NEW REPORT: Watchdog Finds Arizona Elections Have Strong Protections Despite Escalating Anti-Democracy Threats, Highlights Potential Vulnerabilities

Step-By-Step Guide Details Arizona Vote Counting and Certification Process to Help Guard Against Election Subversion

Informing Democracy Identifies 24 Officials as Potential Election Threats

Background Briefings Available for Reporters, Advocates

Today, Informing Democracy released a new report detailing the county- and state-wide officials and processes that govern the Arizona general election taking place on November 5, 2024. The comprehensive guide is centralized in a highly interactive, searchable tool to help journalists and pro-democracy champions monitor election processes, and includes:

In conducting research into Arizona election administration, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization made up of election professionals, researchers, and lawyers found that Arizona elections are largely well run, though there have been concerning actions by a few local officials in Arizona who have acted in bad faith or violated Arizona law.


“Political extremists will try to undermine the upcoming election, but it's important for the people of Arizona to know that strong protections are in place to safeguard the state’s elections from those who threaten democracy,” said Informing Democracy Executive Director Jenna Lowenstein. “This in-depth guide shines light on how elections are run, when votes are counted, and who certifies the results. By identifying potential threats and detailing each step of the vote counting and certification process, we hope to increase transparency for voters and empower journalists and advocates to monitor for potential problems.”

However, Informing Democracy did find potential vulnerabilities in certain electoral processes and identified 24 election officials who raise concern due to anti-democratic tendencies:

  • Out of 106 public officials, research surfaced of 24 officials whose findings raised cause for concern (23 percent). Officials with concerning findings reside in nine of Arizona’s 15 counties (60 percent).

  • Fourteen Supervisors have findings in their background that raised concern—23 percent of officials. Across the state, concerning findings were also uncovered on one of the 15 County Recorders, three of the 15 County Attorneys, and six of 15 County Sheriffs.

  • Seven Arizona officials with roles administering or certifying elections publicly denied or questioned the results of the 2020 election. These officials were primarily concentrated in Cochise, Mohave, and Pinal Counties,

  • Results of the August primaries for County Recorders, Supervisors and Legislators showed some pro-democracy officials we had identified losing reelection, indicating there is growing support in the state for the election denial movement.

  • Fueled by false conspiracies, there is an organized movement pursuing hand counts for the 2024 elections despite it being clearly illegal under Arizona law and studies consistently showing hand-counting ballots is a slow, resource intensive, and inaccurate process that can also subject ballots to significant chain of custody risks.

  • Arizona is home to an active election denial movement, made up of sitting elected officials in the state legislature, outside groups, candidates, and their supporters. Results from Arizona’s primary indicate election denialism is still strong. We expect this movement to latch onto normal variations in election administration across the state, such as where the number of mail ballots are counted, which pose no actual threat to election security in order to further their claims of election fraud.

You can read the full report here. For questions about the upcoming elections in Arizona or to speak with a researcher, please email Ryan Thomas at ryan@zpstrategies.com.

Previous
Previous

On Former Colorado Clerk Tina Peters’ Guilty Conviction in Election Security Breach Trial

Next
Next

NEW REPORT: Watchdog Finds Nevada Elections Well Run Despite Anti-Democracy Threats, Highlights Potential Vulnerabilities