Yellow Mail-in Ballot Violates Voters’ Right to Privacy

I am concerned with the single-envelope mail-in ballot recently adopted by Pima County Recorder, Gabriella Cazares-Kelly. This design, which puts a voter’s name, address, phone number and signature all in plain view in one location on the outside of the return envelope, is a dangerous violation of voters’ privacy. It made me think: what do I need to do now to protect my personal information when voting? Is it even possible?

From informal discussions with friends, on a Democrat-oriented chat group, and with acquaintances, I learned that my reaction is shared by many. True, there are also those with a fatalistic attitude, along the lines of “they’ve already got all our information anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.” While I acknowledge the possibility that that statement is true, I do not think it is sufficient justification for creating a new barrier to mail-in voting.

Envelope suppresses voting

Voter suppression is the creation of barriers that discourage citizens from voting. I maintain that this change of envelope design that causes people to think about whether their personal information is safe before casting a ballot is voter suppression. It may be an indiscriminate form that does not favor a particular party, but a step in the voting process that makes a voter have to rationalize their response or take evasive action does create a barrier to voting.

Here is the example that concerns me most: seniors who have limited or no transportation. If they no longer feel it is safe to mail their ballots, they must arrange transportation to either drop off their completed ballot or vote at the polls. Alternatively, not everyone will have a qualified person who can drop off a ballot on their behalf without violating the ballot-harvesting law.

Will such fearful and transportation-challenged people make the extra effort to vote, or will they just say, “screw it”?

This scenario is not fanciful. When I expressed my concern in the above-mentioned chat, another participant who lives at The Forum, a senior housing development, said that two fellow residents had already raised concerns about the ballot envelope with her.

She said she should probably contact residence management about arranging van transportation to address the problem. Even if The Forum implements this, is that solution feasible or likely for all the other similarly challenged voters? Emphatically, no.

The Pima County Recorder issued a statement on July 21, 2025, entitled “One-envelope ballot-return solution aims to reduce voter confusion.” The statement details problems encountered with the prior two-envelope system, including specific numbers and examples. Yet, when discussing the initial use of the new system in the CD7 congressional special election, the statement concludes, “Pima County voters have embraced the change, and the number of ballots returned has been what we expected for a special election.”

At best, this statement, without supporting data, may be characterized as casual. At worst, it is flippant, being equivalent to “good enough for government work.”

Statistical analysis needed

Given the extremely tight outcomes we have seen in some races recently, for Arizona Attorney General, for example, I think voters are entitled to a much better accounting of the impact of the envelope change than the Recorder’s statement provides.

I challenge the Recorder to conduct a serious statistical analysis of voting metrics to reveal the impact of the envelope change, going back at least to 2024 and continuing through each election since, and to announce the detailed results prominently to the public. I am not a statistician, but below are a few things that I think need to be examined. A professional may come up with more. I refer to percentages, but I believe the corresponding ballot amounts should accompany each percentage.

• Changes in the percentage of mail-in ballots returned by mail.
• Changes in the percentage of mail-in ballots returned by drop-box.
• Changes in the percentage of mail-in ballots dropped off on election day.
• Changes in the overall percentage of mail-in ballots returned.
• Changes in the instances of signatures and/or phone numbers not being filled in.

I also believe that changes in claimed ballot-processing efficiencies and cost savings should be quantified as specifically as possible and published.

I further challenge the Recorder to launch a publicity campaign promptly to help voters overcome initial negative reactions to the new format and clearly outline their options for protecting their personal information. This campaign should run continuously from now through the mid-term election, after which a clearer understanding of the envelope change’s impact should be possible.