election 2014 | Arizona Capitol Times

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.

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.

Don’t make it more difficult for us to vote

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.)

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.

GOP measures target local taxes and fees, school bonds, overrides

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.

“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.

Mesnard, Senate, manufacturing — 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.”

GOP-controlled Legislature passes bill to speed up elections to Hobbs – veto likely

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.

budget, House — 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.”

“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.

Republicans move to bypass governor’s veto on election legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP lawmaker takes 2 routes to eliminate voting centers

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.

Quicker election results bill clears first hurdle, Dems reject it

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.

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.

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.”

Republicans to strive for speedy election system like Florida

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.

Upcoming Event

Tag: election 2014