Arizona

Voting Early in Arizona? Make Sure You’re Still on the List First.

Election Law Society · December 1, 2021 ·

By: Mike Arnone

In the wake of the 2020 Election, states across the country have enacted a variety of more restrictive voting laws. Over 400 bills that make voting more difficult have been introduced in 49 states. 30 of these have become law in 18 states. Arizona is no exception to this trend.

In May 2021, Governor Ducey signed SB 1485 into law, making significant changes to the state’s early voting procedures. Effective after the 2024 election, the new law will recast Arizona’s former Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) as the Active Early Voting List. As the former’s name suggests, voters could indefinitely remain on Arizona’s early voting list and automatically receive a ballot in the mail for any election in which they were eligible to vote. Now, if a voter doesn’t use their early ballot once in two election cycles (once in four years), county election officials are required to purge them from the early voting list if they do not respond within 90 days to a notice warning them of their impending removal. A voter can still be removed from this list if they have voted in person instead of using their early mail ballot in two election cycles. Voters would still remain registered to vote whether or not they were removed from the early voting list.

Small Problem, Big Fight: Saving the Unsinged Ballot in Arizona

vebrankovic · November 20, 2020 ·

By: Megan Kelly

What happens when the state receives an unsigned mail-in ballot? This is the question that new and contentious litigation in the District Court of Arizona is seeking to answer. Last week, a district judge held that unsigned ballots in Arizona were to be afforded the same five-day curing period that other unidentifiable ballots—from mismatched signatures or lack of voter ID—are given.

We may ask how frequently people are really mailing in unsigned ballots. In 2018, Arizona rejected about 3,000 unsigned ballots. This number is small, but in an increasingly competitive purple state, a small number of votes can make the difference.

How Much is on the Chopping Block? – Arizona Sends a VRA Section 2 Case to the Supreme Court

jaboone · November 18, 2020 ·

By: Megan Kelly

What do ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct votes have in common? Arizona is sending cases about both to the Supreme Court next term. In early October, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two cases about voting regulations in Arizona. The first is Arizona’s law banning ballot harvesting. The law bans third parties from turning in voter ballots, except in the case of family, members of the household, or caregivers. The second is Arizona’s law requiring that ballots cast at the wrong precinct not be counted.

It’s Time for the Wild West to Join the 21st Century: An Argument for Implementing Online Voter Registration in Wyoming

Election Law Society · October 16, 2020 ·

By: Timmer McCroskey

In 2016, I was a young 20-year-old attending Arizona State University. When election season arrived, I decided to register in Wyoming as I still considered Wyoming my primary domicile. As all my Arizona friends around me registered to vote online or by filling out one of the many clipboards passed through campus, I was surprised to learn the only way to register outside of Wyoming was by printing out a form and then taking all my proper identification to a notary for authorization. Finding a notary, especially one that would do it for free (hello poor college student), was surprisingly difficult and took time and energy away from school. After taking the papers to the notary I then sent them to my local county clerk’s office, only for them not to be processed by the deadline. I could have flown back to Wyoming the day of the election and registered at my polling place, but that was unreasonable, expensive and time-consuming. Being my first primary election, I was shocked that I was being turned away from voting for such arbitrary and archaic requirements.

Arizona’s Intrastate Battle To Regulate Dark Money Spending

Election Law Society · April 13, 2016 ·

By: Will Cooke

The regulation of political activity in Arizona took a contentious turn over the summer of 2015. What began as a disputed fine levied against an independent group known as the Legacy Foundation Action Fund after the 2014 gubernatorial election, now pits two prominent regulatory agencies against each other in a battle over the regulation of independent expenditures and the groups who run them. The ad in question focused its criticism on the U.S. Conference of Mayors and its president, Scott Smith. Though the ad ran in multiple states across the country, its message proved especially relevant for Arizonans who were considering Scott Smith, then the mayor of Mesa, AZ, as a candidate for governor in the Republican Primary. Shortly after the election, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission determined the ad constituted an “independent expenditure” advocating for the defeat of Scott Smith and imposed a $95k fine on the Foundation for failing to disclose their spending as a campaign expense.