HealthyElections.org

Arizona’s 2020 Elections in the Wake of COVID June 25, 2020

As a predominantly vote-by-mail state, Arizona is better situated than other states to manage elections in a pandemic. Nonetheless, partisan division has hindered additional reforms that could address safety risks at polling places, and election officials have not yet published details regarding logistics for polling place safety amid a reduced number of polling places. Moreover, ongoing COVID-related election litigation leaves some election rules unresolved, including the ability to collect and return ballots for others, the treatment of provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling place, and the time period to cure a missing signature on a vote-by-mail ballot envelope. Groups seeking to place initiatives on the ballot have been frustrated by the difficulty of collecting signatures in-person amidst the pandemic, and courts have rejected requests to waive the requirement. This memo includes suggestions for ways election officials and the state legislature could reduce health risks for voters and poll workers and reduce election-related confusion arising from the pandemic.

Authors: M​ ike Norton, Zahavah Levine, Sophia Danielpour, Rebecca Smalbach, and Joven Hundal

Summary 2

Lay of the Land & Key Races 3

Measures that have been taken and could be taken to adapt to pandemic conditions 4 A. Measures taken to adapt elections to the challenge of the pandemic 4 B. Measures that could be taken to adapt elections to the challenge of the pandemic 5

Political Landscape 6

Operational and Logistical Election Issues 7 A. Polling Place Availability/Staffing Availability 7 B. Health and Safety Measures at Polling Places 8 C. Challenges in Language Access 9

COVID-Related Election Litigation 10 Ninth Circuit Court Invalidated Two State Policies: (i) Tossing Provisional Ballots Cast in the Wrong Precinct, and (ii) a Law that Criminalizes Returning Another Person’s Ballot 10 Longer Cure Period for Mismatched Signatures than for Missing Signatures in Vote-By-Mail 10 Courts Reject Pleas to Modify Signature Qualification Rules for Ballot Measures 11

Conclusion 12

Appendix - Repository of Noteworthy News Articles & Information 12

Summary Because Arizona is already a predominantly vote-by-mail state, with ​79% of the electorate voting by mail ​ in the 2018 election, the pandemic is unlikely to create the same level of chaos emerging in some other politically-divided states. But restricted in-person voting opportunities and intense partisan conflict over the changing rules may have an impact on large swaths of voters. Partisan disagreements have hindered additional reforms that would adapt Arizona’s electoral system to the COVID environment.

Conflicts between the state government (controlled by Republicans) and the Secretary of State and Maricopa County Recorder (both Democrats) have centered on a number of potential reforms. They have disagreed on expansion of vote-by-mail (called “Permanent Early Voting List,” or PEVL in Arizona—though typical in-person early voting is also available), details of vote-by-mail, the collection of qualifying signatures for ballot referenda, and the treatment of provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place. Some of these issues remain unresolved, creating the potential for voter and election worker confusion for the upcoming primary election on August 4, 2020 and general election on November 3, 2020. And legislative opposition to expanding vote-by-mail for this year’s elections could exacerbate health risks.

In addition to partisan differences, the state faces logistical challenges to protect the health and safety of voters and poll workers in the pandemic. To date, the state has not published information regarding how it intends to protect the health and safety of voters and poll workers for the August 4 primary or November 3 general election. Health risks will be exacerbated if, as anticipated, there is a reduction in the ordinary number of polling places. For the March 17 Presidential Preference Primary, Maricopa County, which comprises 60% of the electorate, reduced by more than one third its number of polling places, primarily due to poll worker cancelations arising from fear of exposure to COVID-19. Reduction in polling places could also have an adverse impact on Arizona’s voters who speak Native American languages as only oral assistance is statutorily required, usually on location at polling places. (Spanish accessibility, on the other hand, will be less impacted as ballots in six counties—representing over 80% of the state population—and the state voter guide are ​already bilingual​.) Finally, polling place reductions can cause voter confusion if not managed with plenty of advanced notice and voter education.

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 2

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 3

I. Lay of the Land & Key Races With a Republican Governor and Attorney General, and a Democratic Secretary of State, Arizona’s divided government has engendered partisan conflict around issues of election management, including vote-by-mail implementation.

Arizona is a battleground state for the Presidential campaign. Its U.S Senate race between Mark Kelly (D) and Martha McSally (R) could also be key to a nation-wide battle for party control of the Senate. Additionally, Arizona’s U.S. House delegation is split 5-4 for Democrats, which our districts h​ ave Cook ratings below +10​ to either party, with two having flipped in the last two cycles (narrowly R+1 and R+2).

On the state level, while executive offices are not up for reelection, the state legislative races will be highly competitive. Currently, Republicans hold the State Senate by a 4-seat margin and the State House by a 2-seat margin. Those races will not affect redistricting, however, which is controlled by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Also up for election in November are ​three seats on the ​Arizona Corporation Commission​.

Our analysis here focuses on Arizona’s largest five counties which comprise 88% of Arizona’s population. Maricopa County (which includes Phoenix) alone represents 60% of the population, with Pima County (which includes Tucson) representing another 15%. Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma make up the remainder of the top five.

Key Election Dates / Deadlines: ● March 17, 2020: Presidential Preference Election (Democratic Presidential Primary Election) ● May 19, 2020: ​Local elections,​ including one municipality within Maricopa ● August 4, 2020: Primary Election (non-presidential) ● Nov 3, 2020: General Election ● Deadline to register: 29 days before election (July 6, 2020 and Oct 5, 2020) ● Deadline for voter to request an absentee ballot (permanent or just once), which can be requested online​: 11 days before election (5PM) (July 24, 2020 for the August primary and Oct 23, 2020 for the general election) ● Deadline for receipt of mail ballots (regardless of postmark): Election day (by 7PM)

Key V​ oting Facts:​ ● Registered voters: 4,276,891 ● Mail ballots returned as % of total turnout in 2018: ​79%

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 4

Voting Measures Arizona Has Already Implemented (Pre-COVID): ● No-excuse vote-by-mail statewide ● Online mail ballot request statewide ● Vote centers on Election Day ● In-person early or absentee voting ● Online voter registration ● No ID requirement to vote by mail (but ID is required for in-person voting, including early voting) ● No witness or notary requirement for return ballot ● Prepaid postage statewide for return ballot ● Notice and cure for m​ ismatched ​ signatures up to 5 days after the election ● Notice and cure for m​ issing​ signatures, only if there’s time, and only up to and including Election Day

Key Resources: ● AzSos.gov/elections:​ Election section of Arizona Secretary of State’s website ● Arizona 2​ 020 Elections Calendar ● Vote.org ​Arizona Election Center:​ voter registration, absentee voting, early voting, voter ID, election reminders ● Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission ​Voter Education Guide​: released roughly 6 weeks before each election ● League of Women Voters, Arizona

II. Measures that ​have ​ been taken and ​could ​ be taken to adapt to pandemic conditions A. Measures taken to adapt elections to the challenge of the pandemic ● For the March presidential preference election, M​ aricopa County ​reduced its vote centers from 229 to 151,​ ​ but all of them were used as ballot drop-off zones where voters could drop off their absentee ballots.. ● For the November election, Maricopa County is ​considering moving from 500 precinct-based locations to 75-100 countywide voter centers​ due to COVID-19​, with

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 5

90-100 finalized for the August primary​. T​ o counter the major decrease in voting locations, the county would keep all vote centers open for 10-14 days before election day, including on weekends and during the evenings. The Board of Supervisors a​ pproved the plan on May 4​. ● The ​ A​ rizona Republican Party used a centralized blockchain technology for its first virtual state convention.​ ​Boston-based mobile voting platform Voatz announced the successful use of their voting app at the virtual Arizona State Republican Party convention, with over 1,100 votes cast on May 9 evenly split between iPhone- and Android-using delegates. While not being proposed for elections, the state convention was the first of its kind to use live virtual streaming and phone-based town hall meetings.

B. Measures that c​ ould ​ ​be taken to adapt elections to the challenge of the pandemic ● To address public health concerns related to in-person voting, the state and counties could p​ ublish details regarding election health and safety measures that will be or should be taken at polling stations​. To date, no such details have been published. ● To assist those who speak a minority language while election offices are closed, the Secretary of State c​ ould work with the ​Inter Tribal Council of Arizona ​to list contact information, in native languages, for personnel available for language accessibility issues​, potentially with the help of ASU’s Native Vote Election Protection Project ​incident hotline.​ ● To reduce potential confusion caused by ​DNC v. Hobbs,​ a recent ​en banc ​ Ninth Circuit decision striking down two state election laws, election officials could e​ ducate election officials and the public about the changes to state law ​​(which relate to the delivery of another person’s ballot to the polls and casting provisional ballots in the wrong precinct). ● To enable citizens to access the state referenda process, the state legislature could ​allow campaigns to gather the required signatures electronically ​during the pandemic, via the same website candidates for state offices use to secure signatures for their nominating petitions. ● To facilitate registering for vote-by-mail, county recorders could ​mail non-vote-by-mail voters applications to be added to the permanent early vote list.​ ● To avoid voter confusion and maximize voter participation, the state legislature could proactively ​educate voters about the need to sign their return envelopes, and alert voters that the cure period for missing signatures (by Election Day) is different than the cure period for mismatched signatures​ (five business days post-election). Election Procedures Manual of Dec 2019, p. 68-69​.

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 6

● To avoid discarding legitimate votes, especially as the volume of ballots sent by mail increases, Arizona could change e​ lection statutes​ to a​ ccept mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they are postmarked by election day​. Currently m​ ail ballots that arrive after Election Day are rejected, even if they were postmarked on or before Election Day​. ● Arizona could ​permit s​ame-day voter registration​, particularly as government offices have been c​ losed for in-person registration due to the pandemic​. Current leniency only applies to applications ​postmarked 29 days before ​ an election, and missing information can be corrected up to Election Day.

III. Political Landscape In light of health concerns around voting, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) and the Arizona Association of Counties asked the State Legislature to change state law to enable temporary all-mail elections this fall, but the Republican-controlled ​ ​legislature did not act ​ during the spring session.

This left Hobbs and local election officials to consider what measures they could take on their own. On March 13, 2020, four days before the Democratic Presidential Preference primary, Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes (D) said he would send a ballot to every voter who did not already have a mail ballot or cast an early vote. He cited s​ afety concerns and lack of cleaning supplies​ as reasons for his decision. Secretary Hobbs​ c​ autioned ​ that the plan may confuse voters because ballots would arrive on, or the day before, Election Day, and also warned that state law did not authorize sending unsolicited ballots. Fontes asserted that a ​lack of express authorization did not equate to a prohibition.​ AG Mark Brnovich (R)​ went to court to stop the plan o​ n the grounds that Arizona state law does not allow county officials to send unsolicited ballots, a​ nd quickly ​obtained a TRO ​ and preliminary injunction that halted Fontes from sending out the ballots.

On March 25, Fontes responded with a new plan to s​ end vote-by-mail applications to voters​ in Maricopa county with an option to request permanent vote-by-mail status, a plan that is consistent with state law. Fontes has also proposed ​ e​ xtending the period of early voting to three weeks​ for the November election, and two weeks​ f​ or the August primary​. Meanwhile, in an April 25, 2020 tweet, Fontes continued to ​urge lawmakers to authorize him to mail ballots to all voters.​

The Arizona Legislature has resisted efforts to further expand vote-by-mail for some time. The proposed SB 1077 (pre-COVID) would have allowed full vote-by-mail elections if approved by the county board and if 60% of voters are already permanent vote by mail. The bill ​ ​did not receive a hearing​ in the Republican-controlled legislature. Phoenix-based R​ ep. Shawnna LM Bolick (R), a member of the House Elections Committee,​ questioned ​ the security​ and cost of all-mail elections,

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 7

while ​ s​ tate Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R), who leads her caucus on election policy​ s​ uggested​ voters simply change their registration to permanent vote-by-mail rather than change state law. Yavapai County Recorder Leslie Hoffman (R) is an exception in her party and has ​ s​ ignaled support​ for unilaterally sending voters their ballots.

IV. Operational and Logistical Election Issues This section examines (a) polling place and staff availability, (b) health and safety measures, and (c) language access issues, looking at Arizona’s March 17, 2020 presidential preference election (the 2020 Democratic Primary) as a potential indicator of issues that might arise in the upcoming August 4 and November 3 elections.

A. Polling Place Availability/Staffing Availability

Limited information is available at this time about polling place and staffing availability for the August 4 primary and beyond. However, if the March 17, 2020 presidential preference primary is any indicator, there will be a significant reduction in polling places in Maricopa County in particular, a county which comprises 60% of the state’s electorate.

The Maricopa County Elections Department ​adopted a vote center model​ for the August 4 primary, settling on 90-100 locations down from the usual 500 and reducing the number of poll workers from 3,600 to about 1,000. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ​informally approved a plan on May 4​, and formally approved it on June 22.

For the March 17, 2020 democratic presidential preference primary, Maricopa County cut more than ​one third​ of its usual polling locations (about 80 locations) on Election Day, ​leaving it with only 151 voting locations.​ County election officials ​cited ​ poll workers cancelling and a lack of cleaning supplies as the reasons for the cuts. Maricopa County additionally ​relocated​ five polling places for the March election because they were located in senior living facilities.

Additionally, during Arizona’s presidential preference primary on March 17th, s​ ome poll workers did not show up to work due to health concerns​. P​ oll worker shortages occurred despite Secretary of State Hobbs’ s​ tatement​ that “officials are prepared to assist counties in identifying back-up polling place volunteers, if needed, through the Arizona Department of Health Services’ volunteer system. This is a network that can provide broad recruitment of personnel statewide that county election officials can use to identify poll workers in the event of a shortage.”

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 8

As a result of the poll worker shortage on March 17th, there have been legislative proposals both to expand vote-by-mail and to hire additional poll workers. Republican Chair of the Senate Elections Committee, State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, opposes expanded vote-by-mail but has proposed e​ nlisting the National Guard as poll workers​. To date, neither expanded vote-by-mail nor enlisting the National Guard has gained traction.

Beyond Maricopa County, plans for the August 4 primary in the next four largest counties seem to be consistent with the March 17 elections, during which relatively few polling places were eliminated. Here is a county-by-county review of plans:

● The P​ ima County​ Elections Department has ​said ​ the August 4 primary election will be conducted as a polling place election in which “voters may vote at their designated polling place on Election Day; vote early in person; request a ballot by mail; or request to be placed on the Permanent Early Voter List.” There will be 1​ 3 early voting sites ​ for the primary election. Pima County e​ liminated​ only one of 122 polling places during the March 17 election. ● Pinal County​ will have t​ hree early voting sites and four ballot drop-off locations​ for the August 4 primary. For the March 17 election, Pinal County r​ elocated​ two polling places but did not eliminate ​any, leaving it with 101 polling locations. ● Yavapai County​ pl​ ans to use ​ its standard 25 countywide vote centers for the August primary election in addition to 12 ballot drop-off locations. The county d​ id not move or eliminate​ any vote centers for the March election. ● Yuma County​ p​ lans to return ​ to its standard nine vote centers for the August 4 primary election as well as the November presidential election. In the March election, Yuma County eliminated ​ one vote center, leaving the County with eight vote centers. Yuma County Elections Director Mary Fontes ​said ​ two poll workers did not show up to work during the March election due to concerns about COVID-19.

B. Health and Safety Measures at Polling Places

Despite the ​health risks to both voters and poll workers of in-person elections ​ during a pandemic, to date neither the state nor the counties have published details regarding how they will be managing health and safety concerns arising from coronavirus in Arizona’s upcoming elections. The Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder have emphasized the safety benefits of vote-by-mail, but neither have publicly released what health and safety measures they will be undertaking for in-person voting.

While the ​Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ​ (CDC) and the ​U.S. Election Assistance Commission ​ have provided national recommendations regarding the prevention of the spread of coronavirus at election polling locations, the government of Arizona has not publicly

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 9

provided any guidance regarding public health measures for their own elections. A​ rizona’s Secretary of State has emphasized the health benefits of vote-by-mail and has instructed voters how to request such ballots,​ but has not provided clear guidance regarding health and safety measures for voters who choose to vote in-person. Moreover, the Secretary of State ​has suspended all in-person pre-election services of the Arizona elections division t​ o prioritize health considerations of employees and voters in light of COVID-19; but her office has not provided any information regarding how they are prioritizing voters’ health in the context of the election itself.

On March 11, 2020, Secretary of State Hobbs issued a press release with some ​minimal guidance ​ regarding health and safety precautions for the elderly for the March 17 elections. Specifically, she advised the following precautions for voting locations at senior centers and other facilities frequented by seniors: ● Ensure the availability of clear signage for curbside voting for those who need it; ● Advise the facility to get the message out to vulnerable populations that they should avoid the crowds on Election Day unless they are voting, and to take heightened precautions in any case; ● Advise the facility to complete a full cleaning and disinfecting of the spaces used once the polling sites are closed down, according to DHS recommendations.

Arizona has yet to issue guidance on how to follow CDC guidelines for social distancing and ensure a safe in-person voting experience for both poll workers and voters.

C. Challenges in Language Access

A reduction in the number of polling places could adversely impact voters who speak Native American languages and depend on on-site language assistance at polling places. According to ASU’s O’Connor College of Law Indian Legal Clinic, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act r​ equired nine of Arizona's fifteen counties ​ to provide language assistance to Native American voters on eight reservations in 2016.1 Assistance for largely unwritten languages (which is determined by the covered county) need only be provided orally (2​ 8 CFR § 55.12(c)​). In return, DOJ specifies that t​ rained bilingual poll workers are integral​ for the operation. Yet, in 2016, only six of the nine aforementioned counties were in compliance, providing on-location translations of voter instructions and ballot information with either in-person translators or pre-recorded assistance. Onsite assistance is particularly important because ballots are r​ arely translated ​ into indigenous languages, which are spoken by more than half of Native Americans in Arizona.

1 ​The Navajo language in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties; the Pueblo language in Apache County; the Hopi language in Coconino and Navajo Counties; the Yuman language in Coconino, Mohave, Y​ avapai, and Yuma County; the O’odham language in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties; and the Yaqui language in Pima County​ (top five counties underlined).

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 10

With language assistance limited to on-site polling places, and few if any ballots translated into their primary languages, vote-by-mail is not an effective option for Native American speakers. (On the other hand, in six counties constituting over 80% of the state population, Spanish is already provided for ​ballots ​ as well as for the s​ tatewide voter education guide​.) At the same time, a reduction in polling places could make it less convenient and pose increased health risks for those requiring onsite language assistance during the pandemic (due to potentially larger crowds and increased travel via public transportation), at a time when Arizona tribes have already been d​ isproportionately impacted​ by the virus and have ​lost significant revenue sources.​

The situation is potentially exacerbated by the ​ c​ urrent closure of state elections offices for in-person business ​ d​ ue to the pandemic. The ​Department of Justice​ p​ rovides that “there should be trained personnel in the courthouse or city hall who can answer questions in the minority language, just as they do for English-speaking voters.” With election offices currently closed to the public, the May 2020 tribal survey by Phoenix ​nonprofit incubator Instituto​ may prove illuminating as to how advanced election information has been affected.

No county or statewide election officials have announced any changes or accommodations for language accessibility for the August or November elections. However, counties such as Maricopa have a Spanish-English bilingual voting coordinator,​ so it is possible the situation will be addressed in the future.

V. COVID-Related Election Litigation

The partisan politics of Arizona have also been playing out in the courts, in several election-related legal battles with heightened consequences for adaptations in pandemic circumstances. The ongoing legal battles could result in confusion regarding (i) the treatment of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precincts, (ii) the legality of taking another’s ballot to the poll and (iii) the policy for curing missing signatures on vote-by-mail ballots. Another legal decision has frustrated groups hoping to gather signatures electronically to qualify referenda for the ballot.

A. Ninth Circuit Court Invalidated Two State Policies: (i) Tossing Provisional Ballots Cast in the Wrong Precinct, and (ii) a Law that Criminalizes Returning Another Person’s Ballot ● On January 27, 2020, in a split ​en banc ​ ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ​invalidated two state election policies​: (i) Arizona’s state policy of tossing out entire provisional ballots cast in the wrong precincts (rather than counting only the applicable votes for other municipal,

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 11

statewide, and national offices), and (ii) a state law that criminalizes taking another person’s ballot to the polls. D​ emocratic National Committee v. Hobbs​, No. 18-15845 (9th Cir. en banc, Jan 27, 2020). The challenge was brought by the state and national Democratic Party. Arizona AG Mark Brnovich has already ​filed a​ p​ etition for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking review of the d​ ecision.​ Because the cert petition is still pending as of the date of this memorandum, the state election policies at issue remain subject to change.

● In a 239-page ​ o​ pinion​, the Court ​ held that both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ​ because they have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters, and H.B. 2023 also violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that minority voters tend to move more often and are therefore more likely to turn up at the wrong precinct, and that H.B 2023’s criminalization of returning another person’s ballot was enacted with discriminatory intent.

● The decision has a heightened relevance in the pandemic, during which the number and location of polling places is in flux, so more voters are likely to show up at the wrong polling place. Moreover, minority voters in Arizona who historically rely more heavily on ballot collection than white voters, D​ NC v. Hobbs​, ​p. 22-25,​ are also the voters ​at the greatest risk of suffering from COVID-19.​ Requiring more voters to show up in person at a reduced number of polling places and vote centers would increase safety risks for all voters.

B. Longer Cure Period for Mismatched Signatures than for Missing Signatures in Vote-By-Mail ● On June 10, 2020, ​the Democratic Party s​ ued​ the Arizona secretary of state and county election officials in U.S. District Court over a state election rule to discard mail-in ballots that are missing a signature on the return envelope without providing such voters the same opportunity to fix the error afforded to voters whose envelope signature does not match the signature in their voter registration record. Specifically, voters whose signatures d​ o not match are afforded an opportunity to correct their signature for up to five days after Election Day, while voters whose mail ballots are m​ issing​ signatures have only until 7 p.m. on Election Day to cure the error or their votes are not counted. See​ 2019 Elections Procedures Manual (p.68-69). The suit alleges the practice of discarding the votes of registered voters who forgot to sign their envelopes without opportunity to cure violates due process, the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

● Litigation regarding when voters are notified and provided an opportunity to cure missing and mismatched signatures on vote-by-mail ballots has been playing out in Arizona since the 2018

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 12

general election when it came to light that Arizona counties were applying inconsistent rules.

● Two lawsuits were filed over the inconsistencies soon after the 2018 election. One ​lawsuit resulted in a c​ ourt order requiring counties to provide notice of m​ ismatched​ signatures ​ and ultimately in state legislation providing voters an opportunity to cure a m​ ismatched​ signature up to five business days ​ after the election.

● The other l​ awsuit​ alleged failure of election officials to consistently provide notice and opportunity to cure mail ballots that were ​missing a signature altogether​. On September 12, 2019, the plaintiffs reached a s​ ettlement agreement​ with Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) pursuant to which H​ obbs agreed​ to provide the same notice and cure period (up to five days post-election) for ​missing​ signatures as the state applied for m​ ismatched ​ signatures. In December 2019, however, Attorney General Brnovich (R) retracted ​Hobbs’ agreement,​ asserting Hobb’s had no legal authority to extend the cure period for missing signatures. Consequently, A​ rizona’s final​ 2019 Election Procedures Manual​ i​ ncludes inconsistent cure periods for mismatched and missing signatures (see p. 68-69), the source of the DNC’s June 2020 suit.

● The retraction of the settlement agreement, the resulting inconsistent deadlines for curing mismatched and missing signatures, and the ongoing litigation could lead to confusion in the upcoming 2020 elections and lost votes, exacerbated by the likely increase in first-time vote-by-mail voters during the pandemic.

C. Courts Reject Pleas to Modify Signature Qualification Rules for Ballot Measures

● The method of collecting signatures for statewide ballot measures has frustrated Arizonians seeking to qualify ballot measures amid the pandemic for August and November ballots. In Arizonans for Fair Elections v. Hobbs​, U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-20-00658-PHX-DWL (Order April 17, 2020), a U​ .S. District Court rejected a request by two ballot measure committees to collect petition signatures from voters online​ a​ s an alternative to dispatching volunteers with clipboards during a pandemic. The campaigns​ a​ sked a court ​ in April to order the Arizona government to let them use the same website that candidates for state office use to collect signatures from voters. Secretary of State Hobbs supported the proposal and said her office could make changes necessary to the website, known as E-Qual, to accommodate the initiatives.

● But U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza said the Arizona Constitution requires initiative campaigns to collect signatures from supporters in person. "[T]he signature requirements (the lawsuit) seeks to displace have been a part of Arizona's constitutional and electoral landscape

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 13

for over a century," the judge w​ rote.​ He added​ that policymakers, or voters using the initiative process, should change the law, not a judge.

● On May 13, 2020, t​ he Arizona State Supreme Court issued a ruling consistent ​with the U.S. District Court, holding, in a ​6-1 decision​, that online signatures do not and will not count under state law to qualify referenda for the ballot.

Conclusion In sum, political deadlock and partisan litigation in Arizona has prevented widespread agreement on appropriate responses to voting and election management during the pandemic and has resulted in ongoing rule changes with the potential for more. Additionally, there is minimal specific information regarding how the state will ensure the health and safety of voters and staff at polling places, how it will ensure adequate polling place staff, and how it will provide adequate language assistance for Native Americans. In Part II B, we offer recommendations that could help to reduce voter confusion over election rules, reduce the health risks of voting amidst the pandemic, and promote voting access for all eligible voters in Arizona.

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 14

Appendix - Repository of Noteworthy News Articles & Information ● Jan 15, 2020: T​ hese Four Initiatives Could Completely Overhaul Arizona Elections ● Arizona Election Emergency Statutes: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-emergencies.aspx - A.R.S. § 16-564:​ If a polling place is moved, the ballot box can be moved, but must be accompanied by two members of the election board​. - A.R.S. § 16-543:​ The secretary of state can change procedures to comply with UOCAVA in case of an emergency. ● Arizona State Legislature Revised Statutes on Elections and Electors ● FEMA Guidelines on Ensuring Civil Rights During the COVID-19 Response ● FEMA Guidelines on Use of the National Guard (National Guard was deployed to help with Wisconsin elections) ● Higher turnout in Arizona presidential primary ● Arizona election officials’ plan (avoiding lawmakers) ● New proposed election plan for Maricopa County ● 2019 Elections Procedures Manual for Arizona

HealthyElections.org: 2020 Arizona Elections 15