By Dr. Ted Downing
Several have asked my position on SB1053 – a bill that
I helped draft and support that is now facing a possible gubernatorial
veto. The Party presently supports a veto. I respectfully
disagree. I believe a veto will harm both the Governor and the Party. I
pray for reconsideration. This explanation is from me, as a former
State Representative and election integrity activist, not as Chair of the
Arizona Democratic Party’s Election Integrity Committee.
Currently, statutes provide for count room observers in
partisan elections. In Arizona, only 4 cities and towns still hold
partisan elections – meaning the count of most of these elections are
unobserved. Likewise, ballot measures include billions of dollars in bond
elections that – up to now – are only observed if the county, city
or town wishes. I feel these entities have a potential conflict of
interest, since they stand to benefit from the results of a vote.
The counting
of votes in over $76B in bond/revenue issues is worthy of being observed. They
should be observed. SB1053 allows up to three additional persons for
nonpartisan office or ballot measures and establishes procedures for the
selection of these additional observers. It extends the protections
of having an observed count to all elections.
SB1053 grew out of the Arizona Democratic Party’s
Election Integrity Committee investigations. Having sponsored the hand count
audit and paper ballot bills, I knew that basic reforms will be embraced by a
bipartisan coalition if all Parties see it as in their common
interest. I helped draft it, in close collaboration with its
sponsor, Senator Chuck Gray (R-Mesa), who shares many of my concerns about election
integrity and fiscal accountability.
Democrats testified in favor of the bill in the Senate. The
bill passed as with no opposition in either the Senate or House. In the
joint Senate/House Conference Committee incorporated language from several
election bills that were at play in this session – as commonly happens
late in a legislative session.
SB1053 now includes
- all of H.B. 2364 (Sec of State clean up election bill) that was heard in Senate Judiciary committee and caucused
- portions of S.B. 1015 Strike Everything (SE) adopted in the House Judiciary Committee (counties election bill)
- H.B. 2279 which contained only one provision to allow a voter’s unique identifying number to be accessed by the public (response to Gila County no longer providing this information on
lists to the political parties) and - S.B. 1211 as introduced which makes conforming changes to the primary election statutes for a biennial election and consolidated elections (the primary election was moved up last year to
allow an extra week between the primary and general elections). - A substantive provision that I requested that allows observers to be rotated throughout the same day while at the counting center.
As put forth in the amendment, the bill removed from
both H.B. 2364 and S.B. 1015 SE of the requirement that early voting begin 26
days before the election (the Governor objected to the decrease) and the
addition of an emergency clause.
The full, modified amendment is attached. Remember that
this mark up shows changes and deletions to existing law (in black). Yes,
it seems long and technical – but that is how our democracy works,
particularly in election law.
The amendments came forward with the full support of the
Counties and Election Directors. I found no substantive threat to election
integrity in the revised bill. I shared the marked up bill with the Party
Chair, Executive Director, and the AzDem EIC members who also did not raise any
substantive issues. Nor were their objections up until the bill reached
Conference Committee.
In Conference Committee, State Representative Steve Gallardo
(D) raised objections and had staff prepare a minority report opposed to the
bill. The Senate Democratic minority on the committee did not agree with Mr.
Gallardo and voted for the amendment.
Rep. Gallardo argues that SB1053 will suppresses voting
turnout by reducing the number of days for early and satellite station voting
up to 5 days and harming Democrats.
Greg Kaighn, an attorney on the
State EIC committee and I carefully studied the bill. I interviewed by
Karen Osborn (Maricopa County elections director), Ann Rodriguez (Pima County),
other EI experts and advocates, and legislative liaisons representing key
stakeholders.
Quite frankly, his objection has all interviewed puzzled. The
language that concerns him codifies existing practice.
ARS
16-545(b) requires that the elections department(s) have the early ballots in
their possession 33 days prior to the election. The specific
language is “not
later than the thirtieth day proceeding the Saturday before the election. As a practical matter
since the ballots are received on a Saturday, it is virtually impossible to
mail them out before the following Monday. Current law, ARS 16-542
provides that the elections department must “mail
. . . . the early ballot
and the envelope for its return within five days after receipt of the official
early ballots from the officer charged by law with the duty of preparing
ballots pursuant to section 16-545.” Consequently, current law already seems to have the
exact limitation that is causing consternation over SB 1053.
Our finding is that ballots are mailed out 33 days ahead of
time. I understand that opponents are claiming that the new language
leaves open the possibility that an election director or recorder might,
intentionally hold the ballots for 5 days beyond the statutory 33 day date of
release of EV. They could do this under existing law, and it simply has
not happened. The EV mailing is so large and the storage space so limited
that everything ready to be mailed gets shoved out door.
This episode is straining Party relations with election
directors and recorders. To suggest that this “may
happen” borders on impugning their reputations. Without
evidence to the contrary – and none has been forthcoming – this is
political paranoia.
I see both political and election integrity risks in a
proposed veto.
Politically, the objection makes even less sense.
Historically early voting favors Republican voters, so the hypothetical delay
would harm Republicans, not Democrats? If there is evidence supporting
this claim, then it is time to roll it out rather than risk embarrassing the
Governor and the Party. Democratic efforts to change elections law
should be driven realistic risk assessments, not a silly hypothetical.Such
misplaced claims are comparable to the Republican claims that voter ID
laws were needed to prevent “illegal aliens” from
voting.
And there is another major political risk. SB1053 now
incorporates language from a dead bill (SB1211) correcting (conforming)
critical changes in election timing. As the Primary date was rolled
forward, someone forgot to include the cities/town elections in the statutory
changes. If SB1053 is vetoed, some city elections will take place one
week after the state elections. This is a real, not
hypothetical, threat to statewide election integrity, since two elections
will be taking place at nearly the same time.
Could SB1053 be modified to satisfy its critics? I
attempted, and failed, to bring new language back to the Sponsor to change the
segment. The Republican Sponsor will not agree to modify the
bill… the Sponsor claims it is a good bill and she should sign it. The
Republics know that a veto will harm the Party and the Governor. A
veto hands the initiative on election integrity protection over to the
Republicans – who will rightly claim that they voted for the reforms and
the Dems shot them down. A veto will create chaos in the city elections
– and this will not only reduce voter turnout, but the blame will be
traced right back to the veto. Guess who gets blamed for the low turnout
and confusion?
And a veto gives the Republicans the option of
attempting an override when members may not feel like falling on their swords
over such a unintelligible issue – and sharing the blame with the
Governor. And at least one Democratic has agreed to vote for a veto
override, if it comes back to the legislature. In an election year, how
many Dems are ready to fall on their swords and vote against election
integrity, against the cities and counties, against the election directors and
against the recorders and against reasoned arguments? Or, the Republican
leadership may decide not to vote on an override – allowing the issue to
fester and surface again as the public became aware that costly and confusing
cities elections were being held one week after state elections.
Given the unsubstantial nature of the reasons for a veto
compared to the power of the bill, what is going on? I don’t know.
Is someone sticking their foot from the sidelines is trying to trip us
up? Or are Democrats just tripping on their own shoelaces? Udall may have
been wrong when he said Democrats form a firing squad in a circle. With due
respect to Mo, I believe that sometimes we can’t even form a circle.
I stand firm in my opposition to a veto – on the basis
of good governance, accountability and transparency.
I need help. Encourage passage of SB1053 – up for
Final Read among all members of the legislature – Democrat or
Republican. And please ask the Governor to sign the bill.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.