The big U.S. Supreme Court decision affecting redistricting in Arizona, regarding whether drawing the lines for congressional districts has to be returned to the state Legislature from the independent redistricting commission, is still to come. But a decision handed down a couple of weeks ago (Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama) changed the game regardless of who next draws the lines.
Thousands upon thousands of votes aren’t counted every election year in Arizona, according to a new report. The Arizona Advocacy Network, which is run by a onetime Democratic politician, released a report detailing how Arizona’s election laws affect voter turnout, and it doesn’t look good — through public records and voter data, the organization found that more than 100,000 votes haven’t been counted over the last 10 years. “When it comes to disenfranchising eligible voters, Arizona is, unfortunately, a national leader,” the report states. “These discarded votes were not the result of fraud, which is so extremely rare it borders on nonexistent. These were eligible voters – sometimes confused, sometimes misinformed or merely forgetful, sometimes willfully targeted because they share a common last name.” For example, there were more than 121,000 provisional ballots rejected from 2006 to 2014.
Arizona Republican legislators advanced several bills Monday that would restore key provisions of a sweeping election law that was repealed last year, saying they want to root out fraud and clarify existing state regulations. The proposals aim to allow donors to contribute more money to candidates, make it easier for judges to throw out signatures for technical errors on ballot measures and expand campaign signature requirements. Critics, including Democratic legislative leaders, say the efforts aim to make voting more difficult.
A bill that will make it all but impossible for voter-outreach groups to boost turnout by collecting early ballots from voters was advanced by an Arizona House panel dominated by Republicans on Wednesday. The proposal makes it a felony for anyone but a family member, caregiver or candidate to collect more than two early ballots from voters during a two-year election cycle. Republican Secretary of State Michele Reagan is backing the last-minute amendment to Senate Bill 1339. The proposal failed in the House elections committee last week, but it was revived and added to an unrelated bill. The appropriations committee approved the amended bill on a 9-5 party-line vote.
The Senate gave initial approval to a bill on Tuesday that increases the number of signatures third-party candidates need to run for office. The proposal by J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, is one in a series of piecemeal legislation similar to a sweeping Arizona election law that the Legislature abandoned last year after opponents took steps to repeal it. House Bill 2608 allows candidates to gather signatures from their own party, independents and parties not represented on a ballot. It also expands the signature requirements to include a minimum number of these so-called “qualified voters.”
Arizona lawmakers yesterday rejected another attempt to ban the practice of people collecting others’ election ballots to turn in. Such a practice was utilized by the group Citizens for a Better Arizona during the successful 2012 recall of then-Senate President Russell Pearce. CBA workers collected early-voting ballots from voters who agreed to have their completed ballot hand-delivered to elections officials to make sure it was counted. A ban on such a practice was included in 2013’s House Bill 2305, a Republican-backed package of changes to election law. Seeing that Democrats, third-party supporters, and other non-Republicans had enough support to put the issue on the ballot for voters to decide, the Republican-led Legislature repealed the whole law last year, but Democrats have kept their eye out for any attempts to pass parts of this bill again.
An effort to revive a major piece of a repealed 2013 election law by making it a felony for anyone but a family member or candidate to collect early ballots from voters failed in a House committee Thursday. The proposal was tacked on to a bill during a special meeting of the House elections committee, but it went down on a 3-3 vote. Rep. Heather Carter, R-Cave Creek, joined two Democrats in opposition. The so-called ‘strike-everything” amendment backed by Secretary of State Michele Reagan revived a part of a major election overhaul that angered Democrats, some conservative Republicans and third-party candidates. After a successful signature-gathering effort to block the 2013 law, pending a statewide election, the Legislature repealed House Bill 2305.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of a voter-approved plan that stripped Arizona state lawmakers of their role in drawing congressional districts in an bid to remove partisan politics from the process. The nine-justice court’s conservative majority, including regular swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, asked questions during a one-hour oral argument that indicated there could be a majority willing to find that the ballot initiative violated the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that state legislatures set congressional district boundaries. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature objected to a 2000 ballot initiative endorsed by Arizona voters that set up an independent commission to determine the U.S. House of Representatives districts.
The possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will return congressional redistricting power to the Arizona Legislature has Democrats on edge and some Republicans giddy at the prospect of a new, GOP-drawn map. Under the current map, drawn by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Republicans hold five U.S. House seats and Democrats hold four. Three of the state’s nine congressional districts — held by Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Martha McSally — are among the most competitive in the country, while the other six are lopsided in favor of either Republicans or Democrats.
Given Arizona’s history of turnover in the governor’s office, the state would benefit from having a lieutenant governor who runs on the same ticket, a state lawmaker says. Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, has introduced two pieces of legislation to create the office, to require a party’s candidates for lieutenant governor and governor to run as a team and to put the lieutenant governor first in the line of succession. Some of the proposed changes would require approval by Arizona voters. Mesnard said having the governor and lieutenant governor run on the same ticket would be helpful for voters because it would mirror the way the president and vice president are elected. He said many voters don’t realize that the secretary of state is the next in line for the governor’s office.
So you voted early, are proud of your choices, and want to share them with the world by putting a photo of your ballot on Facebook. Guess what? You’ve just committed a crime. Now state lawmakers are trying to get you off the hook. HB 2536 came from Rep. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix. “I have a constituent who was threatened by the police with a misdemeanor because he had posted the way he voted, and posted it on Facebook,’ Boyer told the House Elections Committee. The problem, he said, is a provision of law which make it a crime to show a ballot after it has been voted “in such a manner as to reveal the contents.’ The only exception is someone who is authorized to assist the voter.
Currently, Pima and Maricopa counties must maintain daily updated lists of those who have turned in early ballots if requested by state or county party chairpersons. Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Payson, wants to expand that requirement to all counties, saying it can be difficult to obtain early ballot information in a timely manner from election officials in rural Arizona. Her bill, HB 2427, won a unanimous endorsement Monday from the House Elections Committee, despite a representative for counties saying the change would be burdensome. It was heading to the House floor by way of the Rules Committee.
When is a legislature not a legislature? That odd question could have big implications for election law. The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a case brought by Arizona legislators challenging the authority of the state’s independent redistricting commission, which was set up by voters through a ballot initiative back in 2000. The federal Constitution states that election law shall be crafted “in each state by the legislature thereof.” The idea that this clause refers to anything other than the legislature itself is “wholly specious,” argues Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs. The commission’s lawyer, however, notes that the high court has previously held that the word “legislature” in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean the literal legislature, but rather the state’s lawmaking process on the whole. But the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case in the first place might mean some of the justices are ready to rethink this interpretation.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide who exactly is the “Legislature” in Arizona, at least for purposes of drawing political lines. In a brief order Tuesday, the justices set March 2 to hear arguments by attorneys for the organized Legislature that only they — meaning the 90 members — can divide up the state into its nine congressional districts. They contend that’s what the U.S. Constitution requires. If the high court agrees, that would pave the way for the Republican-controlled Legislature to redraw the lines ahead of the 2016 election. And that would allow them to reconfigure the maps to give GOP candidates a better chance of winning — and of improving the 5-4 split in the congressional delegation this year’s election gave to Republicans. But first they have to convince the justices that the majority of a three-judge panel got it wrong when they concluded otherwise.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide who exactly is the “Legislature’ in Arizona, at least for purposes of drawing political lines. In a brief order Tuesday, the justices set March 2 to hear arguments by attorneys for the organized Legislature that only they — meaning the 90 members — can divide up the state into its nine congressional districts. They contend that’s what the U.S. Constitution requires. If the high court agrees, that would pave the way for the Republican-controlled Legislature to redraw the lines ahead of the 2016 election. And that would allow them to reconfigure the maps to give GOP candidates a better chance of winning — and of improving the 5-4 split in the congressional delegation this year’s election gave to Republicans. But first they have to convince the justices that the majority of a three-judge panel got it wrong when they concluded otherwise. The fight is over a provision in the federal Constitution which says the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.’
The mandatory recount in the Congressional District 2 House race saw Martha McSally pick up five votes in Pima County while incumbent Rep. Ron Barber picked up nine. A Maricopa County judge declared McSally the winner Wednesday. After the recount from Cochise County was figured in, McSally won the Nov. 4 election by 167 votes. Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson said the recount included 21 additional ballots discovered in a sealed bag that had not been counted on election night for various reasons, including a malfunctioning scanner. Poll workers, however, didn’t indicate any issues when they returned the ballots to headquarters, he said. Several of those 21 ballots did not include votes in CD2.
The closest race of the 2014 midterm election cycle has finally been decided, with Republican Martha McSally defeating Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) after a protracted recount. In a statement, McSally thanked Barber for his service and said she’d seek his input on issues going forward. “There’s no getting around that this was an incredibly close and hard-fought race,” she said. “After what’s been a long campaign season, it’s time to come together and heal our community. That’s why my focus will be on what unites us, not what divides us, such as providing better economic opportunity for our families and ensuring our country and community are kept safe.” The victory for McSally, a former combat pilot in the U.S. Air Force, cements a dominant cycle for Republicans in which they picked up 13 seats in the House and gained a 247 to 188 advantage over Democrats. It’s their largest majority in the House since World War II. “Martha McSally has broken barriers her entire life, and I know she will continue to fight for the issues she is passionate about in Washington. From growing jobs to securing our border, Martha will be an effective and common-sense representative for Southern Arizona,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) said in a statement.
The results of a recount in the nation’s last undecided congressional race from the midterm elections are set to be revealed Wednesday by an Arizona judge in a move that will determine the size of the GOP majority in Washington. Republican challenger Martha McSally leads Democratic Rep. Ron Barber in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District by 161 votes, and the court hearing in Phoenix should settle the race after a recount and several court battles. A victory by McSally would give House Republicans their largest majority in 83 years, holding 247 seats to Democrats’ 188. Barber took office in 2012 after winning a special election to replace his former boss, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who stepped down after a 2011 shooting that wounded both her and Barber. Barber then won a full term in November 2012 after a narrow victory over McSally.
Southern Arizonans will find out Wednesday who will represent them in Congressional District 2. A mandatory recount was triggered because the tally separating incumbent Democrat Ron Barber from Martha McSally, his Republican challenger, in the November general election was less than 200 votes. After completing an electronic recount of all the ballots cast for each candidate last week, a hand count of a sample of ballots from five percent of the precincts — the last step in the two-week recount process — was completed Monday morning.
More than a month after the Nov. 4 election, Congressional District 2 voters will learn next week who will represent them in Congress. Pima County on Wednesday finished the electronic recount of polling place, early and provisional ballots, and will begin a hand count of 5 percent of precincts Monday. The results will be turned over to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office by 5 p.m. Tuesday, and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper will declare the results at a 10 a.m. hearing Wednesday in Phoenix.
Pima and Cochise counties have finished the machine recount in the race between U.S. Rep. Ron Barber and likely winner Martha McSally, but there won’t be any results released until next week. First, a hand recount of random ballots will be performed Monday, and used to verify the accuracy of the machine count. Results from the counties must be submitted to state officials by 5 p.m. Tuesday. With McSally up by just 161 votes, a recount in the congressional race was automatic under Arizona law. Another look at the ballots is triggered when the margin is less than 200 votes. While Pima will perform the required hand count on Monday — done with randomly selected precincts and batches of early ballots — Cochise will tackle that task on Friday.
What started as a Fountain Hills woman’s attempt to protest a local bond issue could lead to the demise of Arizona’s oversight of campaign finances. A federal judge has tossed out the key component of the state’s campaign-finance law, opening the prospect of future elections in which there is no disclosure of who is raising and spending money to influence voters. The state Attorney General’s Office said Monday that it plans to seek a stay of U.S. District Judge James Teilborg’s ruling while state officials contemplate an appeal. Teilborg on Friday ruled that Arizona’s definition of a political committee is unconstitutional because it is vague and overly broad. The definition, which runs 183 words, has resulted in conflicting interpretations from various attorneys and election regulators.
A federal judge late Friday voided state laws requiring groups to register before spending money on campaigns – and with it, the reports they’re supposed to file on who is behind all that cash. Judge James Teilborg accepted arguments by challengers that the statute dictating who must register is “vague, overbroad, and consequently unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.” Teilborg said that means it cannot be enforced.
Deputy Secretary of State Jim Drake said his office will ask Teilborg to delay the effect of the ruling to provide a chance for an appeal. If nothing else, Drake said his office needs time to figure out how badly this undermines years of laws designed to give the public a better idea of who is contributing to political campaigns. But Drake said he’s not optimistic. “It does kind of turn campaign finance on its head,” he said. At the very least, Drake said Teilborg’s order eliminates the requirements for disclosure of funding by groups pushing or opposing ballot measures. It is not unusual for these campaigns to cost millions of dollars. But attorney Paul Avelar of the Institute for Justice said he reads the ruling to apply to all the independent groups pushing to elect or defeat candidates.
A federal judge has voided state laws requiring groups to register before spending money on campaigns — and with it, the reports they’re supposed to file on who is behind all that cash. Judge James Teilborg accepted arguments by challengers that the statute dictating who must register is “vague, overbroad, and consequently unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.” Teilborg said that means it cannot be enforced. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Drake said his office will ask Teilborg to delay the effect of the ruling, made late Friday, to provide a chance for an appeal. If nothing else, Drake said his office needs time to figure out how badly this undermines years of laws designed to give the public a better idea of who is contributing to political campaigns. But Drake said he’s not optimistic. “It does kind of turn campaign finance on its head,” he said.
Republican Martha McSally is almost ensured of victory in the still undecided race with U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., experts say, but a few scenarios still give him a chance at keeping the seat. Officials begin today recounting ballots in southern Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District. Results are expected Dec. 16. McSally’s 161-vote lead, out of more than 219,000 cast, is so narrow that there are ways for Barber to win. And the cost to continue the fight in court would be relatively small for an election in which both sides have spent $20 million combined. “Recounts almost never change the result. … But being this close, it’s almost certain there will be a (lawsuit contesting it),” said Tom Irvine, a Phoenix election attorney. The most likely scenario: Barber sues because the recount differs from the general-election tally. Another possibility is his team finds election misconduct or other grounds to question the results. The most unlikely yet still possible option: Exploit a vague part of the U.S. Constitution to ask for a vote in the House of Representatives to decide which candidate is most qualified to serve — essentially beg Republican House Speaker John Boehner for mercy.
Yes, this is the campaign season that just won’t end. On Saturday, voters in Louisiana will gather, a month after most states voted, for a runoff for a U.S. Senate seat and some House races. But even then, it’s not over. Election officials in Arizona this week cranked up the machinery for a recount of one particularly close House seat that has Republican challenger Martha McSally 161 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Ron Barber. The recount in the 2nd Congressional District race was required because the margin was fewer than 200 votes out of nearly 120,000 cast. Barber won the seat in the aftermath of tragedy. He was an aide to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011 when she was shot in the head in an assassination attempt. Barber was one of 12 people injured by gunfire that day. After his recovery and Giffords’ resignation, Barber won the seat in a June 2012 special election. In the 2012 general election, when he narrowly defeated McSally, Barber benefited from a heavily Democratic electorate; this year, he was fighting a Republican surge.
Republicans hoping to secure yet another House victory in their already substantial majority won in the 2014 midterm election are on edge as GOP candidate Martha McSally’s lead over incumbent Rep. Ron Barber has dwindled down to a mere 161 votes, a margin small enough to trigger an automatic recount. This will be the state’s first-ever congressional recount. Emerging from election night, McSally led Barber by a mere 36 votes. But technical difficulties later triggered a recount for early votes in Cochise County — a predominantly Republican area — that gave McSally a slightly greater lead.
The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to halt a recount in southern Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District race between Democratic incumbent Ron Barber and Republican challenger Martha McSally. The high court dismissed a special-action lawsuit filed by a group of voters challenging the state’s plan to use the same computer program it used in the regular ballot count. The justices said in a brief order that the voters could continue to try to challenge the recount rules in Superior Court. “I’m really disappointed,” said Tucson attorney Bill Risner, who filed suit on behalf of seven voters in Cochise and Pima counties and isn’t affiliated with either campaign. “Our courts in general, there’s a real hostility to democracy and getting involved in election stuff. This is a simple case, it’s highly important and they’re making a real mistake in terms of their job of not taking this case.” Risner said he was considering whether to start the case over in the lower court.
The state’s first-ever congressional recount begins this week in the nail-biter race between Republican Martha McSally and U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz. McSally leads by 161 votes out of more than 219,000 cast in southern Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District, a margin so narrow it will trigger the recount once Secretary of State Ken Bennett certifies the canvass. He is scheduled to do so Monday. Barber sought to cut into McSally’s lead ahead of the recount by challenging election officials’ rejection of 133 ballots in Pima and Cochise counties. But on Thanksgiving Day, a Tucson federal judge denied the campaign’s request to count the ballots, a development that one expert says bolsters McSally’s likelihood of victory.
Despite Arizona’s progress in lowering the number of provisional ballots cast in the recent general election, results in several legislative and congressional races were again delayed because voters continue to drop off their early ballots at the polls. The number of early ballots left to count after this year’s Election Day dropped 38 percent compared with 2012. Experts and election officials attributed the decline to this year’s decreased turnout. The number of provisional ballots cast statewide, however, dropped by more than 60 percent compared with 2012, when Arizona was embarrassed on the national stage as record numbers of provisional and early ballots went uncounted for two weeks after the polls closed, leaving key races hanging in the balance. Election officials said there were fewer provisional ballots cast this year due to voter-education efforts by the state and Maricopa County, the county’s use of easier-to-notice yellow early ballots, and its new electronic poll books that helped lessen the number of provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling places.