In our previous posting, we reviewed states’ election law changes states around the 2024 general election, where we noted Arizona’s inaction on resolving problems with the state’s voting process. In this article, as promised there, we will discuss the unsuccessful effort by the Arizona legislature in early 2025 to improve the process.

The Arizona state legislature is led by Republican majorities in both the house and senate. At the beginning of the current legislative session, they drafted a bill that would have improved election security and facilitated timely processing for mail-in ballots. In particular, the legislation sought to address Arizona’s notorious delays in finalizing election results.

In a controversial move, in mid-February Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed this bill.¹ The bill had two main components. One moved up the deadline for early in-person, mail-ballot drop-off, and the second addressed procedures around the state’s “active early voting list.”

Regarding the latter, the bill eliminated the practice of automatic ballot send-outs to all voters on this list. Instead, voters present on the list would be required to confirm their addresses prior to each election cycle to be retained on the list and automatically be sent a mail-in ballot.

Early in-person voting

Arizona has offered two alternative options for in-person early voting. The first option is in person traditional voting at a polling place prior to election day. In this case, the voter is issued a ballot that is tabulated through a machine. This requires showing an identity to receive the ballot, although voters without an identity can still vote by provisional ballot. The second option is an in-person drop-off of a mail-in ballot. These submitted ballots must later go through a signature validation process.

The bill would have given an earlier deadline – specifically the Friday before the election – for early voting by mail-ballot drop-off. This is to ensure that the signature verification can get underway sufficiently in advance of election day.

Our take: common-sense measures with little downside

The bill would have allowed for a fresh start to Arizona’s election system, rife with questions about its list of eligible voters and hobbled by inefficiencies in vote counting.

The bill would have ensured or at least much improved the timeliness and efficacy of vote counting by moving up a few days the deadline for early drop-off of mail-ballots. The current timeline not only delays the finalization, but also forces a rushed and pressured signature verification and counting process for the ballots dropped-off close to election day. This, in turn, augments the risk of errors and mishaps. It also erodes trust in the process, because a rushed and chaotic process is more difficult to oversee and monitor.

While there is significant upside here, there would seem to be little or no downside. Voters would still have almost a month’s time to vote early by mail. If they do not make the slightly advanced drop-off deadline, they still have the option of in-person traditional voting on or before election day. Common sense offers no compelling reason why the ballot drop-off option needs to be available as a second option so close to election day.

Similarly, common sense offers no compelling reason why voters shouldn’t be required to periodically confirm their addresses for the active early voting list. However, there is much benefit from ensuring that this list has up-to-date address information.

Critics of the current process contend that the list is replete with obsolete voter information. If it is not periodically checked and confirmed, then this can result in fraud, due to ballots ending up in the hands of the wrong individuals. In fact, common sense dictates that such a requirement protects voters, by preventing others from voting in their name.

Through its provisions, the bill would have increased public confidence, according to polling which determined that 52% of Arizonans preferred a more quick and efficient elections process.²

Passion superseded logic

Despite the majority of Arizonans concluding such, on February 18, Katie Hobbs, the Democratic governor of Arizona, vetoed the bill. The move did not surprise Republicans, who expected it. “The governor’s veto is a huge mistake,” Senate President Warren Petersen remarked. “This was a missed opportunity to increase voter confidence and reduce frustration on election night.”

The bill’s opponents, including the governor, acknowledged that the overall intention of the bill was beneficial. However, they claimed that it was a “voter suppression bill” due to the tighter deadline for in person early ballot return and new requirement for automatic ballot send outs.

Hobbs and other Democrats equated the latter requirement to “elimination” of the active early voting list and dubbed it a non-starters. They asserted that requiring voters to periodically confirm their addresses would be an unnecessary inconvenience and potential obstacle for voters who prefer to vote by mail. Republicans argued otherwise, emphasizing that they inserted this into the bill because sending out ballots to unconfirmed addresses can facilitate vote fraud.

In her veto remarks, Hobbs laid out several options whereby she was willing to consider compromising with the Republicans, including same-day voter registration, a non-starter for Republicans; and steps to improve the accuracy of voter registration records. Hobbs remarked, “a negotiated bill that included some of these provisions would have shown Arizonans that it is both possible to speed up counting and expand voter access at the same time.” ³

Future outlook

The veto by the Arizona governor has upped the ante on the contentious political climate in this battleground state, aggravating the clash between two very differing viewpoints on election laws.

The state legislature is now again looking to reform Arizona’s election procedures. A modified bill called House Resolution 2013, dubbed the Arizona Free and Fair Elections Act, deals with the same early-ballot timeline provisions as the original. It also mandates the exclusion of foreign dollars being used in elections, and requires election officials to report all people involved in election work to the board. If passed, the bill’s provisions will be implemented in the upcoming midterm election. ⁴

State Representative Oscar de los Santos who represents Phoenix, delivered the Democratic response to the new bill, expressing the party’s frustration with election laws pursued by the Republicans. He dubbed it a “continued attack” on Arizona’s decades-old early-voting system. ⁵

“It restricts access to the ballot,” he added, claiming that it “disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of people by making it impossible for Arizonans to vote on election day by dropping off their ballots.” One wonders, however, why this is so, since the bill still allows for many weeks of early voting and for voting by mail-in ballot after the deadline at the polls with an identity.

State Representative Alexander Kolodin, the Republican representing Scottsdale, remarked, “We know that the voters are crying out for faster election results.” He added, “we know they’re crying out to not get other people’s ballots in the mailbox. We know they’re crying out for an election system that works, as it does in Florida.” He told Arizonans the Republican majority would take action so that Arizona get secure elections as Republicans see it. ⁶

It is worth noting that Arizona elections in the recent past, including Hobbs’s own election, have raised suspicions among the public and brought criticisms from elections experts and lawyers. Not only have they been plagued by counting delays and voter roll issues, but questions have been raised on the functionality of voting machines and on partisanship in the Maricopa County elections board. Republicans clearly intend to persist on these issues.

As we have seen often in states’ election legislation, what the right side of the aisle sees as common-sense measures to ensure trust in elections produces howls from the left side alleging “voter suppression.” This pattern unfortunately has stifled progress in Arizona, and let’s hope that in this important time and place, common sense will soon prevail. Vamos!

1. Our discussion of the bill’s provisions and the governor’s veto draws on information from the following sources: (1) Caitlin Sievers, “Republicans want Arizona to count votes like Florida. It’s not that simple.” Arizona Mirror, February 10, 2025 [link]; (2) Kevin Stone, “Arizona Legislature sends bill to speed up election results to Gov. Hobbs.” KTAR News, February 13, 2025 [link]; and (3) Jerrod MacDonald-Elvoy, “Hobbs vetoes Republican plan to end Election Day ballot drop-offs.” Arizona Mirror, February 18, 2025 [link]. ↩︎
2. Source: Stacey Barchenger, “Katie Hobbs vetoes GOP election bill, but Republicans have a backup plan.” azcentral.com, February 18, 2025 [link] ↩︎
3. Source same as footnote 2 ↩︎
4. Source: Laurie Roberts, “Hobbs kills GOP election bill, and Arizona Republicans are … delighted | Opinion.” azcentral.com, February 19, 2025 [link]./ ↩︎
5. Same source as footnote 2. ↩︎
6. Same source as footnote 4. ↩︎

A state court in Wisconsin has ruled that the use of vans and other means of transportation to collect ballots is a violation of state law. The court also noted that the strategy may have given Democrats an upper hand in the 2022 elections.

The original complaint was brought to the Racine Circuit Court by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), alleging the City of Racine violated the law by utilizing the vans for ballot collection. That claim was disputed by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which sided with the city.

The complaint had also argued that the selected locations of the vans favored voters affiliated with the Democratic party–that the city vans tended to be placed in Democratic areas but not in areas with more Republican voters.

The Racine Circuit Court ruled in WILL’s favor, stating that election facilities must only consist of buildings–mobile depositories may not be used to register voters or collect ballots en masse. Additionally, the court ruled that statutory clauses governing ballot depository locations had been violated, and that the plaintiff’s claim of partisan bias in van locations had not been countered.

The court’s decision focused on the technicalities of Wisconsin mail-in voting law, supplemented by fair play concerns about locational bias. Concerns about the relationship between ballot harvesting and vote fraud were expressed indirectly, with reference to relevant legislative context. For instance, the decision cited a legislative directive that “the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent potential for fraud and abuse” (page 17).

Proponents of ballot harvesting and of lax mail-in voting laws may frown upon the decision as “voter suppression”. They may say that with fewer convenience measures like mobile mail-in ballot collection in and around people’s communities, fewer people will vote.

Opponents of ballot harvesting, on the contrary, are lauding the decision as a crucial step in securing elections. The Honest Election Project, an organization that promotes secure and fair elections, congratulated WILL on its court victory. Executive Director Jason Snead stated: “this is only the latest attempt to weaponize election administration and exploit legal loopholes for partisan gain and shows once again why states should ban private election funding in order to preserve public trust in elections.”

Election integrity watchdogs argue that ballot harvesting is conducive to fraud, as election officials cannot prove chain of custody of harvested ballots, or whether a ballot has been compromised. They may also add that it opens the door to illegal coercion or electioneering at public voter collecting stations–particularly with the method at issue in this court case.

Of note, the mobile van initiative had been heavily funded by organizations that claim to be engaged in nonpartisan efforts to facilitate voting through financial assistance to county and municipal governments. This practice, referred to colloquially as “Zuckerbucks”, has proven quite controversial.

Posted by Andrew

The National Conference of State Legislatures has confirmed that 2023 was another landmark year for election and voting related legislation across America, as Republican and Democratic run states strategized how they’ll fairly count the vote, or not.

In the present, novel era inititated by the massive expansion of mail-in voting in 2020, states have been enhancing and tweaking their election laws at a rapid pace. In 2023, at least 2,099 election related bills were introduced and a total of 258 were enacted. Regarding mail-in voting, “we saw lots and lots of amendments to the specifics of how elections are run,” said Wendy Underhill, NCSL’s director of elections and redistricting.

Many of the mail-in voting laws that were implemented back in 2020 had been hastily enacted in response to the pandemic, in some cases on an interim or temporary basis. Much of the election related legislation during 2021 and 2022 was aimed at clarifying or making permanent the mail-in voting rules enacted in 2020. These changes included restrictions on ballot harvesting activities, regulations around the use of drop boxes, and restrictions on philanthropic or other private funding of election activities.

Enhancing election security was a common theme for 2023, with Arkansas among the leaders along this track. Arkansas established an election integrity unit in the office of the Attorney General to investigate complaints. The state also made it a felony to forge a signature, and ensured poll watchers can do their tasks.

Alabama focused on vulnerabilities of voting machines. The state outright banned voting machines that connect to the internet and required the use of paper ballots filled out by the voter, prior to being read and counted by machines.

Other laws passed in 2023 specifically targeted vote harvesting. Arkansas and South Dakota banned ballot drop boxes altogether. In addition, South Dakota prohibited distributing absentee ballot applications to voters with the voter’s name and address prefilled. Arizona stipulated that it is unlawful for anyone else to handle or return another person’s ballot. 

To mitigate risk of fraudulent voting, Montana stipulated that inactive voters may not receive a mail ballot until they reactivate their registration. However, the law also requires an election official to attempt to contact a voter whose ballot is returned undeliverable, to limit potential adverse effects on voter participation. 

A variety of bills addressed voter ID requirements. Nebraska implemented a comprehensive voter ID law which upgrades proper identification to vote for mail-in ballots. It allows for voters to file a “reasonable impediment” if they don’t have one. It also requires the Secretary of State to verify legal voter status, including citizenship status. Wyoming added a voter ID requirement to voters obtaining absentee ballots in person.

Colorado expanded the list of acceptable voter IDs to include state sanctioned digital IDs, a somewhat novel idea. Minnesota expanded the list to include student IDs, provided the information on the ID matches what appears on a university residential housing list. In contrast, Idaho removed student IDs from the state’s list of valid voter IDs. 

A number of states added rules relating to candidate qualifications and background checks. North Carolina and Louisiana, states with moderate Democratic governors, ruled that resigning or retiring governors could no longer select their own replacements to finish their terms.

Regarding private election funding, 24 states had restrictions in place as of the end of 2022. In 2023, two more states, Montana and North Carolina followed their lead, and a number of states strengthened or expanded their restrictions.

In some states, the new bills may have raised the eyebrows of electron integrity proponents. California prohibited manual ballot counting altogether, a move that might concern those who view manual recounts as a useful check on software or other glitches that might occur with automation.

Minnesota’s 2023 legislation allows convicted felons to register to vote if released from prison. The state also expanded the period of early voting from two weeks to 18 days and extended the deadline of ballot submission from 3 p.m. to 8.p.m. on election day. It loosened restrictions on ballot delivery and collection, raising the odds of occurrence of suspect, ballot harvesting activities.

It appears the laws that states implemented generally are as expected based on the state’s political leadership. Democratic run states loosened their restrictions, sometimes to the compromise of election integrity, and Republican run ones tended to implement tighter restrictions.

States’ leadership on choosing the right balance for voter participation versus election security is key, but states must always proceed with caution. Voting should be as accessible as possible, but without adequate safeguards against voting irregularities, fair elections are in danger.

Posted by Andrew