ballots | Arizona Capitol Times
Your Inside Source for Arizona Government, Politics and Business
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:18:17 +0000
en-US
hourly
1
/files/2023/05/az17.jpg
ballots | Arizona Capitol Times
32
32
43761567
What I learned from touring Maricopa County’s election center
/news/2026/07/15/what-i-learned-from-touring-maricopa-countys-election-center/
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:18:17 +0000
/?p=499340
Early voting has begun across Arizona, and with the arrival of ballots comes questions about how our elections work and the safeguards in place. I recently toured the Maricopa County […]
The post What I learned from touring Maricopa County’s election center first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Eric Luoma
Early voting has begun across Arizona, and with the arrival of ballots comes questions about how our elections work and the safeguards in place.
I recently toured the Maricopa County Tabulation & Elections Center (MCTEC), the facility where machinery is stored and ballots are collected and counted. We learned about the multiple layers of security procedures in place to safeguard the vote, heard how election workers are trained in signature verification for mail-in ballots, and had a direct Q&A session with the county Elections Director. No question was off-limits.
There’s so much misinformation about Arizona elections. Many voters may not be aware:
Arizona requires every voter to provide valid ID when registering to vote, and to prove their identity at the polls
Our state utilizes paper ballots and conducts post-election recounts and audits for accuracy
No tabulation machine is ever connected to the Internet
Multiple live video feeds from MCTEC are available to the public, allowing viewers to see what’s happening behind-the-scenes
Poll workers and ballot-processing observers come from across the political spectrum, including Republicans, Democrats, independents and more
Cameras are rolling. Oversight mechanisms are engaged. And representatives of the political parties are watching closely.
I toured MCTEC as part of a local group – Pillars of the Community – that has community members from all political perspectives and walks of life, including businesspeople like me. When there isn’t an election underway, the Maricopa County Elections Department hosts regular tours of MCTEC so anyone can see for themselves how the system works and what protections are in place to ensure honest, accurate results.
I did that, and I encourage you to do the same.
The current dispute about election responsibilities between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the County Recorder has generated headlines and, understandably, public concern. That dispute is real and its resolution matters.
But this issue should not be confused with the integrity of the election itself.
Regardless of how the disagreement is resolved, Arizona elections go on. The professionals of the Elections Department and Recorder’s Office, and the dedicated poll workers who staff vote centers, are doing their jobs. A multitude of protections are in place to safeguard the vote.
Early voting has begun. Your vote is being protected. Go cast it with confidence.
Eric Luoma is a member of Pillars of the Community, a bipartisan group that seeks to learn about and educate the public regarding election procedures. Eric owns Cactus Flower Florists.The post What I learned from touring Maricopa County’s election center first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499340
Survey: What makes a good election in the eyes of Arizonans?
/news/2026/04/20/survey-what-makes-a-good-election-in-the-eyes-of-arizonans/
Mon, 20 Apr 2026 23:50:54 +0000
/?p=498301
Elections matter. Voting matters. That’s what we learn in school. But changes being proposed to how Arizonans vote at the national and state levels would make your civics teacher cry. […]
The post Survey: What makes a good election in the eyes of Arizonans? first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Dr. Sybil Francis
Elections matter. Voting matters. That’s what we learn in school. But changes being proposed to how Arizonans vote at the national and state levels would make your civics teacher cry. But even more importantly, the proposed changes — most designed to make voting more difficult — fly in the face of what large majorities of Arizonans say matters to them when it comes to voting and elections. I know this from multiple public opinion surveys we have conducted over the years.
For over two decades, we at the Center for the Future of Arizona have asked Arizonans across the state for their thoughts on issues critical to Arizona’s future, including education, health care, immigration and the environment. Our aim is to advance the voices of Arizonans on what matters to them and to our state’s future. We want to help leaders in our state see that Arizonans agree on many important issues, even when their voices get drowned out by partisan politics.
Our most recent survey explores what Arizonans believe a good election should deliver — regardless of party, candidate or outcome.
We started with a very basic question. Do Arizonans think fair and secure elections are important to a healthy democracy? The answer is virtually unanimous: 97% of Arizonans agree. This is the highest level of agreement we have seen in two decades of public opinion research. And a significant majority of Arizonans believe that their vote makes a difference, with 79% believing that it does. The voices seeking to undermine trust in elections and claims of voter fraud have not eroded these fundamental beliefs.
And what do Arizonans think about some of the proposed changes to how elections are run? Do these hot button issues resonate with Arizonans? Where do Arizonans stand on limiting or eliminating the option to cast their vote by mail, cutting off early ballot drop-off before election day, speeding up reporting of election results, or reverting to precinct voting?
The disconnect between these proposals and what Arizonans actually want could not be greater.
With regard to voting by mail, 81% of Arizonans want to keep their option to do so. That’s a supermajority and includes majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independent/unaffiliated Arizonans. In 2024, 81% of ballots in Arizona were cast using returned mail-in ballots.
And while Arizonans certainly think receiving timely results is great, nearly seven in 10 prefer preserving their option to drop off their early ballot up to, and on, election day. We asked if they preferred this option even if it means election results take longer to report, and the answer was clear: yes. In 2024, an estimated 8% of Arizona’s votes were mail-in ballots returned in person on election day.
With regard to voting centers, 89% of Arizonans want more voting centers, including 91% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats, and 83% of independent/unaffiliated Arizonans. These and other trends in our survey results show that Arizonans want more and more convenient options to vote, not fewer.
Finally, we asked Arizonans what makes a good election. What should a good election deliver regardless of your party or whether or not you like the outcome? How do you want to experience voting? Among nine core principles we asked about, three clear priorities rise to the top: accuracy, trustworthiness and transparency. Other priorities considered essential include voter access, fiscal responsibility, voter participation, preserving multiple ways to vote and the safety of voters and election workers.
Only one principle fell below 50% support: speed of reporting results. Speed is important to voters, but it’s not as important as accuracy, trustworthiness, transparency or other priorities such as voter access and convenience.
What does this mean for current debates about how elections are designed and run?
Arizonans have spoken on these issues. Will leaders listen? What will this mean for current debates about how elections are designed and run? Will the policies advanced reflect the interests of the voters or run cross-wise with them?
Listening to Arizonans and understanding their priorities doesn’t end debate, but should inform it. As changes to elections are considered, we should ask whether they align with what voters say are hallmarks of a good election. Arizonans know what matters to them, and that should matter to everyone, including our elected leaders.
Sybil Francis, Ph.D. is chair, president & CEO of Center for the Future of Arizona, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that brings Arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.The post Survey: What makes a good election in the eyes of Arizonans? first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
498301
Republican leaders challenge secretary of state’s new draft of election procedures manual
/news/2025/09/04/republican-leaders-challenge-secretary-of-states-new-draft-of-election-procedures-manual/
Thu, 04 Sep 2025 21:55:47 +0000
/?p=495546
Key Points: Top Republican lawmakers threaten to sue Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over proposed election rules Lawmakers claim Fontes’ planned changes go beyond state law and amount to […]
The post Republican leaders challenge secretary of state’s new draft of election procedures manual first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key Points:
Top Republican lawmakers threaten to sue Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over proposed election rules
Lawmakers claim Fontes’ planned changes go beyond state law and amount to creating law on his own
Judges have previously declared some of Fontes’ actions to be illegal
Two top Republican lawmakers have a message for Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes: Change your proposed elections rules, or we’ll see you in court.
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro contend that what Fontes is planning to put into the new Elections Procedures Manual goes beyond what is in state law. And that, they say, means he is trying to create law on his own, something he cannot do.
The questioned provisions range from changes to the voter registration process to whether party representatives can challenge early ballots over proof of citizenship.
“If the secretary of state wants rules changed, he should propose legislation like everyone else,” said Petersen in a prepared comment.
“Arizona law is clear: The Legislature writes the rules for elections,” said Montenegro.
“The secretary of state does not get to invent new ones,” he continued. “If Fontes refuses to correct these unlawful provisions, the courts will.”
Aaron Thacker, spokesman for Fontes, called the threats of litigation “premature,” saying the process of adopting a new manual is still underway. He declined to address any of the allegations raised by the GOP lawmakers.
“Let’s allow that process to unfold before jumping to conclusions or engaging in political theater,” Thacker told Capitol Media Services. “Once the ink is dry, we’ll be better positioned to have a substantive conversation.”
But this isn’t the first time the secretary’s actions have been questioned. And judges previously have declared some of his actions to be illegal.
State laws provide the specifics on how everything from voter registration to elections are to be conducted, but the law also requires the secretary of state to craft a manual on a biennial basis to provide guidance for election officials.
Some provisions address logistical issues, such as posting notices at polling places for write-in candidates and those who have withdrawn from the race. But it also spells out, in greater detail than in statute, procedures and rules for polling places.
What makes that important is that what’s in the Elections Procedures Manual has the force of law, with violators subject to criminal prosecution. But what’s also clear is that what’s in the manual cannot directly conflict with or overrule what’s in the Election Code.
Petersen and Montenegro contend that’s what’s happening here.
For example, they cite a provision in the draft manual that says when a database check provides affirmative evidence someone is not a citizen, election officials should give that person up through 7 p.m. on Election Day to “cure” the defect.
They contend that applies only when mandated information is “incomplete or illegible.” However, they state that once an election official has actual indication that the person is not a citizen, the application must be rejected, and a letter must be sent to the applicant before the case is referred to state and local prosecutors.
Also being questioned is a provision that if an applicant does not furnish “documentary proof of citizenship” — required under a 2004 voter-approved law — that the county recorder must attempt to acquire that proof on the applicant’s behalf using other records, like from the Motor Vehicle Division.
And they challenge another provision which says that a “mistake or inconsistency” in the required registration of someone to circulate initiative petitions for pay can be excused. The GOP lawmakers say that runs contrary to state law and Supreme Court rulings which require that all laws dealing with initiative petitions must be “strictly construed.”
Thacker said the comments by Petersen and Montenegro will be considered, along with any others submitted by this past Saturday’s deadline for feedback, with the possibility for changes to the manual before its submitted to Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes. Once there, they, in turn, can also ask for changes.
“This entire process is designed to be deliberative and transparent, and is scheduled to conclude by the statutory deadline of Dec. 31,” Thacker said.
There actually was more time for comment this year after the state Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that Fontes had broken the law last time by allowing just 15 days for public comment. The judges said Arizona law requires at least 30 days for comments on any proposed regulations, elections or otherwise.
And, time issues aside, this isn’t the first time a court has concluded that Fontes tried to put items into the Elections Procedures Manual that are not allowed under state law.
Last year, a federal judge blocked Fontes from enforcing a provision in his 2023 version of the manual which would have allowed him to refuse to include a county’s vote in the statewide totals if the local supervisors failed to certify the results.
In a strongly worded ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi acknowledged the 2022 effort by the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to delay certification. And that action threatened to hold up the formal canvass of all the votes through the entire state — and even change the outcome of some races.
But Liburdi said the solution Fontes incorporated in the Elections Procedures Manual — allowing him to skip over those uncertified votes simply to finalize the state results — would unfairly and illegally disenfranchise the voters who had cast their ballots.
“If the right to vote is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted, then the canvass provision imposes the most severe burden: state-sanctioned disenfranchisement,” the judge wrote.
Consider, Liburdi said, what would happen if Maricopa County supervisors balked.
Under the rules Fontes enacted in the manual, he would have been permitted to certify the state results without including those votes. And that, the judge said, would mean all 2.4 million votes from Maricopa residents would not count when the state finalized the results — meaning the results would be determined based on the votes only from the 14 other counties.
What’s worse, Liburdi said, is that none of this would be the fault of the disenfranchised voters.
“A registered voter in Arizona may perfectly comply with all voting requirements and obligations but nonetheless have her vote excluded based on the mal- or nonfeasance of public officials,” he wrote.
Liburdi also barred Fontes from enforcing another provision which would have prohibited “any activity by a person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters … inside or outside the 75-foot limit at a voting location.”
The judge said there’s no problem in general with barring intentional threats, intimidation or coercion. The issue, he said, is that it also outlaws actions that have the effect of doing so, regardless of the intent of the person.
Then there’s the fact that the manual, as written by Fontes, governed not just actions inside the 75-foot perimeter in which certain activities are forbidden by statute, like campaigning or taking pictures, but also beyond that line.
“Thus, speech that a listener finds too loud, too offensive or too insolent — potentially anywhere in Arizona — is prohibited,” Liburdi wrote. “But it has long been established that speech may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending our sensibilities.”
And then there’s the fact that the prohibition is solely based on the reaction of the listener.
“Plaintiffs do not have fair notice of what speech is prohibited,” Liburdi wrote. And he said that, as worded, the provision could be enforced by a poll worker who would have the ability to have someone ejected from a polling place, even before they cast their own ballot.
“Moreover, the rule prohibits ‘offensive’ or ‘insulting’ speech without defining what categories of speech rise to the requisite level of offense or insult,” he continued. “Without any limitation, election officials and poll workers have nearly unfettered discretion in categorizing and regulating a voter’s speech.”
And that, said Liburdi, increases the likelihood the provision would be arbitrarily enforced.
Fontes has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review Liburdi’s decision. It has yet to rule on the issue.The post Republican leaders challenge secretary of state’s new draft of election procedures manual first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
495546
The long road to election integrity
/news/2025/08/02/the-long-road-to-election-integrity/
Sat, 02 Aug 2025 19:00:10 +0000
/?p=495288
Key Points: Election trust still on shaky ground despite less tension, no litigation in 2024 Former elected official tours tabulation center to spread word of reliable elections Former and current […]
The post The long road to election integrity first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key Points:
Election trust still on shaky ground despite less tension, no litigation in 2024
Former elected official tours tabulation center to spread word of reliable elections
Former and current election officials see trust challenges ahead
Election trust remains a moving target, despite a less explosive aftermath in 2024, leaving election officials and outside parties on an eternal path to disseminate voter information and dispel misinformation.
In contrast to 2020 and 2022, the 2024 election left few claims of fraud and no election challenges in its wake. But more than a year out from another major election, those working in and watching the electoral system do not believe more latent voter distrust means it disappeared entirely.
As part of ongoing education efforts, RightCount, a nonprofit aimed at educating and assuring voters of the electoral systems’ integrity, sent its board members – including former Governor and Secretary of State Jan Brewer, former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell and former Congressman Matt Salmon – to tour the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on July 29, led by election director Scott Jarrett.
Jarrett ran through the fast facts as part of Tour Tuesdays, a weekly offering by the county to show any interested parties the inner workings of elections up close and personal.
He reminded members of RightCount – some former elections officials themselves – of Maricopa County’s position as the third most populous voting district, centrally located in a swing state and intersecting eight of the nine congressional districts and 22 of the 30 legislative districts.
Jarrett ran through the mechanics of creating, printing, sending out and tabulating ballots on Election Day and beyond in continuously high turnout elections, with rates hovering at about 80% in 2020 and 2024.
And, Jarrett acknowledged the stopgaps, the failsafes, the steps taken by the office to shield election data from tampering, to ensure all ballots are counted, to assure voters of a solid outcome.
Though more than a year out from the 2026 general election and coasting in the wake of a far less-contentious 2024 election, Jarrett said he expects continued challenges to public trust to continue.
“I’d say right now, we’re not hearing at the same level the distrust in elections. I’d say a large part of that is due probably to the results of the last election,” Jarrett said.
“I think we’re going to continue to have issues, and I think this is going to be on all sides of the election, with distrust if they don’t like the outcomes.”
And in some ways, distrust is already popping up.
Kari Lake, former gubernatorial and Senate candidate, who kept steadfast in her claims of a stolen or sabotaged election after her failed run for governor, continues to use her platforms to call for investigations into election fraud, prosecutions for alleged past crimes.
She recirculated a video from 2022 of the Maricopa County Tabulation Center claiming election workers of “illegally breaking into sealed election machines” and reprogramming them.
Mark Finchem, an acolyte of the same election skepticism, posted on X that he was “right about the stolen election,” and linked to an article in which Donald Trump called for another look at the 2020 election via special prosecutor.
Jarrett noted the county’s ongoing effort to keep correct information at the forefront.
“And as much as we offer these tours and publicize these tours and inform voters of our website, we just don’t compete with the platform that others may have. May have distrust or a reason for why they want to institute distrust in elections,” Jarrett said.
RightCount has an eye on the same goal of voter education.
Brewer said the last time she had been to the tabulation center was during her tenure on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. She recalled her time overseeing state elections, too, as secretary of state.
“I am just impressed with the staff, the equipment and leadership here,” Brewer said. “I have no doubt that our elections are honest and they turn out the right data.”
As far as the current temperature on voter trust and future work to extend her own sentiment, Brewer said she believed there will always be doubters.
“They don’t understand the elections, and they might repeat something that somebody else has said to them,” Brewer said. “Unfortunately, I think a lot of this rhetoric sometimes is for people to be able to go out there and get a reaction from the public as they campaign. They want that reaction. They’ve got to talk about it so they get fired up, rather than going out there and saying how wonderful it is.”
As for RightCount, Brewer said she planned to continue to work with her fellow board members to “explain to people what we have known and learned about elections in our time.”
“It works,” Brewer said. “Checking our democracy. And as a prior candidate, and the candidates today, they want to be sure that it works. So they should begin everyday learning more and more about it.”The post The long road to election integrity first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
495288
Mohave County supervisor pushes for legal immunity for hand counted ballots
/news/2025/06/02/mohave-county-supervisor-pushes-for-legal-immunity-for-hand-counted-ballots/
Mon, 02 Jun 2025 17:36:28 +0000
/?p=494710
Key Points: Ron Gould seeks legal immunity for pushing election hand counts Attorney general argues Gould faces no real legal threat Outcome could impact statewide ballot-counting procedures A Mohave County […]
The post Mohave County supervisor pushes for legal immunity for hand counted ballots first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key Points:
Ron Gould seeks legal immunity for pushing election hand counts
Attorney general argues Gould faces no real legal threat
Outcome could impact statewide ballot-counting procedures
A Mohave County supervisor is renewing his bid to trim the legal rights of Attorney General Kris Mayes.
Ron Gould contends that Mayes constitutes a “real threat” to his powers and duties to certify elections simply because he believes that supervisors should be able to order a complete hand count. However, so far, he has been unable to make his arguments after a trial judge last year dismissed his lawsuit, stating that he had not shown any imminent threat of prosecution.
Now Gould is asking the state Court of Appeals to issue a ruling declaring he has a legal right to pursue the case and directing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bradley Astrowsky to let him present his evidence.
The new bid is getting a fight from Assistant Attorney General Alexander Samuels. He is telling the appellate court that Gould’s claims are “speculative,” especially as he has “not articulated a concrete plan to violate the law” in the future.
And there’s something else.
Samuels pointed out that state law requires the use of electronic tabulation of ballots, not the kind of hand count that Gould has pushed for in the past and may be seeking in the future. He noted that Gould is not challenging the legality of that law, but simply wants a declaration that he can’t be prosecuted for breaking it.
“The board has no statutory authority to authorize a hand count,” Samuels said. And he said that means supervisors must follow existing law — the one requiring the use of tabulation machines — “unless and until the legislature determines otherwise.”
The outcome of the legal fight could have statewide implications.
Supervisors in other counties have raised concerns about the accuracy of machine counting. And if Gould wins, it could pave the way for officials to ignore the law requiring electronic tabulation without fear of prosecution.
The fight in Mohave County dates back to 2023, when the board, charged with certifying the election returns, voted to consider a hand count for the 2024 races. That was scrapped by a 3-2 vote against the plan in August amid various practical concerns, with Gould voting to proceed with the hand count.
But, three months later, board Chair Travis Lingenfelter, who had been one of the foes, put the issue back on the agenda. That gave Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, an opportunity to argue to the board that a hand count would be legal.
It was also at that same meeting, that a letter from Mayes was read to the board. She warned the supervisors that going down that path “could result in various felonies and misdemeanor penalties.”
“We hope you will choose not to violate the law and thus that it will not be necessary to consider whether criminal prosecution is warranted for conducting an illegal hand count,” the attorney general wrote.
So the board backed down, over Gould’s objections, something he said they would not have done but for Mayes’ threats.
In his appeal, Dennis Wilenchik, Gould’s attorney, said the actions of the attorney general undermine the concept that lawmakers — including supervisors — generally have immunity from being charged for their decisions. He told the judges that lawmakers needed to be able “to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal.”
All that, Wilenchik said, will be undermined if Gould cannot get the court order he desires to block Mayes from prosecuting him if he decides in the future that a hand count is necessary.
More to the point, in this case, Wilenchik said the letter was addressed to Gould as a supervisor.
That, he said, “clearly supports that a ‘real threat’ exists that Ron Gould will be prosecuted under the criminal election statutes.” Wilenchik said that all of this provides the legal basis to direct the trial judge to hear the arguments and evidence — and determine whether Mayes should be precluded from bringing future charges.
“The attorney general’s threats were not idle and empty,” he told the appellate judges. And he said that is buttressed by the fact that, just eight days after sending the letter, Mayes secured the indictment of two Cochise County supervisors who were charged with felonies, including conspiring to delay the formal canvass of votes from the election over their questions about whether the machine counts were reliable.
Wilenchik also pointed out to the appellate judges that Mayes has had an opportunity to disavow any intent to enforce the law about hand counts against Gould “and has refused to do so.”
Gould faces another legal hurdle even if the appellate court sends the case back to Astrowsky. The trial judge already has said even if anything Mayes did constitutes a real threat, there may be nothing that he or any other court can do about it.
“It is a violation of the separation of powers for the judicial branch to tell the executive branch what it can and cannot do concerning an act that has yet to occur,” Astrowsky wrote in his original ruling.
“The executive branch enjoys discretion when it carries out its function,” he continued. “The judicial branch cannot eliminate that discretion.”
In essence, that means only if and when Gould is charged with a crime would a court have jurisdiction to determine whether he had broken a law and whether that law is constitutional.
Tied up in all this is the perennial question of the reliability of electronic tabulation.
Arizona courts have rejected various lawsuits contending that tabulation equipment produced incorrect results in the 2022 election. The Brennan Center for Justice also has concluded that hand counting is actually more likely to produce errors.
And federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, rejected arguments by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem that machines used in some Arizona counties to tally ballots are so inherently unreliable that the use of them violates their constitutional rights.
Still, there can be issues.
Officials in Milwaukee had to rerun approximately 31,000 ballots in the 2024 election because the doors of the tabulator machines were not locked and sealed as they should have been.
However, Arizona has built-in checks, such as requirements for machines to be tested before and after elections. Arizona law also requires a random hand count audit where the ballots from a certain number of precincts are tabulated by hand to see if the totals match what the machines have counted.
Gould, however, has argued there is a valid reason for his desire to pursue a hand count — and get a ruling that he can’t be prosecuted for future attempts to get the supervisors to do so.
“My concern is that my constituents are losing faith in the election process,” he said.
No date has been set by the appellate court to consider the issue.The post Mohave County supervisor pushes for legal immunity for hand counted ballots first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
494710
Arizona election results delayed after a long ballot and a court order slow counting
/news/2024/11/06/arizona-election-results-delayed-after-a-long-ballot-and-a-court-order-slow-counting/
Wed, 06 Nov 2024 20:49:00 +0000
/?p=491786
Arizona is still waiting on election results it expected to have by Wednesday morning, with some ballots cast at polling places on Election Day yet uncounted, along with hundreds of […]
The post Arizona election results delayed after a long ballot and a court order slow counting first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Arizona is still waiting on election results it expected to have by Wednesday morning, with some ballots cast at polling places on Election Day yet uncounted, along with hundreds of thousands of early ballots from Maricopa County.
In Maricopa County, the county’s two-page ballot – which took longer than anticipated to remove from envelopes and prepare for counting – meant the county fell behind in processing.
Across the rest of the state, Election Day results were still trickling in Wednesday after counting in Pinal County fell behind and a court ordered Apache County polling places to stay open later on Tuesday night. Typically, counties report results from all precincts overnight. Many counties still had precincts to report as of 11 a.m. Wednesday, according to a tracker on the Secretary of State’s Office website.
In Maricopa County, officials estimated on Tuesday night that they still had about 700,000 early ballots to process. Typically, in the first round of results at 8 p.m. on Tuesday night, the county releases the results from all early ballots cast up to the Friday before Election Day. This time, that round included only ballots received up until Oct. 29, a week before Election Day.
It’s taking workers nearly double the usual amount of time to separate the two sheets from the mail-in envelope, lay them flat, and check for damage, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer told Votebeat on Tuesday morning outside the tabulation center. It’s the first time in nearly 20 years that the county’s ballots stretched to a second page.
Richer had given mixed signals at a news conference on Monday on whether the county was behind in processing ballots, saying that the two-page ballot had led to some delays, but also that the county was on track compared with prior years.
The county added a third overnight shift of ballot processors last week to try to address the backlog, but that decision was made too late, and there is not enough time to catch up before Thursday.
The county’s first round of results at 8 p.m. Tuesday included about 1.1 million early ballots received by the county by Oct. 29 according to a county news release. County officials had said that, as of Monday morning, they had received about 1.5 million early ballots.
The results from early ballots that they had not yet processed from before Monday, as well as any received after that point, in the mail or dropped off at polling places, will be released Wednesday and in the coming days. The total expected turnout was 2.1 million, and the county said it would release the number of early ballots that were dropped off at the polls on Wednesday.
Richer said he believes the county will be mostly done processing ballots by this weekend. The cure period for voters to fix problems with their ballots ends Sunday.
Maricopa County released all Election Day results – from about 269,000 voters – by about 3:30 a.m. Wednesday. These voters cast ballots directly into tabulation machines at the polls, and the results are reported as soon as election workers can get the memory cards from the machines to the central counting facility in downtown Phoenix.
A new law requiring poll workers to count the number of early ballots dropped off at polling places before leaving their sites appears to have delayed final Election Day results by an hour or two compared with prior elections.
In other counties, ballots are not counted until they reach central counting facilities. That includes Pinal County, where workers weren’t able overnight to handle the volume of ballots coming in from precincts, and were still counting in the morning, according to a county spokesperson.
The county had reported Election Day results from only about half of precincts as of 8:45 a.m. Wednesday.
Other counties still had Election Day results remaining to be reported at that time as well. In Apache County, that may be because of the court order, which instructed the county to keep nine polling places open until 9 p.m., two hours later than planned, after polling places across the county experienced technical issues that led to long lines.
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.
The post Arizona election results delayed after a long ballot and a court order slow counting first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
491786
Expected Pinal County ruling could affect how many ballots are rejected in Arizona’s November election
/news/2024/10/08/expected-pinal-county-ruling-could-affect-how-many-ballots-are-rejected-in-arizonas-november-election/
Tue, 08 Oct 2024 16:53:53 +0000
/?p=491257
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here. A Pinal County judge is set […]
The post Expected Pinal County ruling could affect how many ballots are rejected in Arizona’s November election first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.
A Pinal County judge is set to decide a case Friday that could affect the number of ballots rejected in the county during this year’s presidential election.
The judge heard arguments Thursday in a dispute between Pinal officials and Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ office over a new rule he added to the state’s Election Procedures Manual involving how the county should respond when a voter shows up to vote at the wrong location.
Fontes’ office sued Pinal County Recorder Dana Lewis and the county supervisors after learning that the county doesn’t plan to follow the rule.
At an emergency hearing in Pinal County Superior Court, the lawyer representing Fontes’ office, Assistant Attorney General Kara Karlson, told the judge that the rule was meant to protect voters from having their ballots rejected in Pinal County for a reason that couldn’t be cause for rejection elsewhere in the state.
The dispute arises out of the way Pinal County runs its elections.
Most Arizona counties have switched to a vote center model, in which voters can cast their ballots anywhere in their county. Pinal County is one of a few counties that still use a precinct-based model, where voters are assigned a specific voting location near where they live.
In Pinal County, if a voter tries to vote at a polling place in the wrong precinct — where their name is not on the rolls — the poll worker will tell them so, but allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot at that location if the voter believes there’s been a mistake. If a voter ends up having voted in the wrong place, that provisional ballot is rejected.
Hundreds of voters have their ballots rejected in the county for this reason in each election, according to county data — including 274 in November 2020 and 235 in November 2022.
Fontes’ new rule is aimed at providing all voters access to the correct ballot for their precinct. It requires counties like Pinal that use the precinct system to set up their accessible voting devices — large computers that are mostly used by voters with disabilities or language barriers — to contain every ballot style, for every precinct. If a voter shows up to the wrong location, the poll workers must permit the voter to use that device to cast the correct ballot style for their precinct, rather than a provisional ballot.
The Pinal County Recorder’s Office argues that by requiring accessible machines to be set up this way, Fontes’ office is effectively forcing counties to adopt a vote center model, whereas state law allows counties to choose between the vote center and precinct models.
Pinal County has been reluctant to adopt a vote center model for a number of reasons, including concerns about connecting voter rolls to the internet.
It appears other counties besides Pinal are going along with the new rule. That’s why Karlson is arguing that if the court doesn’t force Pinal County to comply, its voters will be treated differently than those in the rest of the state.
“If we are in an election contest and there are votes that were counted in all 14 other counties, but they weren’t counted in Pinal County, even though they could have been or should have been, that is going to cause major, major problems in Arizona elections,” Karlson said. “And how can we avoid that? The voter is the one that is going to pay the penalty here.”
The judge said she would rule sometime Friday, but maybe not until late.
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org .
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.
The post Expected Pinal County ruling could affect how many ballots are rejected in Arizona’s November election first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
491257
Judge denies Lake’s access to review ballot affidavit envelopes’ signatures in her election contest
/news/2023/11/30/judge-denies-lakes-access-to-review-ballot-affidavit-envelopes-signatures-in-her-election-contest/
Thu, 30 Nov 2023 23:52:50 +0000
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake access to inspect signatures on 2022 ballot affidavit envelopes to support her ongoing election contest.
The post Judge denies Lake’s access to review ballot affidavit envelopes’ signatures in her election contest first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake access to inspect signatures on 2022 ballot affidavit envelopes to support her ongoing election contest. Lake’s lawsuit to...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals