A Denver-based political action committee has poured more than $800,000 into lobbyist efforts to influence legislation involving Arizona’s election laws, and some of their literature has come under challenge as being outdated or misleading.
Unite America’s website proclaims it supports electoral reforms such as nonpartisan ballot initiatives and legislative campaigns which “increase competition, participation, and accountability in the political system.” The group, which utilizes the tagline Country Over Party, also operates Unite Arizona and is registered to conduct lobbying activities in the state.
Since Arizona’s legislative session started on Jan. 11, Unite America – Unite Arizona has taken positions on several election-related bills, including one which the group opposed that seeks to reduce the number of un-utilized ballots being mailed out. The group has also supported a bill that would replace Arizona’s presidential primary process with a complex new format.
Unite America also claims to be focused on “ease of voting through more accessibility” although critics say some of those efforts unnecessarily open the door to more opportunities for election fraud.
In 2019, Unite America Institute rated Arizona with a score of 28 out of 50 for implementing election law changes which adhere to Unite America’s principles. That prompted the group to focus on lobbying to change what it calls “the unjust nature of presidential primary elections [PPE] in the Grand Canyon state.”
The solution, according to Unite Arizona’s website, is to enact complex legislation such as HB2378 to establish Rank Choice Voting (RCV) for use during the PPE.
Under RCV, voters in a presidential primary would rank candidates in order of preference. It can make it easier for more candidates to do well in the early round of a crowded field, but the Unite Arizona website does not address the number of ways RCV is vulnerable to manipulation nor how expensive it would be to overhaul Arizona’s election process.
HB2378 was opposed by the Arizona Association of Counties, which represents those who actually run elections. The bill failed to make it out of committee.
One bill Unite America – Unite Arizona is fighting is SB1069 (now active as SB1485) which if enacted would remove around 200,000 of the state’s 3.2 million voters currently on the Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL).
That figure of how many voters may be impacted was provided to legislators by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat. But anyone reading Unite Arizona’s website would believe the legislation calls for “massive changes to PEVL that would disenfranchise millions of voters.”
However, the legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita would only require a county to drop a voter from PEVL, or what becomes EVL, if the voter fails to utilize their early ballot in both the primary and general election in each of the last two election cycles.
Voters would also be sent a notice about their lack of us of PEVL before removal, and despite suggestions to the contrary, the bill does not effect a voter’s actual registration file.
But Unite Arizona contends legislation like SB1069-turned-SB1485 would “be detrimental to Arizonans’ ability to fairly vote in elections” and would “create obstacles that would increase the difficulty of voting by mail.”
In addition to misleading statements about the legislation, some voters and legislators point to outdated information on the Unite Arizona website that does not reflect amendments to the legislation, thus giving an incomplete and inaccurate view of the Ugenti-Rita’s bill.
State senators are expected to debate Monday whether to approve a bill that requires Arizona’s 15 county recorders to drop registered voters from the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) who do not respond to a drop-notification letter that they have not utilized their mail-in ballots in a four-year period.
Since 2007, registered voters have been allowed to submit a written request to add their name to PEVL, which ensures the voter automatically receives a ballot by mail for each election instead of having to request one every time. More than 3 million voters in Arizona are on PEVL.
State law specifies that a failure to vote by early ballot does not constitute grounds to be removed from PEVL, although there are estimates that more than 100,000 PEVL voters across Arizona have not voted by early ballot in the last four years.
In January, Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) introduced SB1069 which would have required county recorders to remove PEVL voters who do not cast their early ballot for two consecutive primary and general elections for which there was a federal, statewide or legislative race on the ballot.
The intent, according to Ugenti-Rita, is to ensure unwanted ballots are not mailed out, saving counties money and ensuring ballot integrity. PEVL would become EVL if the bill passes.
“There’s a cost associated with sending out ballots to people who aren’t voting by mail,” she said during one a committee meeting last month. “There’s also an integrity component,”
Every time a PEVL voter casts an early ballot in a primary or general election that includes a federal, statewide or legislative race it would restart the voter’s drop-off clock. Being removed from PEVL has no impact on a voter’s registration status.
As a safeguard, Ugenti-Rita’s legislation requires the county recorders or other county elections officials to send a written notification by Dec. 1 of each even-numbered year to any PEVL voter identified as being subject to removal. Such voters who wish to remain on PEVL must then send back a signed notice with their address and date of birth within 30 days.
On Feb. 16, Ugenti-Rita’s bill failed to pass the Senate Committee on Government on a 15-15 vote. Days later the text of SB1069 was swapped into SB1485, another election-related legislation. The full Senate is slated to vote on SB1485 on Monday.
The legislation is supported by the Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy Research, but has been opposed by the Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, the Arizona Education Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. Another PAC which opposes SB1069-turned-SB1485 is Unite Arizona, a political action committee financed by the Unite America Election Fund based in Denver.
Despite the fact that Arizona has one of the most progressive early voting processes, Unite America/Arizona is fighting an effort to ensure that early ballots get to living residents of the state. The group’s website continues to use the now-challenged claim that election equipment can be hacked in order to sell their voting reform package which includes only mail-in ballot elections.
According TransparencyUSA.org, the Unite American Election Fund gave more than $850,000 in the past year to Unite Arizona. In turn, Unite Arizona gave $505,000 to Our Arizona Values, representing all of the funds received by that group.
Public records show 99 percent of the funds received by Our Arizona Values was paid to Polestar, which spent nearly $240,000 last year in an unsuccessful effort to unseat Sen. Nancy Barto (R-LD15) in the Republican primary. Barto is seen as strong voice on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has introduced bills this session aimed at election integrity issues.
As sponsor of the bill, Ugenti-Rita has spent a lot of time responding to attacks by legislators who contend dropping voters from PEVL interferes with voting rights. She said during last week’s Senate Rules Committee meeting that she was offended by how some opponents appeared to be “purposefully mischaracterizing” the bill in an attempt “to demonize it” with voters.
“If you want to oppose the bill because there’s an actual provision in there that you don’t like, I mean, I get it,” she said last week. “But attacking voting rights? This is a voluntary list that we’re taking about. There is no right to be on PEVL.”
Ugenti-Rita added that suggestions by some legislators that the bill attacks individuals’ rights to vote or that it could prohibit someone from voting “is very dangerous rhetoric in a time when inflammatory, incendiary language should not be utilized especially when we are discussing relevant policy.”
The now-SB1485 is quite different from a PEVL bill introduced this session by Rep. Kevin Payne (R-LD21) who sought to do away with PEVL completely, even though in some counties more than 80 percent of all ballots cast in the 2020 General Election came in via mail or were dropped off early.
Meanwhile, election-related Senate Bill 1025 introduced by Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16) passed the Senate on a 16 to 14 vote last week and is awaiting a First Read in the House.
SB1025 had been expected to receive greater bi-partisan support as it was intended to ensure voters understood what it meant if a machine reader alerted to an overvote situation. The bill requires election officials or polling station judges to know what an overvote (or undervote) warning means so they can explain it to in-person voters who might be faced with such a warning.
Just hours after a judge slammed the door on their legal challenge to two State Senate subpoenas, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors announced they will not appeal a court order requiring them to comply with the election-related subpoenas.
“Judge [Timothy] Thomason’s ruling brings clarity to whether Senate subpoenas apply to ballots that, per state law, must be kept private following an election; as well as the many other documents and equipment demanded,” Board Chairman Jack Sellers said in a statement. “We respect his legal opinion and will immediately start working to provide the Arizona Senate with the ballots and other materials.
The ruling by Thomason that the subpoenas issued in January “are legal and enforceable” made it clear that the Senate and its soon-to-be-announced auditor must not only be given access to Maricopa County’s electronic voting system -computers, software, tabulators- but also the more than 2 million ballots cast in the 2020 General Election.
“The Subpoenas comply with the statutory requirements for legislative subpoenas,” Thomason wrote in his detailed, 16-page finding. “The Senate also has broad constitutional power to oversee elections. The Arizona legislature clearly has the power to investigate and examine election reform matters. Accordingly, the Senators have the power to subpoena material as part of an inquiry into election reform measures.”
In his statement, Sellers also noted that Maricopa County elections officials have already turned over more than 11GB of election-related data demanded in the two subpoenas issued by Senate President Karen Fann and Senate Judiciary Chair Warren Petersen. And it didn’t take long for legislators to react to the county’s no-appeal decision.
“County said they needed a court order to comply with the subpoena. They got it,” Petersen tweeted after Thomason’s clerk released the detailed ruling to the parties. “Election integrity wins today.”
News of Thomason’s ruling that the Senate’s subpoenas served a legitimate legislative purpose and did not violate separation of powers principles was also well received by former Sen. Eddie Farnsworth. It was Farnsworth who along with Fann issued two subpoenas back in December that Maricopa County’s five-member board also ignored.
Instead of complying with the Fann / Farnsworth subpoenas, the county board sued the Senate and later decided to do its own post-election audit of the electronic voting system without participation by any of the legally-authorized political party observers.
“It is unfortunate that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ incessant delaying tactics and smoke and mirrors audit in contempt of the legislature’s legal authority has cost Arizona citizens so much time, money, and trust,” Farnsworth said Friday. “Hopefully, the Senate, through a true forensic audit, can restore some confidence in the election system.”
A bill that would allow many municipalities and counties to “assess” hotels and other transient lodging businesses up to $5 per room per night to fund a tourism promotion agency was defeated Tuesday on the House Floor but it can be reconsidered within 14 days after a last minute motion for reconsideration passed by voice vote.
Currently the Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) is responsible for promoting and developing tourism in Arizona under the supervision of a director who is appointed by the governor. The duties of the AOT include conducting a marketing campaign on the attractions of the state, as well as promoting Arizona via state, national and international media.
However, HB2161 would allow cities, towns, and counties to adopt a resolution to form a Tourism Marketing Authority (TMA) to be funded by a new “assessment” against rooms used for transient lodging (less than 30 day stays). A local TMA would be run by a “recognized” 501c6 nonprofit tourism promotion agency
The TMA could only be formed upon signed approval of the owners of at least 67 percent of the transient lodging rooms within the boundary of the proposed TMA, meaning a transient lodging property could be forced into the TMA even if they don’t wish to participate. The bill calls for all of the per room, per night assessments to be distributed to whatever entity is contracted to run the TMA.
If no recognized non-profit is available in an area, then the tourism promotion office of one of the member municipalities or county could be contracted to manage the TMA. HB2161 does not provide for the already established, taxpayer-funded Arizona Office of Tourism to have any oversight of the TMA operations.
While many tourism promotion groups support the bill, questions were raised during committee and floor discussions about the need to create a business-funded entity that would be responsible for promoting tourism in a certain area without substantial public control or oversight.
HB2161 calls for each TMA to be governed by the board of directors of the tourism promotion agency and at least one person from one or more of the municipalities or county. The only concession in the bill to concern about public oversite is that TMA board meetings would have to comply with public meeting and public records laws.
Groups such as the Arizona Tax Research Association and Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona oppose the bill, while cities such as Mesa, Scottsdale, and Surprise have taken a neutral position.
The Tourism Marketing Authority created by the bill would terminate after 10 years unless the legislature approves a onetime 10-year renewal.
Sheriff’s deputies across Arizona will be able to practice law or form a partnership with an attorney-at-law if House Bill 2763 becomes law, but first the bill has to make it out of the House Rules Committee on Tuesday.
The state’s 15 sheriffs and their deputies, along with all constables and their deputies, are currently prohibited from practicing law. They are also prohibited by statute from forming any type of partnership with an attorney.
HB2763 as initially introduced by Rep. Kevin Payne (R-LD21) would have removed all those prohibitions. However, the House Committee on Military Affairs & Public Safety chaired by Payne amended the bill last week to put the prohibition back in place only for sheriffs, constables, and constable deputies.
That would leave deputies working for the 15 county sheriff’s offices with a new career path or investment opportunities, especially now that the Arizona Supreme Court allows nonlawyers to have ownership of or an investment interest in a for-profit law firm.
The supreme court also approved a new category of licensee -a Legal Paraprofessional (LP)- who can represent clients in court in matters of administrative law, family law, debt collection, and landlord-tenant disputes. LPs may also be granted limited jurisdiction for some other civil matters as well as criminal matters.
It’s unclear what position the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZPOST) board takes on Payne’s legislation, which could lead to questions of conflict of interest and financial motivation.
If HB2768 clears the Rules Committee it still has to clear the full House and then the Senate before getting to Gov. Doug Ducey.
