Everyone knows that political pundits, social media influencers, and the corporate media love a good narrative. And one of their favorites for years has been the claim that Arizona is trending blue—that a demographic shift toward Democrats is inevitable.
This ‘conventional wisdom’ is repeated so often that much of the Republican political class in the state has accepted it as fact. Some are even advising candidates that the only path forward for Republicans is to abandon their conservative principles, embrace center-left policy solutions, and settle for a future of divided government.
But a funny thing about narratives and conventional wisdom: numbers don’t lie, especially those showing party preference when people are registering to vote.
Last month, the Secretary of State updated the statewide voter registration data prior to the Presidential Preference Election. The latest figures show that Republicans are once again the largest voting bloc in Arizona, surpassing Independents by nearly 40,000. This is certainly an important development—especially given all the attention it received on social media when Independent registrations surpassed Republicans last year.
But that’s not the most significant voter registration trend…
Have you ever shown up to vote and were told at the voting location that your voting information does not match the information on your driver’s license? If this has happened to you, have you wondered if your vote was counted?
We finally know why this happens! And there’s someone fighting for you!
EZAZ.org put out a Call to Action for its Grassroots to speak at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 27. One of the talking points included that voters are unknowingly being re-registered as a different political party or even in a different county than the county they live in. One of the commenters utilized this talking point.
Maricopa County’s legal team followed up by stating that during the MVD and Service Arizona process, when someone re-registers their vehicle in another county, sometimes the opt-out box is mischecked and changes voter registration without the voter knowing. Maricopa County Elections Director, Scott Jarrett, agreed.
👁🎥Maricopa Caught on VIDEO🎥👁@maricopacounty Board of Supervisors County lawyer & @RecordersOffice's Election Director admitted voters' registrations are being changed without the voter's knowledge‼️‼️‼️
Yes, this is the same elections department run by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. Both offices stated that the MVD and Service Arizona process is allowed under state statute. They are saying their hands are tied, and they can’t do anything about it.
This means that a voter could get mismatched information or be registered under the wrong party affiliation for something like re-registering a vehicle, registering a new vehicle, or getting a new license… And the voter wouldn’t even know until it’s too late!
So, then what would happen? If someone shows up to vote and their voting registration information is different from the information on their driver’s license, the voting location provides what is called a provisional ballot.
The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office says, “Provisional ballots are a fail-safe measure designed to ensure that all eligible voters have their ballots counted.” The county is supposed to go back and determine if voters who cast provisional ballots were legal and then count the ballots of those who are legal. But if provisional ballots are such a fail-safe measure, then consider this.
There are currently over 9,000 provisional ballots not counted in the Arizona Attorney General race. Abe Hamadeh is still fighting in the courts because his team has discovered many of these voters tend to vote in every election and some were mysteriously re-registered in another county. There are only 280 votes separating Mayes from Hamadeh.
Abe’s team has been trying for months to get access to the envelopes of provisional ballots to verify information of those who did cast a vote in such a way, but the counties have not allowed this to happen. This is ridiculous!
It’s time for the MVD and Service Arizona to change its misguided process. And it’s time for the courts to force the counties to allow Abe’s team to inspect the provisional ballot envelopes. After all, real election integrity ensures that every legal vote is counted.
Jeff Caldwell currently helps with operations at EZAZ.org. He is also a Precinct Captain, State Committeeman, and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 2. Jeff is a huge baseball fan who enjoys camping and exploring new, tasty restaurants! You can follow him on X here.
Clean and accurate voter rolls are a cornerstone to safe and secure elections. And they are required by both state and federal law. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) specifically obligates states to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters due to death or change of residence. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed this up in its 2018 decision in the case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
But Arizona’s current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and its former Secretary of State (now Governor) Katie Hobbs have failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance. And right now, 14 Arizona counties are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA…
On Monday, the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s case. Tuesday, Lake announced the launch of the “largest ballot chasing operation” in state history, which she clarified was a voter registration initiative for the upcoming election year.
Leading the initiative, backed financially with the Save Arizona Fund, will be longtime grassroots activist Merissa Hamilton.
Lake asserted that her team had proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt” to the Maricopa County Superior Court the brokenness of the state’s election system. However, despite her court loss, Lake pledged to continue to fight for election wins. Lake said that left-wing political actors shouldn’t be the only ones that conduct voter registration.
“We’ve got to work in this rigged, corrupt system, and we can do it,” said Lake.
Lake said that while she opposes mail-in ballots, she believes that the current election system requires participation to win. She claimed that about 500,000 Republican and independent voters combined were sent a mail-in ballot that they didn’t return.
“If this is the game we have to play, if this is their rigged system, we’ll work in their rigged system,” said Lake.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted a review of Lake’s challenge in March.
In Monday’s ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson explained that Lake failed to prove that election officials engaged in misconduct that affected the results of the gubernatorial election. Thompson ruled that Lake’s presentation of evidence that the signature review process was unlawful didn’t provide certainty that a specific number of ballots were impacted by the allegedly quick review.
Thompson cited several testimonies presented by Lake’s witnesses, who reported a preference for a more hasty and thorough signature review process but admitted that the multiple signature reviews required by law were completed. He said it was Lake’s own witnesses that confirmed the counties had abided by election law concerning signature processes, and rejected Lake’s argument based on Reyes v. Cuming that proper elections administration wasn’t adhered to and therefore hindered their ability to argue on a specific number of affected ballots.
“[T]his review was done hastily and possibly not as thoroughly as [complainants] would have liked — but it was done,” wrote Thompson. “This evidence is, in its own right, clear indicia that the comparative process was undertaken in compliance with the statute, putting us outside the scope of Reyes. There is clear and convincing evidence that the elections process for the November 8, 2022, General Election did comply with A.R.S. § 16-550 and that there was no misconduct in the process to support a claim under A.R.S. § 16-672.”
Lake’s team argued that the ballot signatures were processed much too quickly — under one second — to be in compliance with the spirit of the law. Thompson dismissed this argument, saying that time constraints weren’t outlined in the Election Procedures Manual (EPM) and therefore weren’t a standard that could be held against the counties.
“Plaintiff argues that this is so deficient for signature comparison that it amounts to no process at all. Accepting that argument would require the Court to rewrite not only the EPM but Arizona law to insert a minimum time for signature verification and specify the variables to be considered in the process,” stated Thompson. “Plaintiff asks the Court to interpret the word ‘compare’ in A.R.S. § 16-550(A) to require the Court to engage in a substantive weighing of whether Maricopa County’s signature verification process, as implemented, met some analytical baseline. But there are several problems with this. First, no such baseline appears in Section 16-550. Not one second, not three seconds, and not six seconds: no standard appears in the plain text of the statute. No reviewer is required by statute or the EPM to spend any specific length of time on any particular signature.”
Thompson stated the Lake’s witnesses were truthful in their testimonies.
“The Court makes no finding of dishonesty by any witness — and commends those signature reviewers who stepped forward to critique the process as they understood it,” said Thompson.
Thompson declared that no further matters remained on the case, save costs sought by the state and county election officials. Thompson issued a 5:00 pm Tuesday deadline for proposed form of judgment from the defendants, with a 5:00 pm Wednesday deadline for objection to those proposals by Lake’s team.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office says third-party voter turnout organizations using government seals have sent voter registration forms to ineligible voters and, in at least one instance, a dog.
Aaron Flannery, a government affairs official for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, revealed this during the Senate Elections Committee meeting. Flannery spoke in favor of a bill proposing mandatory disclosures on election-related mailers from nongovernmental entities or persons. He noted that the county receives frequent complaints about third-party mailers containing voter registration forms and pre-paid postage to their office.
“We did receive the following emails: from a very smart resident who said, ‘I am not a U.S. citizen, why are you sending me this?’ We had one from an upset resident saying ‘My spouse has been dead for 11 years and I have provided the death certificate. What kind of operation are you running there?’ And another confused resident — and this one really gets me — saying, ‘Jada is a dog. She cannot vote,’” said Flannery.
The bill, SB 1066, would require the phrase “not from a government agency” displayed in boldfaced, legible type on the outside of the envelope and on the document inside. The inner disclosure must make up at least 10 percent of the size of the document, or less than an inch on a standard 8.5-inch flyer or mailer brochure.
According to Flannery, third-party groups sent nearly 109,700 letters containing voter registration forms during the last primary election. Of these, voters returned 3,284 to the recorder’s office. Of those, 2,681 contained updated voter information, 365 had been addressed to deceased voters, and 234 contained brand-new registrations.
Flannery noted that this has been an issue for over a decade. These third-party organizations get their mailing lists from mass-mined data. Flannery said that SB1066 would alleviate voter confusion and improve voter confidence in county elections.
“It is not a voter suppression bill, it is a voter confidence bill,” said Flannery. “We are against mass mailings that are easily mistaken for official election mail that can lead to confusion.”
Flannery explained that the county has its own voter registration notification system for eligible voters, called “Eligible But Not Registered.”
The bill sponsor, State Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD03), said the bill would prevent organizations from appearing to represent government messaging and interests.
“This is just a matter of transparency,” said Kavanagh.
In addition to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, the Arizona Association of Counties issued support of the bill.
All three Democrats on the Senate Elections Committee voted against the bill: State Sens. Juan Mendez (D-LD08), Anna Hernandez (D-LD24), and Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18). They were backed in their opposition by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona, the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, and All Voting Is Local Arizona.
Mendez questioned whether the bill actually solved a problem or whether it simply created less paperwork for election officials. Mendez insisted that this bill would violate the First Amendment; he claimed that some of his constituents complained that this proposed law was compelling speech.
Kavanagh rebutted that other compelled disclosures, such as cigarette companies notifying smokers of the link between cancer and cigarettes on cartons, weren’t considered to be in violation of the First Amendment.
Kavanagh clarified that the bill wouldn’t necessitate preapproval of election mailers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
