OPINION — Arizona deserves practical, evidence-based election reforms that improve speed, accessibility, and integrity.
Unfortunately, the proposed Arizona Secure Elections Act (HCR 2001) falls short. Rather than adopting this flawed constitutional amendment, Arizona should pursue smarter, better-designed reforms.
Much of the political momentum behind ASEA is rooted in claims of widespread election fraud that have repeatedly failed under investigation.
Arizona is already a national leader in election security. The statewide voter database uses secure authentication and encryption. Counties operate decentralized systems that verify signatures on mail ballots and cross-check voter information with motor-vehicle records to confirm citizenship. False voter attestations carry criminal penalties.
After the 2020 election, multiple reviews — including a Republican-led Arizona Senate audit and independent analyses — found no evidence of widespread fraud capable of altering the results.
Non-citizen voting in Arizona is extraordinarily rare. Federal court findings and academic studies estimate it at far less than 0.001% of ballots cast. Even organizations dedicated to documenting election misconduct have identified only a handful of cases in Arizona over many years and millions of votes. Foreign political contributions are already illegal under federal law, and there is no evidence of systemic violations affecting Arizona elections.
Yet Arizona has spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars chasing phantom fraud.
It’s worth remembering that the loudest voices claiming election fraud rarely produce evidence when it matters. Former Attorney General Mark Brnovich investigated fraud allegations promoted by legislators such as Sonny Borrelli, Wendy Rogers and Mark Finchem. When investigators asked for proof, the claims either evaporated or produced nothing of substance. That is not a responsible basis for rewriting Arizona’s election laws.
The risks of conspiracy-driven reforms are not theoretical.
Consider Maricopa County’s recent experiment with stricter signature verification. After new procedures were implemented, the rejection rate for mail ballots rose to about 0.8% — nearly triple the roughly 0.3% rate in previous elections. In raw numbers, 5,903 ballots were rejected out of about 704,548 cast.
Election administrators warned the spike likely meant more legitimate ballots were being rejected — not that fraud had been uncovered. No evidence emerged that the rejected ballots represented illegal votes. Instead, the change disproportionately affected voters whose signatures naturally vary over time, including younger voters, elderly voters, and people with disabilities.
Arizona’s vote-by-mail system is extremely popular. Roughly 80% of voters use early ballots, and the system has proven both convenient and secure. Requiring additional identification with every mail ballot would complicate voting for elderly, disabled, rural and low-income Arizonans who rely on early voting to avoid long lines or travel.
Still, Arizona does face one genuine administrative challenge: slow election results.
Large numbers of early ballots are dropped off at polling places on Election Day. Because each ballot must be verified before it can be counted, this practice can delay final results for days. Fixing this problem is a worthwhile goal — and one lawmakers could address through ordinary legislation.
Cleaning voter rolls is another legitimate objective. But ASEA’s proposal to require voters to repeatedly opt in to receive early ballots creates unnecessary bureaucratic friction. Evidence from other states suggests systems requiring frequent re-registration reduce voter participation without meaningfully improving election security.
There are better ways to maintain accurate voter rolls.
Arizona previously participated in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a multi-state data-sharing system that helps states identify voters who moved, died or registered in multiple states.
Arizona withdrew from ERIC after political pressure fueled by election conspiracies. Rejoining would be a far more effective step toward maintaining accurate voter rolls.
Another sensible reform would remove voters from the early-voting list if they fail to participate in multiple consecutive elections. That targets inactive registrations without burdening active voters.
Most importantly, these improvements can be made through normal legislation. ASEA would instead embed sweeping election rules directly into the Arizona Constitution — making future adjustments extremely difficult.
Arizona’s elections are already secure. The real opportunity for reform lies in improving efficiency and transparency without making it harder for eligible citizens to participate. Arizona should pursue smart reforms — not lock flawed policy into its constitution.
Tyler Montague is president of the Arizona Public Integrity Alliance and has served as a plaintiff in several Arizona election contests. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here