Arizona’s Shameful Record of Voter Suppression and the Partisan and Sometimes Racially Charged Motivations of Those Administering Its Elections
Download the full report (PDF)
In Arizona, political figures—from statewide elected officials and state legislators to county recorders and election directors on the local level—have introduced voter suppression policies that make it increasingly difficult for minority voters to exercise their rights to vote. The motivation behind these efforts often has been partisan, with some officials ostensibly restricting access to the ballot for their political benefit. Sadly, some of these officials also have made racially charged comments that further call into question their ability to administer elections in a fair and equitable manner.
Arizona introduced strict voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements in 2004, after the approval of Proposition 200. Although the legality of the state’s proof-of-citizenship law is still being debated, the 2004 requirements have placed a disproportionate burden on Arizona’s Latino and Native American voters. More recently, the state has banned the practice of collecting and dropping off early ballots for voters, which had become a common tool for voter outreach groups that aimed to increase minority turnout, especially in rural areas.
Research has shown that voter suppression policies, like forcing residents to show identification before casting a ballot, and needing to show documentary proof of their U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote, disproportionately affect minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and low-income voters.
While politicians tout “rampant” voter fraud as the rationale behind such restrictive policies, in reality there is no evidence of widespread, fraudulent voting taking place in Arizona or in any other state. Instead, Arizona officials who advocate for voter suppression policies appear to have political motivations for disenfranchising minority voters, who are more likely to vote Democratic in elections.
Voter suppression efforts in Arizona are being pushed by prominent statewide elected officials, like Secretary of State Michele Reagan, who sponsored controversial voter suppression bills as a state senator and continued to promote them after taking office as Arizona’s top elections official. Governor Doug Ducey is also responsible for signing controversial voter suppression measures into law after Republican state legislators sent them to his desk.
Most voter suppression policies originate in the state legislature, with county recorders and elections directors responsible for administering elections locally according to state law. Therefore, state legislators and county-level officials have great power and responsibility for shaping voting and election policies. Unfortunately, some Arizona state and county officials support voter suppression policies that disenfranchise minority voters.
Suppression policies make it unnecessarily burdensome for them to exercise their constitutional rights to vote. Advocates for these policies exist at all levels of Arizona’s government. Their seemingly partisan and racially charged motivations for restricting ballot access should not be overlooked when evaluating their proposals to make voting less accessible for Arizonans.
This report examines recent voter suppression initiatives in Arizona, shedding light on the players behind these efforts and the problematic motivations that shape their decisions. Statewide elected officials and several state legislators notable for voter suppression actions were investigated, as were county recorders and election directors in some of Arizona’s most populous counties. Additionally, this report examines influential voter suppression groups with right-wing ties and obviously partisan goals that have worked in Arizona to disenfranchise minority voters.
Voter Suppression in Arizona
Arizona has a problematic history of disenfranchising minority voters. Until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, it was one of sixteen states required to clear all changes to voting laws with the federal government because of its history of suppressing the votes of Latino and Native American voters.
For “much of the 20th century,” Arizona “used discriminatory literacy tests–and informal harassment at the polls” to prevent Latinos and Native Americans from casting their ballots. Since 1975, when the state fell under coverage by the Voting Rights Act, the federal government has blocked twenty-two attempted changes to voting and elections in Arizona because they were deemed to be discriminatory. Today, Latinos are still underrepresented in Arizona’s electorate: about 31 percent of Arizonans are Hispanic, but Latinos only make up 18 percent of registered voters.
Voter Restrictions in Arizona
Voter Identification Requirements
Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 in 2004, which implemented strict voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements in the state. Since the proposition was approved, Arizona requires voters to show approved identification at the polls and requires residents to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote.
Arizona accepts the following photo IDs:
- Valid Arizona Driver License
- Valid Arizona Non-Operating Identification Card
- Tribal Enrollment Card or Other Form of Tribal Identification
- Valid United States Federal, State, or Local Government Issued Identification
If a voter does not have a photo ID, they can instead show two pieces of accepted non-photo identification that include the voter’s name and address. Arizona accepts the following non-photo IDs:
- Utility Bill Dated Within 90 Days of the Election
- Bank or Credit Union Statement Dated Within 90 Days of the Election
- Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
- Indian Census Card
- Property Tax Statement
- Tribal Enrollment Card or Other Form of Tribal Identification
- Arizona Vehicle Insurance Card
- Recorder’s Certificate
- Valid United States Federal, State, or Local Government Issued Identification
- Any Mailing to the Elector Marked “Official Election Material”
If a voter fails to show the required identification at the polls, they may cast a conditional provisional ballot. The ballot will only be counted if the voter returns to the polling location before 7:00 p.m. on Election Day or returns to the county elections office within five business days after a general election or three business days after any other election with their required ID.
It should be noted that photo ID laws have been shown to disproportionately affect minority, elderly, disabled, and low-income voters, who face greater obstacles obtaining identification in order to vote. A study conducted by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed voter turnout between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.” Obtaining a photo ID can be costly and the bureaucratic process can be especially difficult for low-income and elderly voters who may not have birth certificates because they were born at home instead of in a hospital. In fact, more than twenty-one million Americans do not have government-issued photo IDs and a disproportionate number of them are minority, low-income, and elderly voters.
In addition to instituting a strict voter ID law in the state, Proposition 200 also made Arizona the first state to require residents to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
Arizona residents registering to vote using the state form are required to attach a photocopy of one the following:
- Birth Certificate (with Supporting Legal Documentation, i.e., a Marriage Certificate, if the Registrant Has Since Changed Their Legal Name)
- Pertinent Pages of Passport
- S. Naturalization Documents
- Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Tribal or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth
Registrants with a valid Arizona driver’s license or state-issued identification card are only required to provide the license number on the voter registration form, as they would have already shown citizenship documentation when obtaining the card from the state. Naturalized citizens can also write their Alien Registration Number on the form, while tribal members can write their Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number on the form in lieu of photocopied documentation.
The requirement to prove U.S. citizenship was widely criticized by voting rights advocates. Nina Perales, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which challenged Prop. 200, argued that the law forced residents—especially minorities—to “jump through hoops” in order to register to vote. She argued that the law “particularly affected newly naturalized U.S. citizens whose voter registrations were rejected because they received their driver’s licenses when they were green-card holders” and “were still coded as non-citizens through the Arizona Department of Transportation’s Motor Vehicle Division” after providing their license number.
MALDEF found that since the proof-of-citizenship requirements have been implemented, “over 31,500 applicants have been rejected for failing to provide the additional paperwork required.”
Although state election officials claimed that the requirements were necessary to prevent voter fraud, an analysis by the Arizona Republic found that voter fraud cases “involving illegal immigrants are nearly non-existent, and have been since before the changes to voter-ID requirements were enacted in 2004.”
Ongoing Proof-of-Citizenship Legal Battle
Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was partially struck down in a series of federal court rulings that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona cannot require residents to prove their citizenship if they register using the Federal Voter Registration Form, which requires residents only to attest to their status as a U.S. citizenship. The Federal Voter Registration Form was created by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993—the “motor voter law”—and must be accepted by law in all fifty states.
Despite this partial victory for supporters of voting rights, Arizona has created a problematic “bifurcated system” in which eligible voters who have registered to vote with the Federal Form and have not provided documentary proof-of-citizenship are allowed only to vote in federal elections; they are prohibited from voting in state and local elections. Voters who have not proven their U.S. citizenship while registering to vote receive separate ballots at the polls, which list only federal races, excluding all state and local races and referendums.
The bifurcated system is another way Arizona has made voting even more complicated, with disproportionate effects on low-income and minority voters, including the state’s Native American population. The system also has made elections more expensive: before it was implemented in the 2014 elections the change was anticipated to cost $250,000 in Maricopa County alone.
Arizonans seeking to register to vote also may be unaware of the option of using the Federal Form, which does not ask for the documentary proof of citizenship required by the state form. In 2012, an officer in the Maricopa County recorder’s office explained that if a voter attempts to register to vote without proof of citizenship, the office is not required to inform them of the option to register using the Federal Form, although it is required to provide it if it is directly requested.
State officials have stressed that the bifurcated system is temporary, but are likely to continue pushing to require proof of citizenship even for registrants using the Federal Form. However, a recent federal appeals court case has made it less likely Arizona will succeed in that endeavor.
In January 2016, Brian Newby, the newly appointed executive director of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent commission responsible for federal voter registration standards, made the unilateral decision that residents of Alabama, Kansas, and Georgia could no longer register to vote using the Federal Form without showing documentation of U.S. citizenship. The action was panned by voting rights advocates, as well as by one of the EAC’s own commissioners, who said Newby’s action contradicted both policy and precedent at the EAC. Newby and the EAC were sued by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups and on September 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court of Appeals enjoined the enforcement of “decisions of [EAC] Executive Director, Brian D. Newby, approving requests by Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia to add a proof of citizenship requirement to the state-specific instructions that accompany the National Mail Voter Registration Form.” In reaching the decision, the court made clear that enforcing Newby’s unilateral decision would result in “irreparable harm.”
Prior to working for the EAC, Brian Newby worked as a county election commissioner in Kansas under Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an anti-immigration activist notorious for promoting voter suppression policies across the country. Kobach manages and promotes the Interstate Crosscheck program, a list of almost seven million “potential double voters” that has been criticized for being highly inaccurate. The program is used in a number of states, including Arizona. The program consolidates voter information from participating states for cross-reference with the goal of identifying voters who may be voting illegally in multiple states. The program, however, has been criticized for its inaccuracy after flagging millions of mismatched, potential double-voters. The program often flags voters based on only first and last names, ignoring middle names, suffixes, and birthdates. In cases where voter information includes the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, those numbers are purposely ignored, increasing the chances of erroneously matched voter information. Critics of the program have also noted that Crosscheck flags minority voters at disproportionate rates.
Arizona officials have denied that the program targets minorities, despite evidence to the contrary. “That narrative is absolutely ridiculous. That is not why we would be involved in any state Crosscheck program,” said Secretary of State Michele Reagan. “We are involved in that to keep our lists clean, to offer an additional service to voters to help them out, and to make sure that people aren’t voting in two states.”
Election Administration Issues
Early Voting in Arizona
Early voting in Arizona begins twenty-six days before the election and ends the Friday before Election Day. Voters can cast their ballots either by mail or in-person at any early voting location in the county where they are registered.
Since 2007, voters have been able to request to put their names on the Permanent Early Voting List, which is managed by the recorder in each Arizona county. Voters on the Permanent Early Voting List automatically receive an early ballot in the mail prior to each election. Otherwise, voters must request an early ballot before each election. Since the Permanent Early Voting List has been introduced, “early voter turnout and voter turnout has greatly increased in Arizona.”
Restrictions on Felon Voting
Under Arizona law, one-time convicted felons automatically regain their right to vote after completing their sentence and paying all associated fines. Repeat felony offenders (even non-violent offenders), however, must wait until they have completed both their sentence and parole, and paid all associated fines—often no small feat for ex-felons reintegrating into society after jail time. After that, they are required to wait two years before applying for voting registration, which a judge can accept or deny on a case-by-case basis.
State Senator Martin Quezada has repeatedly proposed legislation that would restore voting rights for all ex-felons even if they haven’t paid off their fines. His bill did not even get a hearing in the Republican-majority Arizona Legislature. “They have been trying to suppress the vote as much as humanly possible,” Quezada said. “They only want certain people voting.”
Voter Suppression from the Top Down
Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Secretary of State Michele Reagan has promoted and enforced problematic voter suppression policies in Arizona as the state’s top election official, as well as earlier in her political career.
Spearheaded Voter Suppression Legislation in Arizona Legislature
Before being elected secretary of state in 2014, Michele Reagan served as a state representative and then a state senator.
SB 1261: Purged Voters from the Permanent Early Voting List
Reagan sponsored SB 1261 in 2013, which was widely opposed by voting rights advocates as a voter suppression bill that would disproportionately affect minority voters.
The bill sought to remove voters from the Permanent Early Voting List if they had failed to vote by mail in the previous primary and general elections, and then didn’t respond within thirty days to a mailed notice to explicitly state that they wanted to remain on the list. The voter would remain registered to vote but would no longer have the option of having a ballot mailed to them.
The bill also contained a provision that made it a felony for anyone to alter a voter registration form in any way. Barbara Klein of The League of Women Voters called the provision “excessively severe,” noting that it would apply to a volunteer who cleaned up a sloppy form, such as by adding a zip code to a voter’s address or spelling out a place name that had been abbreviated.
SB 1261 was opposed by the Arizona Voters Coalition, whose members included the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Inter-Tribal Council, and Mi Familia Vota. Coalition members argued that automatically purging voters from the early voting list would suppress voter participation and that voters should be able to opt out of the early voting list, otherwise their names should remain active. Daria Ovide, a spokesperson for Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy, noted that mail-in ballots have grown in popularity in Arizona, especially among minority voters, “because they eliminate any chance of being challenged at the polls.”
SB 1003: Banned Groups from Collecting and Delivering Ballots
Reagan also sponsored SB 1003, another voter suppression bill that drew even more ire from Latino groups and voting rights advocates. The bill sought to make it extraordinarily difficult for community groups and political organizations to collect and submit early ballots, a practice common among grassroots groups that focused on Latino outreach, which registered thousands of Latino voters and collected their ballots to deliver to the polls.
Saying she found the practice “appalling,” Reagan argued that allowing volunteers or members of partisan groups to collect and deliver ballots could encourage voter fraud. However, supporters of the bill were unable to identify any voter fraud prosecutions stemming from such circumstances, as the ballots were always signed and sealed before being handed over to members of the groups that delivered them to the polls.
David R. Berman, senior research fellow with Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, argued that the bill “could be pretty devastating” to voter turnout in rural communities. Sen. Jack Jackson, Jr., who represented Navajo and Hopi tribal areas, stated that the bill could have a “devastating” impact on Native American communities, and that “many members of our tribal communities live in remote areas and depend on help to deliver their early ballots.”
The bill was protested by Latino advocacy groups, who used the practice to mobilize Latino voters. As noted by Brendan Walsh, who registered voters for Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy, “A lot of people trust us more than the U.S. mail to take in their ballots.” Arizona Republic columnist E. J. Montini cited SB 1003 as an example of the Republican-majority Arizona Legislature “moving along legislation that seems to be aimed at creating barriers for minority voters.”
HB 2305: Frankenstein Bill of Reagan’s Voter Suppression Proposals
The controversial portions of the two voter suppression bills sponsored by Reagan in 2013, SB 1261 and SB 1003, were later bundled into one piece of legislation, HB 2305, which was widely criticized as a voter suppression law aimed at disenfranchising minority voters. One Arizona Republic columnist called it “the worst voter-suppression law ever passed in Arizona.”
HB 2305 included controversial provisions from Reagan’s previous bills: automatically removing voters from the Permanent Early Voting List and prohibiting organizations from collecting and delivering early ballots. The bill also tightened requirements for citizen initiatives and increased the number of signatures needed for third-party candidates to get on the Arizona ballot.
The bill narrowly passed the Arizona Legislature, with Republican Senator Steve Pierce casting the decisive vote for its approval. Pierce had initially voted against the legislation but changed his mind after receiving a call from Daniel Scarpinato, the national spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who presumably convinced him to cast his vote in favor of the voter suppression bill. One fellow Republican senator said that Pierce told him he was under pressure “from [Speaker of the U.S. House John] Boehner’s office and the NRCC” to support HB 2305. Pierce denied the accusation as “nasty rumors” and Scarpinato claimed that he called Pierce about the bill “as a friend,” saying that his “interest was as an Arizonan. It wasn’t a [National Republican Congressional] Committee thing.”
Former Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law in June 2013. Her spokesperson called the legislation “common sense,” and said that concerns that the legislation would disenfranchise voters were “overblown.”
The law was so controversial, however, that it was repealed before being fully implemented.
The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee, a coalition of over twenty-five nonprofits, including the League of Women Voters and Mi Familia Vota, organized against the bill, gathering enough signatures to put the bill to a popular vote on the November 2014 ballot. The Committee argued that the bill would “disproportionally impact newly registered Latino voters who are not likely vote if removed” from the Permanent Early Voting List, and would ban the efforts of groups that collect and deliver ballots to the polls, which “help elderly, homebound, disabled and economically disadvantaged citizens to participate in elections.”
The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee collected 146,000 signatures to put HB 2305 on the ballot as a referendum. When it became clear that the challenge to the controversial voter suppression bill would appear on the November 2014 ballot for decision by the public, the Arizona Legislature passed a repeal of HB 2305, which Governor Jan Brewer signed in February 2014. Republican lawmakers preferred the repeal to an anticipated total public defeat.
Although Arizona voters narrowly avoided the implementation of HB 2305, the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee responded angrily to the rejection of the referendum by Governor Brewer and the Arizona Legislature. “We, as voters, stood up and earned the right to make this decision ourselves,” said Julie Erfle, chairwoman of the Committee. “This issue was always about politicians trying to pick their voters, trying to take away our choices.”
Endorsed by Voter Suppression Advocate Kris Kobach for Secretary of State
While running for Arizona secretary of state in 2014, Reagan landed the endorsement of an even more controversial political figure: Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Kobach is a leading advocate of voter suppression and anti-immigrant policies, which he promotes and defends in states around the country. He manages and promotes the Interstate Crosscheck program, a master list of almost seven million “potential double voters” that has been criticized for being highly inaccurate. The program is used in a number of states, including Arizona.
He has worked extensively in Arizona to promote anti-immigration policies, including with then-Sen. Russell Pearce to draft SB 1070, which made it “a state crime to be in the country illegally” and essentially required local police officers to act as immigration agents. SB 1070 was widely criticized as a justification for racial profiling and the harassment of Latinos in Arizona.
After the law was passed, Kobach helped train law enforcement officers from notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department “in immigration enforcement,” and also served as his attorney. The U.S. Department of Justice later ruled that “Arpaio’s department created ‘a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos’ and revoked its authority to conduct immigration screenings.”
Kobach also helped Sen. Pearce draft legislation to end birthright citizenship. Pearce was later ousted from the Arizona Senate in a 2011 recall election, the year after SB 1070 was passed.
Secretary of State Reagan supported Kobach’s harsh stance on immigration, and noted how she had voted for SB 1070 when she received Kobach’s endorsement. She also said that Kobach was one of the secretaries of state who returned her calls when she was working on her voter suppression measures in the Arizona Legislature. “They took it seriously,” she said. “‘Here’s this girl in Arizona trying to do something.’”
Managed Disastrous Elections, Accused of Negligence and Voter Suppression
Since being elected secretary of state in 2014, Reagan has been plagued by criticism of repeated election administration problems, some of which resulted in suppressing the votes of minorities in Arizona.
Role in Maricopa County 2016 Presidential Preference Election
Reagan played a role in the disastrous March 2016 presidential preference election in Maricopa County. The county drastically cut polling places, which disproportionately affected minority voters in the Phoenix metro area who faced lines as long as five hours.
Although blame for the chaotic election rested largely with county officials who had made the decision to drastically cut polling locations, Reagan also played a role in the poor decision-making that led to the disastrous election.
Reagan admitted she knew of Maricopa County’s plan to set up only sixty polling locations in the 2016 presidential preference election, compared to the county’s two hundred polling locations in 2012 and more than four hundred in 2008. “We put our faith in counties,” she said in explanation for the error, which resulted in some voters not being able to cast a ballot until after midnight, despite arriving at the polls before their 7:00 p.m. closing times. “I wish I had questioned that sixty were not enough. . . . For that I take responsibility,” she said.
Simultaneously Reagan seemed to skirt responsibility for the problem, arguing that,even if she had realized there was a problem, she wouldn’t have been able to fix it because she couldn’t tell counties what to do, even as Arizona’s chief election officer. A reporter pointed out that she had the authority to override county elections officials, but “Reagan disagreed with that contention.”
May 2016 Special Election “Marred with Mistakes”
Secretary of State Reagan came under fire yet again for her mismanagement of Arizona’s May 2016 special election, which included a competitive ballot measure on education funding. An Arizona Republic editorial described the election as “marred by mistakes that once again provided ammunition to charge that voters were being intentionally manipulated.”
Prior to the special election, the secretary of state’s office failed to send publicity pamphlets, which outlined the arguments for and against the measures on the ballot, to over 200,000 households in the time frame required by law. Reagan’s office blamed a vendor for the error and belatedly sent the pamphlets to the omitted households; the pamphlets began arriving about two and a half weeks after early voting had already begun. The error affected over 400,000 Arizona voters.
In addition to the error itself, Reagan did not inform the public about mistake when she learned of it, waiting two whole weeks to make the error known—after there was a media report about the problem.
According to internal communications obtained as part of a public records request, county election officials expressed frustration with the disorganized way the publicity pamphlets were put together by Reagan’s office. On the day that the secretary of state’s office was required to send publicity pamphlet information to their vendor, Deputy State Election Director Janine Petty sent an e-mail to election officials in Pima County, writing that, “We have to get the household mailing list to the vendor today or Pima will not be included in the first mailings. The mailing list must contain the mailing address and the precinct designation for each household with a registered voter.”
“Your office needs to coordinate better with the counties when you will need this information,” Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez responded to the last-minute request from Reagan’s office. “If today was the deadline for your vendor to need this information you needed to convey this to the counties so they could all make sure they would have board approval prior to your deadline. ln addition they would need to give the Recorder’s Office time to input this information into our data bases [sic]. This is the first request that I know that you would need this information. You all need to plan better.” Chris Roads, Pima County Deputy Recorder, added, “Had we been given the deadline of when this was needed before this morning, we could have provided the data to you today but it will be tomorrow before we have it all in the system. That’s actually rushing the entry since it normally takes two days to get the initial information in the system and then a full day of second and third checking.”
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich appointed a special investigator to examine how Reagan’s office handled the special election, ultimately writing a scathing criticism of her error: “Even if the Secretary of State’s failure was the result of mere neglect, one thing is certain – the Secretary violated Arizona law. Questions abound; not only how the Secretary of State failed to fulfill her duties in connection with this elections [sic], but also as to why there was no public disclosure regarding the failure to timely mail the publicity pamphlets until mere days before the initial counting of early ballots.”
Reagan brushed off the severity of the error, technically taking responsibility for the publicity pamphlet blunder but largely blaming a vendor for the mistake and playing down its impact on the election’s integrity. In a blog post titled “Sour Grapes,” published on the secretary of state’s website, she criticized opponents of Proposition 123 who argued that the publicity pamphlet error may have affected the outcome of their campaign, and denied that the major error affected 80 percent of voters.
According to the Arizona Republic, “Reagan did not return a call seeking comment on the appropriateness of using the state’s website to air her rebuke of [Arizona State Treasurer Jeff] DeWit and Prop. 123 critics.”
When she heard that attorney Tom Ryan, who worked with the Proposition 123 opposition campaign, was planning to file a complaint to delay the election because of the publicity pamphlet error, Reagan dismissed his concerns about the mistake. “He’s going to make a name for himself as the guy who claims the sky is always falling,” Reagan wrote in an e-mail obtained as part of a public records request. “Good. Then if he ever has something legit to complain about, everyone will ignore him.”
Reagan was further criticized for additional mistakes related to the special election. Her office provided the incorrect filing instructions to candidates prior to the filing deadline for the 2016 primary election, and failed to notify candidates of the error until nearly two weeks later.
Her office also posted incorrect information on the number of signatures required for candidates to get on the ballot before the election, which varies based on office, district, and party. The signatures were recalculated, correcting what the secretary of state’s technology manager called a “serious mistake,” and candidates were notified of the change only two weeks before the filing deadline.
Advocated for “Dark Money” in Arizona Elections
Reagan’s election director, Eric Spencer, authored “a sweeping elections overhaul” that passed the Arizona Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Doug Ducey in March 2016.
SB 1516 was supported by Reagan, but criticized by Democrats in the legislature who argued that it would “usher in greater influence of money in politics while blocking public disclosure.” The bill greatly weakened Arizona’s regulation of anonymous campaign spending, including the elimination of “existing laws that limit how much certain kinds of charities and nonprofits can spend to influence elections,” and the exemption of “any group with valid federal nonprofit status from the IRS” from the definition of “political committee,” regardless of how much money they spend to influence elections.
Reagan was called out for supporting SB 1516, partially because she had spoken out against anonymous campaign spending as a state senator and had “made cracking down on ‘dark money’ a key point in her 2014 campaign for secretary of state.” Her position on the issue changed after benefiting from “about $674,000 in dark-money spending by groups called Arizona’s Legacy and the 60 Plus Association” during her successful general election campaign.
Governor Doug Ducey
Since taking office in 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey has signed several voter suppression policies into law.
Made Collecting and Turning in Ballots a Felony
After several failed attempts to push a similar bill through the legislature, including one proposed by Michele Reagan, the Republican-dominated Arizona Legislature passed a bill that criminalized collecting and turning in ballots, making it a Class 6 Felony for voter outreach groups to engage in the practice—punishable by up to a year in prison and a $150,000 fine. Governor Ducey signed the bill the same day it passed in the Arizona Legislature, putting the restrictions in place for 2016 general election.
The bill, HB 2023, prohibited voter outreach groups from collecting and submitting early ballots, a practice that was common for grassroots groups focusing on Latino outreach, which registered thousands of Latino voters and collected their ballots for delivery to the polls. The legislation criminalized such efforts, even with a voter’s permission, with a few exceptions for family members and caregivers. The bill was criticized by voting rights advocates and Latino voter-outreach groups as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters.
The effort was promoted as a way to combat voter fraud in Arizona. When Ducey signed the bill, he said in a statement, “Voting is a key pillar of our democracy,” and added, “This bill ensures a secure chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box.” However, besides several unsubstantiated conspiracy theories mentioned by advocates of the law, there is no evidence of groups tampering with any ballots they were charged to deliver.
Legal Challenge to HB 2023
HB 2023 is currently being challenged in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party, which argues that the ban on groups collecting and returning ballots will have a disproportionately burdensome impact on Arizona’s minority voters. Filed after Arizona’s presidential preference election, the lawsuit also argues that the reduction of polling places in Maricopa County led to long lines that made it difficult or impossible for some minority voters to cast their ballots. Maricopa County settled this part of the case in early September, agreeing that the county would provide enough polling locations in the November 2016 presidential election.
The lawsuit asks the federal government to block Arizona from enforcing HB 2023, contending that the law “will have a disparate impact on Arizona’s Hispanic, African-American, and Native-American populations, who rely disproportionately on the collection of ballots to cast their early votes. These populations’ reliance on ballot collecting is directly connected to the long history of discrimination that they have been subject to in Arizona, which has left them with less access to transportation; less flexible work schedules; and a higher likelihood of suffering from poor health and disabilities.”
The case has already faced two major blows. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to invalidate Arizona’s ban on collecting and returning ballots, and a U.S. District Court Judge ruled against the plaintiffs’ challenge to the law that invalidates provisional ballots cast by voters at the wrong precinct. During the 2012 Presidential election, almost 11,000 provisional ballots were not counted because voters cast their ballots at the wrong precinct.
Cut Funding for Elections
Ducey cut funding for elections in 2015, which some argued contributed to the massive problems encountered in the 2016 presidential preference election, especially in Maricopa County.
He signed legislation, passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2015, which cut the reimbursement rate to counties for their elections by about $6 million. The state had previously reimbursed 100 percent of the cost of the presidential preference election, but Ducey cut that to a previous rate of $1.25 per registered voter. “As a result, the counties received only about $4 million to conduct the presidential preference election.”
Ducey’s cuts resulted in difficulties for Arizona counties’ attempts to fully fund their elections. After the disastrous presidential preference election in Maricopa County, Jenn Marson, Executive Director of the Arizona Association of Counties, said the $1.25 reimbursement rate was not enough for counties to cover the full costs of elections, even in earlier years. “Counties were eating a lot of the cost of the election,” she said.
Signed Reagan’s “Dark Money” Bill
Governor Ducey signed SB 1516, the “sweeping elections overhaul” authored by Michele Reagan’s election director, Eric Spencer, in March 2016.
The law was touted by Reagan’s office as a simplification of Arizona’s campaign finance and election laws. SB 1516 greatly weakened Arizona’s regulation of anonymous campaign spending, including the elimination of “existing laws that limit how much certain kinds of charities and nonprofits can spend to influence elections,” and the exemption of “any group with valid federal nonprofit status from the IRS” from the definition of “political committee,” regardless of how much money they are spending to influence elections.
The law was criticized by Democrats in the legislature, who argued that it would “usher in greater influence of money in politics while blocking public disclosure.”
Voter Suppression in the Arizona State Legislature
Some of Arizona’s most problematic voter suppression policies have been introduced recently in the state legislature. These are some of the more notable and problematic legislators who have worked to disenfranchise voters in Arizona.
State Representative Michelle Ugenti-Rita
State Representative Michelle Ugenti-Rita is the chair of the Arizona House Election committee. She first ran for a seat in the Arizona Legislature in 2010 after getting involved in the Tea Party movement.
She was the primary sponsor of HB 2023, which prohibited groups from collecting and dropping off early ballots and was signed into law by Governor Ducey in 2016. Ugenti-Rita described the practice as “ballot harvesting” and argued that its prohibition was necessary to reduce voter fraud. The bill, which banned a widely used get-out-the-vote practice that increased Latino voter participation, had “to do with voter integrity,” she stated. “A voter needs to be responsible for voting, and then turning that vote in via the mailbox or at a polling location.”
Ugenti-Rita has been a vocal opponent of illegal immigration, which was one of her platforms when she first campaigned for the legislature in 2010. She gave an emphatic speech on the subject at a Tea Party convention that year, where she said, “There will be those who will say we are intolerant, we are racist. Let them. They’ve said it in the past, and they’ll say it now.” She asserted that “Illegal immigrants have been bleeding our system and enjoying the fruits of our labor” and “Arizona taxpayers are forced to continue to fund our illegal population.” She warned, “Do not be fooled. Comprehensive immigration reform is just another word for amnesty.”
She voiced support for controversial immigration opponents in the state, saying that Arizona “has been blessed by the tireless work and commitment to the rule of law from people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” the notorious Maricopa County Sheriff whose officers were trained by anti-immigration activist Kris Kobach “in immigration enforcement” strategies. The U.S. Department of Justice later ruled that “Arpaio’s department created ‘a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos’ and revoked its authority to conduct immigration screenings.” Ugenti-Rita received Arpaio’s endorsement.
Ugenti-Rita was an outspoken supporter of former Sen. Russell Pearce, who, with the help of Kobach, drafted Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration law, SB 1070, which made it “a state crime to be in the country illegally” and essentially required local police officers to act as immigration agents.
Pearce was ousted from the Arizona Senate in a 2011 recall election, the year after SB 1070 was passed. Prior to his recall, Ugenti-Rita appeared at a rally in his support, saying that Russell was a “champion of the rule of law” and “servant to the cause of liberty” who “deserves our support, our time, our commitment, our attention, our contributions . . . and [the vote.]”
After the botched 2016 Maricopa County presidential preference election which left voters standing in lines up to five hours long because of drastically cut polling places, Ugenti-Rita denounced the flawed election administration that led to problems at the polls. However, she denied that the problems were a case of voter suppression.
“No, I don’t think it was a case of voter suppression,” she said of the election during an interview on Arizona PBS. “I think it was a case of mismanagement and not understanding the political dynamic.” When the host of the show asked if she was concerned that there were “so few polling places in low income and minority neighborhoods,” Ugenti-Rita replied, “I didn’t hear anything in the hearing that suggested that was intentional, so I’m not necessarily concerned that there was an effort to do that. What I am concerned about is that there was a drastic cut in polling locations.”
State Representative Anthony Kern
State Representative Anthony Kern was only elected to the Arizona Legislature in November 2014 but has already become a major advocate for voter suppression policies.
He proposed banning groups from collecting and dropping off early ballots. The proposal ostensibly targeted groups focused on increasing Latino voter turnout, and revived the same debate as when similar bills were proposed by State Senator Don Shooter and Michele Reagan in previous years. This time, however, the proposal ended up being signed into law by Governor Ducey in 2016.
Kern argued that banning volunteers from collecting ballots would increase confidence in the election system. Kern said, “There are rumors out there of [voter fraud] happening, but I don’t know about any instances in particular.”
Although he was unable to identify any examples of voter fraud, which the proposal was designed to prevent, Kern argued that his proposal would not disenfranchise any voters. “We’ve made it fairly easy for voters to get their vote in. You know, you can vote by mail, bring it down to the polling place, stand in line at the voting places. So I don’t see that happening as far as people not being able to get their vote in.”
Kern has posted right-wing conspiracy theories related to voter fraud on social media. In 2014, Kern tweeted a video titled “Is this voter fraud? – You be the Judge [sic].” The video, originally posted by the Maricopa County Republican Committee, shows a volunteer returning multiple absentee ballots to the polls—a practice that Kern later proposed banning but was fully permissible under Arizona law.
He also shared a partisan graphic on Facebook in support of photo ID laws, which read, “Democrats are funny. They are going to build a big security wall around their convention and require photo ID to get in, so they can safely condemn Republicans for wanting to build a security wall for the country and require photo ID to vote.”
Kern also has shared numerous posts on social media from Infowars, the website run by fringe conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. He shared one racially-charged post titled, “Video: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Rioters Target Whites for Beat Downs.” Kern commented on the post, “Obama/Hillary’s America!” He shared another Infowars post titled, “Trump: I’m running Against Media, Not Clinton,” and wrote that, “Media should be accountable for it’s [sic] blatant pro-Hillary bias.”
Kern shared a graphic posted by right-wing filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, which said, “You show me an American ghetto I’ll show you a place where Democrats are in power.” Kern also shared a Breitbart news story that claimed Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, has “Islamist ties.”
State Senator Don Shooter
State Senator Don Shooter has repeatedly advocated for voter suppression policies in the Arizona Legislature. Shooter, the former chairman of the Yuma Tea Party, has declared, “There are two things that separate us from tyranny: ballots and guns.”
In 2015 he introduced SB 1339, which would prohibit organizations from collecting and turning in early ballots and make any violation of the law a felony. The legislation revived “arguably the most controversial piece” of 2013’s HB 2305, which was supported by then-Senator Michele Reagan and signed into law by former-Governor Brewer, only to be repealed before a referendum vote on the 2014 ballot.
Shooter claimed that the bill was necessary to prevent “ballot harvesting,” although opponents argued that there were no documented examples of organizations tampering with collected ballots.
When pressed, Shooter offered a bizarre and “unsubstantiated anecdote about people popping ballots into a microwave with a bowl of water, steaming them open and reviewing the contents. If the vote isn’t agreeable to the person who ‘harvested’ the ballot,” Shooter claimed, “it’s tossed.”
Shooter’s effort to criminalize a practice used by Latino groups to increase voter turnout is not the only thing he has done to offend minority voters in Arizona. He once showed up to a special session of the Arizona Legislature in, according to a tweet from the Arizona Republic’s Political Insider blog, “full mariachi dress, cigar in mouth and tequila bottle in holster. An odd festive mood for unemployment session.”
He said the sombrero and serape he wore was not a mariachi costume but was his usual “party costume” and “not meant to be disrespectful.” He said it was supposed to be funny and “nobody took it seriously.”
Arizona’s Local Election Officials
On The Front Lines of Voter Suppression(and Racially Charged Commentary)
Elections in each Arizona county are managed by the county recorder, who is responsible for voter registration and overseeing election administration. Each county also has an election director who administers elections under the recorder. In some counties, the county recorder or election director has supported problematic politics that resulted in suppressing the votes of minorities.
Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell
Maricopa County, Arizona’s most highly-populated county by far, has been plagued by election issues and allegations of voter suppression. Helen Purcell has served as its recorder since 1988.
Purcell, a Republican who has liked social media posts from Tea Party and conservative groups, also voiced support for a voter suppression bill that was introduced in the state legislature. In 2013, she wrote an op-ed with Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez in support of SB 1261, which was sponsored by then-Senator Michele Reagan and would remove voters from the permanent early voting list if they had failed to vote by mail in the previous two federal primary and general elections, and then didn’t respond to a notice within thirty days explicitly stating their desire to remain on the list. The bill was opposed by voting rights advocates as a voter suppression bill that would disproportionately affect minority voters.
In support of the SB 1261, Purcell and Rodriguez wrote, “Among the accusations have been charges that these election changes are motivated by racism and an attempt to suppress the vote of certain ethnic communities. These cynical claims have no basis in fact and fly in the face of SB 1261’s bipartisan and ethnically diverse support. . . . SB 1261 seeks only to ensure the integrity of Arizona’s elections while speeding up ballot tabulation.”
Allegations of Voter Suppression in 2016 Presidential Preference Election
Purcell was largely responsible for Maricopa County’s disastrous presidential preference election in March 2016, which led to allegations of voter suppression as well as a lawsuit.
Her office mailed thousands of Spanish-language early ballots to Maricopa County voters that contained a major descriptive error, indicating that Proposition 124 was about education funding when it was actually about police and firefighters. Purcell announced that her office would fix the error, although the reprinting and mailing cost an estimated $400,000.
The severity of that error, however, paled in comparison to Purcell’s decision to reduce the number of polling locations down to sixty, compared to two hundred during the 2012 presidential primary and four hundred in 2008. Although most Arizona counties had a polling place for every 2,500 eligible voters, Maricopa County only had one polling place for every twenty-one thousand voters.
The reduction of polling places was approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on the advice of Purcell, who touted the cuts as a cost-saving measure and said she believed there would be more people voting by mail than showing up at the polls.
The extreme cuts to the number of polling locations in Maricopa County resulted in massive lines at the polls. Voters waited for up to five hours to cast their ballots, some until after midnight even though they had arrived before the 7:00 p.m. closing time. At least one polling place in the county ran out of ballots.
The reduction of polling locations disproportionately affected minority voters in Maricopa County. A lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party argued that, “The reduction of voting locations was particularly burdensome on Maricopa County’s Hispanic and African-American communities, many of which had fewer polling locations than Anglo communities and, in some instances, no voting locations at all.”
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton called for an investigation by the Justice Department, noting “that county officials allocated one polling place for every 108,000 residents” and “Anglo communities had more polling sites per resident.”
Prior to the 2013 Supreme Court decision that overturned a key preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, Maricopa County would have been required to pre-clear the polling location cuts with the federal government in order to guarantee that the plan would not negatively impact minority voters. Purcell was asked if she had considered the impact of the cuts on minority voters, despite no longer being obligated by the Justice Department to do so. She said she had not.
Purcell apologized for the mistake, although not before blaming the long lines at the polls on “the voters… for getting in line” and on independents casting provisional ballots. Purcell’s flawed methodology for determining the number of polling places relied on voters evenly distributing themselves around the county, including to rural areas, when in practice more voters went to cast their ballots in the Phoenix metro area.
Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne said that they tried to “keep the presidential preference as cheap as humans could do it.” Purcell’s office was unable to assert how much money was saved by cutting the polling places, but Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo “said the county provided $4.3 million to Purcell’s office, but was never told that would not be enough money to effectively carry out the election.”
After the disastrous election, the Democratic Party brought a lawsuit against Arizona and Maricopa County, arguing that the reduction in polling locations disenfranchised minority voters.
The complaint highlighted how polling places were less accessible in low-income and majority-minority communities. For example, the complaint noted that in “primarily Anglo communities like Cave Creek, there was one polling place per 8,500 residents,” while in “Phoenix, a majority-minority city where 40.8 percent of its 1.5 million residents are Hispanic, there was only one polling place allocated per 108,000 residents.”
The U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation of Purcell’s office in response to the election citing “allegations of disproportionate burden in waiting to vote on election day in some areas with substantial racial or language minority populations.”
Accused of Voter Suppression During 2012 Election
Purcell’s office also made several errors before the 2012 general election that led to allegations of voter suppression.
The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office printed the incorrect election date on two thousand Spanish-language educational bookmarks that were distributed at three office locations and at voter-outreach events. The Spanish translation on some of the bookmarks listed the general election date as November 8 instead of the correct date of November 6. Her office also printed the incorrect election date on fifty other Spanish-language documents, leading critics to allege that the errors could lead to suppressing Latino voter turnout.
Purcell denied that the misprints on the Spanish-language documents were voter suppression tactics. “We’re always very good about checking and double-checking things, and we just didn’t do that enough this time,” Purcell said. “I certainly would never, ever want to suppress anybody from voting, including Hispanics.”
She was also criticized by Latino voting groups that collected and dropped off ballots at the polls after she erroneously said that it was a felony to possess anyone else’s early ballot. CBS affiliate KPHO quoted Purcell as saying that voters should call the police if anyone comes to their door offering to deliver an early ballot. Purcell claimed she never made that statement and was referring to reports of someone posing as a county official and offering to deliver ballots, which would be a felony. KPHO stood by the report, saying that the story was accurate.
It took Arizona two weeks after the 2012 general election to count all of their ballots. In Maricopa County, 450,000 ballots remained uncounted on Election Day. Many of these were provisional ballots, which were given to any voters on the early voting list who decided to vote in person instead. According to Mi Familia Vota, the number of Latino voters on the permanent early voting list had increased in 2012 to 225,000, from 90,000 in 2008.
The long delay in counting the ballots led to protests by Latino advocates, who argued that “the delay feeds a perception of discrimination against Latino voters given Arizona’s history of intentional voter suppression of minorities.” Rodolfo Espino, assistant professor of political science at Arizona State University, said that the delay “creates this sense of illegitimacy.” He added, “It could be something really innocent going on here, or something really egregious going on here. Regardless, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed.” A spokesperson for the Maricopa County recorder’s office said they were surprised by the criticism: “We just don’t understand it.”
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez has stressed the importance of purging the voter rolls as a function of county recorders and has said that “cleaning up” the voter rolls is a “continual process.”
Rodriguez drastically cut the number of polling places for the 2008 presidential preference election, which the state helps counties fund. Pima County cut the number of precincts in half for the election, consolidating its four hundred precincts into only two hundred.
She has voiced support for voter suppression bills that have been introduced in the state legislature. In 2013, Rodriguez wrote an op-ed with Maricopa County Recorder Helena Purcell in support of SB 1261, the bill sponsored by Michele Reagan that would remove voters from the permanent early voting list if they had failed to vote by mail in the previous two federal primary and general elections, and didn’t respond to a notice within thirty days explicitly stating their desire to remain on the list. The bill was widely opposed by voting rights advocates as a voter suppression bill that would disproportionately affect minority voters.
In supporting the legislation, Rodriguez and Purcell wrote, “Among the accusations have been charges that these election changes are motivated by racism and an attempt to suppress the vote of certain ethnic communities. These cynical claims have no basis in fact and fly in the face of SB 1261’s bipartisan and ethnically diverse support. . . . SB 1261 seeks only to ensure the integrity of Arizona’s elections while speeding up ballot tabulation.”
Mohave County Elections Director Allen Temper
Allen Tempert serves as the Mohave County Elections Director. The county recorder, Robert Ballard, was appointed in 2016 to serve temporarily through the end of the year; he is not running for a full term.
Tempert proposed a plan in 2015 to cut the number of precincts by 65 percent and reduce the number of polling places to thirty-two. Tempert’s plan, which was approved by the Mohave County supervisors, reduced the number of precincts in the county from over seventy to only twenty-four. Tempert tied the proposal to buying new voting machine equipment and said it “would create a more efficient election process for voters and election officials, while also saving the county money.”
Two Mohave County supervisors voiced concern about Tempert’s plan, with Supervisor Steve Moss noting, “I think we are moving quickly on it.” Adding, “I would have liked a lot more time to engage with various stakeholders on it.” The plan was opposed by the chairs of both the county Democratic and county Republican Parties.
Tempert has spoken out strongly against voter fraud. He said that if he finds out that a voter cast an early ballot and also cast a provisional ballot at the polls, “I’m going to the County Attorney’s office. That is the deterrent. I’m going to see that they’re going to jail.”
Cochise County Elections Director Katie Howard
Katie Howard serves as the Cochise County elections director. In 2015 she pushed through a plan to drastically cut the number of polling places in Cochise County by two-thirds. She has also liked far-right and racially charged posts on social media.
Howard supported a plan to slash the number of polling places in Cochise County by two-thirds. It was ultimately approved by the county Board of Supervisors in 2015, reducing the number of polling places from forty-nine down to eighteen under a new process that would allow voters to cast their ballots at any of the eighteen voting centers.
Howard likes posts by Tea Party and conservative groups on Facebook, including one that depicted President Obama and read, “It’s not because you’re black, it’s because you’re bad at your job!” She has also liked racially charged comments on Facebook, including one in which someone said an image of an African man in tribal dress was a “pic is of Obama on spring break.”
Voter Suppression Groups in Arizona
True the Vote & Verify the Vote
True the Vote, a Houston-based organization that advocates for voter suppression policies and engages in fear-mongering about virtually nonexistent election fraud, has worked to disenfranchise voters across the nation, as well as in Arizona specifically.
Founded by Tea Party activist Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote has been extremely successful in promoting voter suppression policies around the country and its work has bolstered legislative efforts in at least thirty-seven states to require voter ID at the polls. The organization has been criticized for intimidating minority voters at polling places where their trained poll watchers aimed to leave “no polling place unmanned” to guard against election fraud. True the Vote has advocated for a range of voter suppression policies, including large-scale voter purges.
Verify the Vote
A True the Vote-affiliated group was founded in Arizona before the 2012 election. Verify the Vote Arizona was formed by Tea Party advocates, including Jennifer Wright, a one-time candidate for Phoenix mayor who received the endorsement of disgraced Sen. Russell Pearce, the co-author of Arizona’s strict anti-immigration law along with Kris Kobach.
Verify the Vote worked with True the Vote to validate signatures for Arizona ballot measures in 2012, and also trained poll watchers for Election Day. True the Vote has trained poll watchers around the country, purportedly as a way to discourage voter fraud at the polls. The group has been criticized for the aggressive tactics of its trained poll watchers and for sending white poll watchers to majority-minority neighborhoods. Voting rights groups have noted that white poll watchers in minority neighborhoods can have a disenfranchising effect on voters even if there is no direct interaction between them.
Verify the Vote Arizona, like its national counterpart, trained poll watchers throughout Arizona before the 2012 election. In Arizona, poll watchers are assigned to polling locations through their county political party. Verify the Vote leader Jennifer Wright said that poll watchers would be assigned to “problem areas” first, but clarified that county political parties would be responsible for picking those locations.
Voting rights groups were concerned that poll watchers trained by Verify the Vote would suppress minority voters on Election Day 2012, although there did not seem to be any major issues. Arizona Democratic Party Research Director Joaquin Rios said problems caused by the group’s poll watchers “never really materialized.” Rios added, “We heard throughout the day about isolated incidents here or there. Most of those were secondhand accounts, though.”
Verify the Vote no longer appears be an active group and does not maintain an Internet presence.
True the Vote: Hardly “Nonpartisan”
True the Vote claims that it is focused only on ensuring fair elections and is not partisan. The group’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, has said, “This has never been and never will be about politics.” She added, “This is not a partisan effort.” However, the partisan motivations behind the group are clear.
True the Vote has been criticized on a national level for focusing its poll watchers and voter registration challenges on minority communities that traditionally vote Democratic. Even True the Vote’s president, Catherine Engelbrecht, acknowledges the partisan motivations behind her group’s effort to fight alleged election fraud: “You don’t need a whole lot of election fraud; you just need a little bit in the right places to swing an election.”
Officials at all levels of Arizona’s government have engaged in what amounts to a long-term assault on voting rights. Voter suppression policies—restrictive voter ID and proof-of-citizenship laws, banning common voter outreach practices, and other policies that make voting less accessible—disproportionately affect minority voters who should be encouraged to turn out and exercise their constitutional rights to vote.
Despite what some Arizona officials have expressed, voting is a right, not a privilege. These officials are failing all Arizona voters when they are motivated by partisanship and engage in racially charged rhetoric while serving in roles intended to impartially administer elections and protect voting rights. These policies do not simply make it more difficult for Arizonans to vote– they strip constitutional rights from largely minority voters, all for the purpose of partisan, political gain.
 Garrett Epps, “Arizona’s Case Against the Voting Rights Act,” The Atlantic, September 6, 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/arizonas-case-against-the-voting-rights-act/244548/.
 Ari Berman, “There Were Five-Hour Lines to Vote in Arizona Because the Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act,” The Nation, March 23, 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/.
 Andrew Gumbel, “Democrats’ Arizona Lawsuit Turns Eyes to State Plagued by Voting Controversy,” The Guardian, April 15 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/15/arizona-voting-rights-lawsuit-election-controversy.
 Sari Horwitz, “Getting a Photo ID So You Can Vote Is Easy. Unless You’re Poor, Black, Latino or Elderly,” Washington Post, May 23, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html.
 “Oppose Voter ID Legislation – Fact Sheet,” American Civil Liberties Union website, accessed August 24, 2016, https://www.aclu.org/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet.
 “Register to Vote or Update Your Current Voter Information,” Arizona Secretary of State website, accessed August 26, 2016, http://www.azsos.gov/elections/voting-election/register-vote-or-update-your-current-voter-information.
 Michelle Ye Hee Lee, “Appeals Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, October 27, 2010, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20101027voters1027.html.
 “Arizona Proposition 200 (Gonzalez v. Brewer),” Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund website, accessed September 2, 2016, http://www.maldef.org/voting_rights/litigation/az_prop_200/.
 Alia Beard Rau, “Illegal Immigrant Vote-Fraud Cases Rare in Arizona,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, November 18, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20131105arizona-immigrant-vote-fraud-rare.html.
 Robert Barnes “Supreme Court Says States May Not Add Citizenship Proof for Voter Registration,” Washington Post, June 17, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-states-may-not-add-citizenship-proof-for-voting/2013/06/17/734a1aca-d760-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona to Have Two-Track Voting System,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, October 8, 2013,
 Roxana Hegeman, “U.S. Official Requires Citizenship Proof in Three States,” Salon, February 4, 2016, http://www.salon.com/2016/02/04/us_official_requires_citizenship_proof_in_3_states/. Allied Progress has consistently criticized Brian Newby’s decision on the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the Federal Form.
 League of Women Voters of the United States v. Brian D. Newby, No. 1:16-cv-00236, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16835 (DC Cir. September 9, 2016), https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/14C80589DDE01F4F8525802A00009F33/$file/16-5196CHMJ.pdf.
 Jamelle Bouie, “The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet,” Slate, October 29 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/al_jazeera_america_s_reveals_massive_gop_voter_suppression_effort_millions.html.
 Greg Palast, “Jim Crow Returns, Millions of Minority Voters Threatened by Electoral Purge,” Al Jazeera America, October 29, 2014, http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/double-voters/index.html.
 Martha Dalton, “Critics Question Georgia’s Participation in Crosscheck Voter System,” 90.1FM WABE, November 3, 2014, http://news.wabe.org/post/critics-question-georgias-participation-crosscheck-voter-system.
 Suzanne Potter and Dallas Heltzell, “AZ Officials Deny Crosscheck System Targets Minority Names,” Public News Service, August 31, 2016, http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-08-31/civic-engagement/az-officials-deny-crosscheck-system-targets-minority-names/a53836-1.
 “Policy Analysis and Review of Proposed Legislation, 52nd Legislature, First Regular Session, 2015: Early Ballot Mail Date Change,” Arizona Association of Counties website, accessed September 1, 2016, http://azcounties.org/DocumentCenter/View/777.
 Kathryn Peifer, “Arizona Felons Have Steep Path to Restore Voting Rights,” Cronkite News, May 9, 2016, https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/05/09/arizona-felons-have-steep-path-to-restore-voting-rights/.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona Panel OKs Bill to Allow Cuts from Early-Voting List,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, February 5, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130205arizona-bill-allows-cuts-early-voting-list.html.
 Linda Valdez, “Arizona’s 2004 Voter-ID Statute is Biased, Should be Thrown Out,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 16, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130313arizonas-voter-id-statute-is-biased-should-be-thrown-out.html.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Critics Assail Reform Plans for Arizona Elections,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 3, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130225arizona-election-reform-plans.html; and E. J. Montini, “Despite Denials, GOP Election Bill Looks a Lot Like Voter Suppression,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 10, 2013.
 Valdez, “Voter-ID Statute Is Biased.”
 Pitzl, “Critics Assail Plans.”
 Montini, “Despite Denials.”
 E. J. Montini, “From Third Party to Second-Class Citizen,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, September 23, 2013, https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-arizona-republic/20130923/281702612411273.
 Ben Giles, “Senator Faced Pressure to Change Deciding Vote on Elections Bill,” June 19, 2013, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/06/19/az-senator-faced-pressure-to-change-deciding-vote-on-elections-bill/.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Raft of Election Changes OK’d: Brewer Signing Riles Voter Access Advocates,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, June 20, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130619brewer-signs-controversial-election-bill-into-law.html.
 Protect Your Right to Vote Committee, “Protect Your Right to Vote Delivers 146,000 Signatures to Refer HB2305 to the Ballot,” news release, n.d., https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/arizonaadvocacynetwork/pages/249/attachments/original/1437429994/protect_your_right_release.pdf; and “Arizona Citizens Force Referendum on GOP Voter Suppression Bill, Halting the Bill for Now,” ThinkProgress, October 30, 2013, https://thinkprogress.org/arizona-citizens-force-referendum-on-gop-voter-suppression-bill-halting-the-bill-for-now-d150bf49c6cb#.au53swmfn. The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee does not have a functioning website.
 Isiah Kurz, “Election-Law Foes Decry Move to Keep It off Ballot,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, February 28, 2014, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140227election-law-foes-decry-ballot-move.html.
 Jamelle Bouie, “The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet,” Slate, October 29, 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/al_jazeera_america_s_reveals_massive_gop_voter_suppression_effort_millions.html.
 Alia Beard Rau and JJ Hensley, “Police Weighing Arizona’s Immigration Bill’s Impact,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, April 22, 2010, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html.
 Suzy Khimm, “Kris Kobach, Nativist Son,” Mother Jones, March/April 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kris-kobach-anti-immigration-laws-sb-1070 and Paul Reyes, “‘It’s Just Not Right’: The Failures of Alabama’s Self-Deportation Experiment,” Mother Jones, March/April 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/alabama-anti-immigration-law-self-deportation-movement
 Dave Klepper, “Kansas’ Kobach Helping Arizona on ‘Anchor Babies’ Legislation,” Kansas City (MO) Star, September 15, 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24593302.html.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Sec’y of State Candidate Gets Endorsement from SB 1070 Co-Author,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, June 17, 2014, http://www.azcentral.com/story/politicalinsider/2014/06/17/arizona-secretary-state-kobach-endorsement/10674329/.
 Howard Fischer, “State, County Officials Admit Mistakes in Primary Polling,” (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, March 29, 2016, http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/state-maricopa-officials-admit-mistakes-in-primary-day-polling-locations/article_c4028deb-c22b-5c80-a99d-9d2032c642ec.html.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Many Call for Election Reforms, One More Day of Voting because of Long Lines,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 28, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/03/28/arizona-secretary-of-state-reagan-says-she-has-no-sway-over-county-election-snafu/82279150/.
 Editorial Board, “Our View: Michele Reagan Really Needs Some Quality Control,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, June 4, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/06/01/michele-reagan-election-mistakes/85263922/.
 Mary Jo Pitzl and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, “Lawmakers Passed on Polling-Place Fix as Another Election Error Surfaces,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, May 9, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2016/05/09/arizona-lawmakers-bill-polling-locations/84147266/ and and Laurie Roberts, “At least 400,000 Early Voters Didn’t Get Election Info on Time,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, May 9, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2016/05/09/roberts-another-arizona-election-snafu-really/84141588/.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona Attorney General Hires Outside Counsel for Reagan Inquiry,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, June 3, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/06/02/arizona-attorney-general-hires-outside-counsel-reagan-inquiry/85301246/.
 Janine Petty, e-mail message to F. Ann Rodriguez, March 15, 2016.
 F. Ann Rodriguez, e-mail message to Janine Petty, March 15, 2016.
 Chris Roads, e-mail message to Janine Petty, March 15, 2016.
 E.J. Montini, “Montini: Vendor Reminds Michele Reagan, Again, Prop. 123 Screw-Up Was HER Fault,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, May 24, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2016/05/24/montini-michele-reagan-arizona-proposition-123/84856840/.
 Michele Reagan, “Sour Grapes,” AZSOSblog (blog), Arizona Secretary of State website, May 19, 2016, http://www.azsos.gov/about-office/media-center/azsosblog/899.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Michele Reagan’s Sour Grapes,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, May 20, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/politicalinsider/2016/05/20/michele-reagans-sour-grapes/84660382/.
 Michele Reagan, e-mail message to Matt Roberts, May 9, 2016.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona Secretary of State Quietly Fixes Mistakes, but Delay Could Prove Costly,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, May 31, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/31/arizona-secretary-state-nomination-form-mistake/85205014/; and Dan Carroll, e-mail message to Eric Spencer, June 8, 2016.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona ‘Dark Money’ Bill on Its Way to Gov. Doug Ducey,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 30, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2016/03/29/arizona-dark-money-bill-its-way-gov-doug-ducey/82393280/.
 Howard Fischer, “‘Dark Money’ Rules Eased in AZ Senate Campaign Finance Bill,” (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, March 8, 2016, http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/dark-money-rules-eased-in-az-senate-campaign-finance-bill/article_809e66e3-bbc5-57c7-87d5-b25194abb486.html; and Jeremy Duda, “Ducey Signs Campaign Finance Bill Assailed by Critics as Pro-Dark Money,”(Phoenix) Arizona Capitol Times, March 31, 2016, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/03/31/ducey-signs-campaign-finance-bill-assailed-by-critics-as-pro-dark-money/.
 Fischer, “‘Dark Money’ Rules Eased.”
 Tim Steller, “Steller: Texts Are Sign of Dark-Money Problem,” (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, May 21, 2015, http://tucson.com/news/local/columnists/steller/steller-texts-are-sign-of-dark-money-problem/article_9e836034-e9dd-5e1a-9d00-ffbc95e9d423.html.
 Andrew Gumbel, “Democrats’ Arizona Lawsuit Turns Eyes to State Plagued by Voting Controversy,” The Guardian, April 15 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/15/arizona-voting-rights-lawsuit-election-controversy.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Gov. Doug Ducey Signs Bill Banning Ballot Collection,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 10, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/03/10/gov-ducey-signs-arizona-bill-banning-ballot-collection/81557626/.
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Maricopa County settles part of lawsuit from presidential primary,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, September 9, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/politicalinsider/2016/09/09/maricopa-county-settles-part-lawsuit-presidential-primary/90144910/.
 Leslie Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, No. 2:16-cv-01065-DLR, (AZ Dist. April 15, 2016), http://kjzz.org/sites/default/files/Feldman%20v%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Complaint.pdf.
 Howard Fischer, “Federal judge: Arizona counties don’t have to tally out-of-precinct votes,” Arizona Daily Star, October 13, 2016, http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/federal-judge-arizona-counties-don-t-have-to-tally-out/article_ef2f21cf-37ac-5a6b-95aa-64b81c74cca0.html.
 Jeremy Duda, “Raucous Crowd Calls for Purcell’s Resignation in Wake of Presidential Primary Fiasco,”(Phoenix) Arizona Capitol Times, March 28, 2016, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/03/28/election-officials-admit-presidential-primary-mistakes/.
 Fischer, “‘Dark Money’ Rules Eased;” and Duda, “Ducey Signs Campaign Finance Bill.”
 Pitzl, “Arizona ‘Dark Money’ Bill.”
 “From the Chair | Interviews with Election Committee Chairs,” National Conference of State Legislatures website, June 21, 2016, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/from-the-chair-interviews.aspx.
 Rico Razzi Vimeo channel, “Michelle Ugenti ::Tea Party Speech on Immigration :: Republican Candidate: Arizona House of Representatives – District 8,” Vimeo video, 11:28, posted April 8, 2010, https://vimeo.com/10785532.
 Khimm, “Kris Kobach;” and “Endorsed by,” Recent News: Endorsements/Awards, Michelle Ugenti-Rita campaign website, last modified October 20, 2015, http://www.michelleugenti.com/recent-news/endorsed-by/.
 Rau and Hensley, “Police Weighing Impact.”
 Hank Stephenson, “Glendale lawmaker Kern renews effort to ban ‘ballot harvesting,’” Arizona Capitol Times, December 28, 2015, accessed September 27, 2016, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015/12/28/glendale-lawmaker-kern-renews-effort-to-ban-ballot-harvesting/.
 Anthony Kern Twitter post, November 7, 2014, 12:41 a.m., https://twitter.com/anthonykernAZ; and Maricopa County Republican Committee YouTube channel, “Is this voter fraud? – You be the Judge,” YouTube video, 8:47, posted October 16, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYGzQXnGzw0.
 Anthony Kern Facebook page, status of July 23, 2016 (9:19 p.m.), accessed August 30, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/anthony.kern.378/posts/10206477168834622.
 Anthony Kern Facebook page, status of August 14, 2016 (11:17 p.m.), accessed August 30, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/anthony.kern.378/posts/10206627079182287.
 Anthony Kern Facebook page, status of August 14, 2016 (11:21 p.m.), accessed August 30, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/anthony.kern.378/posts/10206627111983107.
 Anthony Kern Facebook page, status of June 5, 2016 (12:10 p.m.), accessed August 30, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/anthony.kern.378/posts/10206171922043643.
 Anthony Kern Facebook page, status of July 23, 2016 (4:35 p.m.), accessed August 30, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/anthony.kern.378/posts/10206476013685744.
 Mara Knaub. “Shooter Proud of Batting Average for Yuma County,” Yuma (AZ) Sun, May 21, 2011
 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Arizona Legislature Revives Thwarted Elections Bills,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 25, 2015, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/26/arizona-legislature-revives-thwarted-elections-bills/70471722/.
 Mara Knaub, “Shooter Shows Up to Special Session in Costume,” Yuma (AZ) Sun, June 10, 2011, http://www.yumasun.com/shooter-shows-up-to-special-session-in-costume/article_667ee4c2-445c-507c-a496-be89750e28ae.html.
 F. Ann Rodriguez and Helen Purcell, “Rodriguez and Purcell: Integrity in Ariz. Elections,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 22, 2013, http://archive.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130321rodriguez-purcell-integrity-ariz-elections.html.
 Richard Ruelas, “Helen Purcell Admits Election Mistakes, Not Corruption,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, June 24, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-best-reads/2016/05/15/helen-purcell-admits-election-day-mistakes-not-corruption/82676630/.
 Anne Ryman, Rob O’Dell, and Ricardo Cano, “Arizona Primary: Maricopa County Had One Polling Site for Every 21,000 Voters,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 23, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/.
 Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Caitlin McGlade, “Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell Takes Blame for Voter Lines, Says She Won’t Resign,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 23, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/23/maricopa-county-recorder-helen-purcell-admits-fault-long-primary-lines/82165730/.
 Ryman, O’Dell, and Cano, “One Polling Site.”
 Tierney Sneed, “Five Points On How Dems Say Arizona Screwed Up Its Election,” Talking Points Memo, April 18, 2016, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/arizona-democrats-lawsuit.
 Sanchez and McGlade, “She Won’t Resign.”
 Pitzl, “Many Call for Election Reforms.”
 Ruelas, “Election Mistakes, Not Corruption.”
 Editorial Board, “Our View: Arizona’s Epic Election Fail Must Have Consequences,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 24, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/03/24/phoenix-voter-suppression-confidence/82202870/; and Josselyn Barry and Pita Juarez, “Our Turn: Arizona’s Perfect Storm of Voter Suppression,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, March 29, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2016/03/29/arizona-voter-suppression/82400938/.
 Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.
 Chris Herren, Voting Section Chief, U.S. Department of Justice, to Helen Purcell, 1 April, 2016, KTAR News, http://ktar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DOJ-Letter-to-Maricopa.pdf.
 Michelle Ye Hee Lee, “More Maricopa County Election Materials Have Errors,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, October 24, 2012, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20121023maricopa-county-more-election-materials-errors.html.
 Evan Wyloge, “Maricopa County Elections Office Suffers Series of Mishaps,” (Phoenix) Arizona Capitol Times, October 26, 2012, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/10/26/maricopa-county-elections-office-suffers-series-of-mishaps/.
 Cindy Carcamo, “Arizona Ballots Finally Counted–And Latinos Ask, Why So Long?” Los Angeles Times, November 21, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/21/nation/la-na-nn-arizona-latinos-voting-20121121.
 Rhonda Bodfield, “Bayless Striving to Tell Voters Who She Is,” (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, August 19, 2002; and Carmen Duarte, “Neighbors Briefs,” (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, October 5, 2008.
 Arthur H. Rotstein, “Independents Trying to Vote, but Ineligible,” (Flagstaff) Arizona Daily Sun, February 6, 2008, http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/arizona-independents-trying-to-vote-but-ineligible/article_62c58877-8204-5a11-94fd-3559f829ec0b.html.
 Rodriguez and Purcell, “Integrity in Ariz. Elections.”
 Zachary Matson, “Supes OK New Voting Equipment, Precinct Consolidation,” Havasu (AZ) News-Herald, August 3, 2015, http://www.havasunews.com/news/supes-ok-new-voting-equipment-precinct-consolidation/article_e98c6912-3a6f-11e5-90a3-a39afee0d107.html.
 Neil Young, “Technology to Guard Against Multiple Votes,” Mohave (AZ) Daily News, March 3, 2016.
 The Tea Party Facebook page, status of March 14, 2014 (4:00 a.m.), accessed August 31, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/TheTeaParty.net/photos/687415681313920/.
 Bikers Inner Circle Facebook page, status of May 28, 2014 (8:23 p.m.), accessed August 31, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/bikersinnercircle/photos/a.490999160969726.1073741824.138118392924473/649056318497342/.
 Jane Mayer, “The Voter-Fraud Myth; The Man Who Has Stoked Fear About Impostors at the Polls,” The New Yorker, October 29, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth.
 AJ Vicens and Natasha Khan, “Voters Feel Intimidated by Election Observers,” Tucson (AZ) Sentinel, August 20, 2012, http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/082012_voting_observers/voters-feel-intimidated-by-election-observers/.
 Lynh Bui, “Phoenix Mayor Hopeful Jennifer Wright Pushing for Less Red Tape,” (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, July 30, 2011, http://archive.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20110730phoenix-mayor-hopeful-jennifer-wright.html.
 AJ Vicens and Natasha Khan, “Election Observers Proliferate at Polls,” Washington Post, August 24, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-observers-proliferate-at-polls/2012/08/24/1452c3ba-ed4f-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html.
 Evan Wyloge, “Arizona Voter Fraud Group Preps Election Day Pounce,” (Phoenix) Arizona Capitol Times, November 2, 2012, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/11/02/arizona-voter-fraud-group-preps-for-election-day-pounce/.
 Evan Wyloge, “No Voter Intimidation on Election Day, But Still Problems at the Polls,” (Phoenix) Arizona Capitol Times, November 16, 2012, http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/11/16/no-voter-intimidation-on-election-day-but-still-problems-at-the-polls/.
 Barry Horstman, “Group to Sue for Purge of the Rolls,” Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer, August, 27, 2012.
 Matthew Boyle, “Chris McDaniel Rushes to Review Ballots from Tuesday’s Election,” Breitbart, June 27, 2014, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/27/mcdaniel-rushes-to-review-ballots-from-tuesday-s-election/.