The Assault on Arizona's Election Integrity: When Partisan Politics Threatens Democratic Foundations

The Battle Over Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual

Arizona finds itself at the epicenter of yet another contentious battle over election administration, with Republican legislators and county recorders pushing for increased control over the state’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). This critical document, revised every other year by the Arizona Secretary of State, outlines procedures and rules for county elections officials to implement state election laws. Its policies carry the force of law in most cases, making it an essential component of Arizona’s electoral infrastructure.

The current process requires the secretary of state to obtain input from county boards of supervisors, with the final version requiring approval from both the governor and attorney general before publication. With all three offices currently held by Democrats, Republican legislative leaders have engaged in extensive litigation challenging numerous changes made by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to the 2023 version of the EPM. The courts have delivered mixed rulings, agreeing with some Republican arguments while rejecting others.

The Legislative Push for Control

The controversy has now moved to the legislative arena with Senate Bill 1237, which would require the secretary of state to consult with county recorders and legislative elections committee leaders before making changes to the manual. This proposal passed the Senate on February 23rd on a party-line vote and awaits consideration in the House.

What makes this legislation particularly concerning is the composition of the legislative elections committees that would gain influence over the EPM. Both committees are currently chaired by election deniers with extreme far-right views: Senator Wendy Rogers leads the Senate committee, while Representative John Gillette chairs the House committee. Both have promoted changes to state law based on conspiracy theories and have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of election results without evidence.

The Principle of Nonpartisan Election Administration

The fundamental principle at stake in this debate is whether election administration should remain nonpartisan or become subject to direct legislative control. Election administration in the United States has historically operated on the premise that those who administer elections should not be the same as those who compete in them. This separation is crucial for maintaining public confidence in electoral outcomes.

When legislators who have promoted election conspiracy theories seek control over the rules governing how elections are conducted, they create a direct conflict of interest. These are individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated willingness to undermine confidence in election results for political gain. Granting them authority over election procedures represents a clear danger to electoral integrity.

The Dangerous Precedent of Legislative Overreach

Representative Alexander Kolodin’s argument that the legislature should have approval authority over the EPM because it’s “the only body with the constitutional power to write law” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of administrative rulemaking. The EPM doesn’t create new laws—it implements existing laws passed by the legislature. This is the proper function of the executive branch, and attempting to legislative control over implementation constitutes a dangerous overreach.

Kolodin’s claim that Fontes has “lost in court many times” is misleading at best. While some provisions of the 2023 EPM were struck down, Fontes also secured victories in court, and he appropriately modified the 2025 version in response to judicial rulings. This is how the system is supposed to work—the executive implements, the judiciary reviews, and adjustments are made accordingly.

The Hypocrisy of Litigation Concerns

Republicans cite years of litigation as evidence that the current process is broken, but this argument ignores their own role in creating that litigation. When one party repeatedly challenges election procedures in court regardless of their merits, they cannot then use those lawsuits as evidence that the system requires their increased control. This circular reasoning creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where partisan challenges become justification for partisan control.

Furthermore, as the article notes, the legislature itself routinely passes laws that face legal challenges and are deemed unconstitutional—even when their own lawyers warn them about constitutional problems. This pattern suggests that the Republican concern about litigation is selective rather than principled.

The Threat to Local Election Administration

Pinal County Recorder Dana Lewis’s hope that SB1237 would prevent future lawsuits misses a crucial point: injecting more partisan actors into the process may actually increase litigation rather than reduce it. When election procedures become overtly politicized, they inevitably face more legal challenges from the opposing party.

The proper solution to reducing litigation isn’t partisan control but rather developing procedures through transparent, inclusive processes that prioritize election administration expertise over political considerations. The current system already allows for input from various stakeholders; making that input mandatory for specific partisan actors moves us in the wrong direction.

The National Implications

Arizona’s struggle over election administration reflects a broader national pattern where election deniers and partisan actors seek to gain control over election machinery. This represents one of the most serious threats to American democracy in our generation. When those who have shown willingness to undermine election results gain control over election procedures, the very foundation of our democratic system becomes compromised.

The United States has survived as a democracy for over two centuries precisely because we have maintained norms against politicizing election administration. Breaking these norms represents a dangerous departure from our democratic traditions.

The Path Forward: Protecting Nonpartisan Election Administration

Rather than granting more power to partisan legislators, Arizona should be looking for ways to strengthen the nonpartisan nature of its election administration. This could include establishing advisory committees with balanced partisan representation, ensuring transparency in the EPM development process, and creating clear guidelines for public input.

The answer to concerns about the EPM is not to hand control to election deniers but to create more robust mechanisms for nonpartisan expertise and broad stakeholder input. We should be elevating election administration professionals, not politicians, in developing election procedures.

Conclusion: Defending Democracy Against Partisan Power Grabs

The fight over Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual represents far more than a technical debate about administrative procedures. It is a battle for the soul of American democracy—a test of whether we will maintain nonpartisan election administration or succumb to partisan power grabs.

Every American who values free and fair elections should be alarmed by efforts to place election deniers in control of election procedures. We must stand firm against these dangerous efforts and defend the principle that election administration should remain separate from political competition. Our democracy depends on it.