In a pivotal decision affecting voting procedures in Arizona, a Maricopa County judge has upheld a contentious election reform measure set for the ballot, known as Proposition 144. This proposal, initiated by Republican legislators, has sparked debate over its potential impact on mail-in voting, a method favored by the majority of Arizona voters.
The legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 2001 (HCR 2001), introduces several changes to existing election laws, including some previously vetoed by the state’s Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs. Having passed the Arizona Legislature strictly along party lines in June, the proposition will be presented to voters for approval.
Representative Alexander Kolodin, who sponsored the measure and is currently running for secretary of state, regards this as an essential step towards enhancing election security. However, opponents argue that the proposal could undermine mail-in voting by mandating that all voters present identification, which critics say may complicate the process.
Currently, Arizona law requires identification for voter registration and in-person voting. HCR 2001 seeks to extend this requirement to mail-in voters. Tempe Councilman Randy Keating, who has legally challenged the proposal, questions the feasibility of such a requirement. “I think that’s the crux of the issue … how do you do that?” he remarked, raising concerns about the practicality of ID verification for mail-in ballots.
Under the proposed changes, voters might need to include a photocopy of their ID with their mail-in ballot or present their ID at a ballot center, which Keating argues defeats the purpose of mail-in voting. He asserts that the existing signature verification process is a sufficient security measure for mailed ballots.
Keating’s legal challenge also claims that HCR 2001 combines unrelated measures, thus violating the Separate Amendment Rule, which prohibits constitutional amendments from addressing multiple unrelated topics. The measure not only requires voter ID for mail-in ballots but also includes provisions already covered by state law, such as restricting voting to U.S. citizens. Additional elements of the proposal seek to prevent foreign influence in elections and allow the Legislature to modify election laws for improved speed and security.
Keating argues that these combined provisions could mislead voters. “We’re not voting on a single question here. We’re voting on a package of things that some people may like and some people may not like, but there’s no way to differentiate,” he explained, cautioning that voters may inadvertently curb their mail-in voting rights.
Despite these concerns, Judge Adele Ponce ruled that the measure’s various provisions collectively address the broader theme of “election integrity.” According to Ponce, “Each aims to improve election integrity. The fact that the proposed amendment’s provisions address different aspects of election security does not prevent them from being topically related.”
Following the judgment, Keating has escalated the issue to the Arizona Supreme Court, seeking further review.
