local races and local ballot measures are not swept up and buried under debates about who should be president or governor, or about statewide ballot issues.
But Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, who has been the prime proponent of consolidated elections, said the flip side of that historically has been lower turnout.
Tucson has so far managed to maintain its off-year elections, with the courts ruling charter cities are entitled to make those decisions for themselves. Mesnard, however, said the principle of promoting maximum voter turnout remains, and lawmakers should not tinker with election dates as Finchem is proposing.
“I think there’s an expectation by voters that elections happen every two to four years, in November,” he told Capitol Media Services. “I still believe that.”
Mesnard said he recognizes what happened in November with the longer ballot.
“That’s unusual to have a second page,” he said. “I don’t know that we should revamp the system because of a relatively infrequent circumstance.”
Still, Mesnard said if this becomes “the new norm,” with repeat elections with multi-page ballots, he’s willing to discuss the issue.
Finchem has other ideas he wants lawmakers to consider this session.
One would require that ballots have “currency-grade watermarks,” with an “auditable supply chain” to ensure that only official ballots are being given to voters and counted.
Much of this concern traces its roots back to the 2000 presidential election where supporters of Donald Trump claimed that 40,000 fake ballots had been inserted into the system in Arizona to secure a victory for Joe Biden.
That resulted in a post-election “audit” of the presidential race ordered by then-Senate President Karen Fann, who contracted with Cyber Ninjas. They brought in an army of volunteers examining each ballot, looking for bamboo fibers based on arguments that the ballots had been flown in from Asia where bamboo is used in making paper.
None was ever found.
The idea of watermarks is not new, at least on a national level. California has regulations that require ballot papers to have a watermark. So do Tennessee and Georgia.
Other Finchem proposals include:
Making voter registration rolls a public record, allowing anyone to check out who is signed up to vote and, presumably, file reports with county officials of those who are not living there or otherwise not eligible to cast a ballot;
Prohibiting the use of gift cards to fund political campaigns as they cannot be linked to a contributor, allowing violations of campaign finance laws;
Eliminating what Finchem said is a gap in campaign finance laws that bar donations by foreigners to candidates in Arizona elections but do not preclude them spending money for or against ballot measures.
A long year of election litigation challenged all but the results, standing in stark contrast to 2022 and illustrating a shift toward tooling with election administration as opposed to lawsuits brought in individual races.
Many of the legal challenges filed in 2024 stand to bleed into the coming year, too, with potential appeals and a new Elections Procedures Manual in 2026 leaving more legal questions on the table for the next election cycle.
“The litigation in the election space has been increasing, year after year after year. I don’t see that changing in 2025,” election attorney Andrew Gould said. “But what’s interesting is the litigation will take place in 2025. In other words, I don’t know if there’s a down cycle for this anymore.”
Andrew Gould
The year started with legal challenges to the 2022 election still sustaining a pulse and promises of litigation against the 2023 Elections Procedure Manual impending and eventually materializing from the Legislature, the RNC and the Arizona Republican Party and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.
In the lead up to the election, low and high courts also fielded lawsuits challenging petitions, initiatives set to head to the ballot, summaries of the initiatives and management of voter registration databases.
But absent from the post-election period was a swell of election litigation challenging results.
“This year, the margins just weren’t close,” Gould said. “So the more we get into a mindset of, we want to win by more mandate, bigger margins, I think you’ll see election challenges fade away. But I think if we are in a mindset that all I need is 50 plus one, then we’re always going to have election challenges.”
Gould said the cycle brought more lawsuits filed in advance of the election and “more and more litigation directed toward the structure of administration of elections versus individual candidates and challenges,” a trend he said he expected to continue into the next year.
“Candidates and people that want to get an initiative on the ballot need to know what the rules of the game are efficiently in advance so they can participate in the Democratic process,” Gould said.
Challenges to the Elections Procedure Manual are set to continue into the next calendar year as the Secretary of State’s Office is tasked with drafting a new manual in 2025, with a draft due to Attorney General Kris Mayes and Gov. Katie Hobbs by Oct. 1.
Most recently, a Superior Court judge ruled on the Legislature’s challenge to the procedures manual. The court voided provisions allowing for voters to be made inactive, as opposed to having their voter registration cancelled if they affirm they are a non-resident of their county in a juror questionnaire. The ruling also allows for leniency for errors in petition circulators registration and requiring counties to canvass the election or see their votes omitted from the statewide canvass.
In September, both a federal judge and a Court of Appeals judge blocked provisions of the manual enumerating and expanding upon behaviors considered voter harassment and a provision allowing the Secretary of State to certify the statewide election without counties that failed to do so.
Still pending are questions on recorders and the state’s responsibilities on managing and voiding ineligible voters from voter rolls.
Gould predicted further challenges to election administration will come earlier and earlier, noting past dismissals of cases based on the Purcell doctrine – case law barring changes on the eve of an election, or laches – a doctrine requiring the dismissal of a case filed too late in the game.
“People have seen that and thought, I want to avoid those issues and file earlier, so that those defenses aren’t raised and the point is well taken,” Gould said.
This past Election Day, I stepped into a polling station — not just as a voter, but as a volunteer. After years of military service, it felt natural to channel my dedication to service into a new mission – helping ensure a smooth, accessible, and transparent voting process for everyone in my community.
My experience on Election Day was nothing short of inspiring. Voters of all backgrounds arrived with purpose, casting their ballots in a process that ran smoothly, efficiently, and with respect for every individual’s voice. It was a reminder of what makes our country strong — ordinary citizens coming
Matt Kenney
together to make their voices heard. It’s a right that has been protected and preserved through the sacrifice made by many service members. For me, Election Day was smooth, efficient, and dignified — everything we hope for in the election process. The experience underscored an important truth: the same principles I upheld in the military — integrity, service, and accountability — are the backbone of a healthy democratic process.
For veterans like me, service didn’t end when we hung up the uniform. Our training instills values like discipline, leadership, and a sense of responsibility to something greater than ourselves. These values are needed now more than ever—not just on Election Day, but in every corner of the American political landscape. These qualities are invaluable in a time when trust in our institutions often feels fractured.
Whether it’s volunteering at polling locations, joining local boards, becoming advocates, or running for office — veterans are uniquely equipped to step up and contribute. The skills we’ve learned through our military experience — problem-solving, teamwork, and leading under pressure — are assets that can strengthen our communities. And they are assets that are largely missing in the current American political climate. Transitioning from combat duty to civic duty is not just a continuation of service, it’s an opportunity to lead at home in the same way we led in the service.
The impact of veterans’ civic leadership is evident in the renewed confidence Americans have in our elections. According to a recent Pew Research poll, the percentage of Republican voters who believe elections are well-run surged from just 21% in 2020 to an impressive 93% in 2024. This remarkable shift is no coincidence. It reflects the trust that comes when those who have already served their country step forward to ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity in our democratic process. By bringing the same values we upheld in the military to our local communities, we’re helping to bridge divides and restore faith in the very foundations of our democratic system.
The time is now for veterans to embrace this call to action. Volunteer for a cause that matters to you. Attend a town hall meeting. Get involved in local governance. The same commitment we showed in uniform can transform our neighborhoods, schools, and cities into stronger, more united communities.
Volunteering on Election Day, I saw firsthand how vital community engagement and participation is in the democratic process we take for granted. It’s not just about voting, it’s about engaging and being proactive. It’s about creating a process everyone can trust. And veterans, with our shared commitment to service, are uniquely positioned to answer this call.
America thrives when its citizens take ownership of its future. Veterans have already proven their dedication to this country, and our service doesn’t have to stop after combat or deployment. Together, let’s lead in this next chapter of service, one civic act at a time.
Matt Kenney is a founding partner of Echo Canyon Consulting and a U.S. Army combat veteran.
Republicans in the state Legislature pre-filed an elections bill that aims to make Arizona’s election system more like Florida’s, but there’s no guarantee the measure will see Gov. Katie Hobbs’s signature.
Speeding up election night reporting is one of the top priorities for Republicans, many of whom have grown frustrated with how long the state has taken to count ballots.
“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 in a Nov. 8 news release days after the general election.
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler
Both Mesnard and Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, have pre-filed bills intended to speed up election result reporting.
Petersen’s bill will be the first bill heard in the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, chaired by Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, according to a Dec. 12 post on X from Petersen.
The Senate president’s measure, SB1011, would move the deadline to drop off an early ballot at a polling place to 7 p.m. the Friday before an Election Day instead of on Election Day. It would also expand early voting to include the Monday and weekend before an election, and repeal state law that instructs county supervisors to set up emergency voting centers, which requires voters to provide “unforeseen circumstances” that prevent them from voting at the polls.
If the bill becomes law, anyone who drops off an early ballot in person after the new deadline could show identification and sign an affidavit, eliminating signature verification for their “late early” ballots, which election officials say is one of the leading causes of election reporting delays.
Many of the ideas in Petersen’s bill are also supported by Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chairman Thomas Galvin.
“By moving up the cutoff date for early ballot drop offs, using government buildings to host polling sites, and eliminate emergency voting for the Saturday and Monday prior to the election while allowing folks to vote in person, we can significantly speed up the process and have nearly 95% of ballots tabulated by election night,” Galvin said in a Nov. 18 news release.
Doug Cole, a political consultant at HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, said Galvin’s support of speeding up election results is significant, particularly since Maricopa County contains nearly two-thirds of the number of people who vote in Arizona.
“There’s more momentum right now than there has been in years past,” Cole said. “Maybe there’s a deal to be made. When you’re dealing with a divided government, it’s all about making a deal.” Cole said
Incoming House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, said the House is planning on running a mirror bill to Petersen’s. It will likely have no trouble passing the GOP-controlled House or Senate, but Democrats have publicly opposed the measure.
“Faster election results should not come at the expense of voters’ rights,” Hobbs’s spokesman Christian Slater said in a written statement. “Governor Hobbs is open to proposals to speed up the counting process, but any solution must protect Arizonans’ freedom to make their voices heard at the ballot box. She remains committed to a voting process that maintains accessibility and integrity for all Arizona voters and guarantees safe, secure and fair elections.”
The Arizona Association of Counties has not stated a position on Petersen’s bill yet. Association Executive Director Jen Marson told the Arizona Capitol Times on Dec. 18 in an email that prefiled bills have gone out to county officials for feedback, but many newly elected individuals have not had their county emails activated yet with a chance to weigh in on legislation.
The association was against a similar proposal from Mesnard two years ago that allowed early ballots to be submitted at polling places if voters showed identification at the polls to eliminate signature verification.
That measure was vetoed by Hobbs in 2023. The governor wrote in her veto letter that she believed the bill failed to meaningfully address real challenges facing Arizona voters. Mesnard has reintroduced his bill as SB1001 in the upcoming legislative session.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has also supported speeding up election results. Richer outlined several proposals to do so after the 2022 election and he said the “cleanest” solution is to eliminate late early ballots like Petersen has proposed.
“Some will say this reduces accessibility. And it does. And there will be some pains during the first election cycle,” Richer wrote in a Dec. 13 thread on X. “But it still allows for 27 days of early voting, 24 of which allow for the drop off of early mail ballots at ANY location. It allows you to return your ballot through USPS. It allows 27 days of in-person early voting. It allows in-person voting on Election Day.”
Richer will not be returning to office. Cole said Richer’s successor, Rep. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, a Freedom Caucus Republican, is likely to support Petersen’s proposal.
Another prominent county recorder in the state has criticized the measure. Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly pointed out in a similar thread on X to Richer’s that Arizona’s 15 counties are much larger than Florida’s 67 counties.
“The problem the bill sponsors want to solve: reducing the time it takes to obtain election results, was largely impacted by political parties who discouraged voters from returning ballots by mail in 2020. In 2024 the parties supported Early Voting and that number was reduced,” Cázares-Kelly wrote.
While Democrats largely oppose Petersen’s measure, they have shown support for the goal of faster results.
A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights that surveyed nearly 1,000 voters found 52% of respondents expressed frustration with how long it takes the state to finalize election results, despite an increased confidence in the election process.
“Arizona’s elections are secure and trusted, but we can always improve,” Noble said. “Expediting the ballot counting process should be a top priority. Voters deserve accuracy, but they also deserve timeliness.”
You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.
Sign In
Free Newsletter
