Merissa Hamilton, who runs the grassroots election integrity organization EZAZ, voiced her concerns last week about Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ proposed revisions to the state’s Election Procedures Manual (EPM),
As required by state law, the Arizona Secretary of State (AZSOS) is required to update the EPM every other year.
In her critique, Hamilton pointed out that only six comments existed in a document that is nearly 500 pages long.
“That’s impossible when there are at least 100 bad things in his EPM,” she said.
The 468-page draft proposed by Fontes included a summary of the changes, which Hamilton warned did not list very many of them. She said major problems include conflicts with state law, including outside the scope of what is allowed in the EPM or beyond the authority granted to him by the Arizona Legislature, and opens up opportunities for election fraud. Hamilton is recruiting volunteers to “audit the EPM.”
EPM FONTES FAIL – THIS ELECTION PROCEDURES MANUAL MUST BE REALLY BAD
The EPM is finally released, but Fontes shenanigans have already begun!
His public comment form only allows for 6 comments on a nearly 500-page document, with only 1,000 characters each.
The form asks… pic.twitter.com/fBkEanSS2G
— Merissa Hamilton
(@merissahamilton) August 1, 2025
Limiting the commenting process may violate the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (APA), found in A.R.S. Title 41, Ch. 6, by not providing a meaningful opportunity for public participation. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that Fontes broke the law with his proposed 2023 EPM by providing only a 15-day comment period. This restricts due process and free speech under the First Amendment by chilling detailed critiques.
A December 2024 decision issued by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney in the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes invalidated several provisions of the 2023 EPM issued by Fontes, finding that they exceeded the secretary’s statutory authority under Arizona law, primarily A.R.S. 16-452. That law authorizes the secretary to prescribe rules for election procedures but limits them to achieving uniformity, efficiency, and compliance with existing statutes. The club had alleged that the 2023 EPM improperly placed protected political speech at risk of criminal prosecution and had an unconstitutional chilling effect on it.
Fontes’ brief summary of the proposed changes may breach A.R.S. 16-452’s requirement for transparent, uniform rules; it could be seen as arbitrary rulemaking, inviting challenges under administrative law for lack of notice. The summary did not explain precisely what areas of the code were changed — there was no redlining or highlighting of the changes in the draft either — making it difficult for the public to spot the changes without going through redundant, unchanged text in the 468-page draft. The draft is 20 pages longer than the existing 2023 version.
A major change to the EPM raising concerns is described in the summary, “Primary, General, Federal Elections: Recorder’s Office/City Clerk must remain open weekend before and after election for signature cure unless they have no ballots to cure.”
Democrats previously challenged Arizona’s Election Day deadline for curing missing signatures, arguing it violated constitutional rights. The district court initially extended the deadline, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated it. U.S. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the court that “election officials in all counties would face some added administrative burden during a short period when officials are already busy tallying votes immediately following an election, in order to meet a deadline mandated by state law.”
Fontes could have addressed concerns about poorly filled out ballots and unmatching ballot affidavits by requiring better procedures to ensure that signatures match, but failed to. Election integrity group We the People AZ Alliance found that signature reviewers continued to compare signatures at rates as fast as one per second in the 2024 election, a practice rampant in the 2022 election.
Mandating weekend operations could be seen as imposing operational and financial burdens on counties (e.g., staffing costs for smaller rural offices) without statutory backing, as “business days” in A.R.S. 16-550 imply weekends are optional. The Arizona Court of Appeals struck down similar 2023 EPM provisions for overreach (e.g., canvass duties and intimidation rules) in Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes, ruling they add non-discretionary mandates absent legislative intent.
Another proposed change is described, “County Recorder, daily, provides political parties a list of missing or inconsistent signatures and conditional provisional ballots.” This has been a problem in Pima County, where the county recorder provided this information to only the Democratic Party. It occurred under then-Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez and was affirmed in a legal settlement. While the new revision purports to make the process easier for curing ballots available to all, there is concern that Democrats will abuse it.
Many of the election integrity changes were required due to new state laws, judicial rulings, and federal guidelines. They include allowing tabulation of early ballots at polling locations and segregating provisional ballots after a court order. The time to verify provisional ballots is reduced to five calendar days after a federal election and three business days for other elections. Counties must count the number of ballots dropped off early on Election Day and post the total to their website, with the last results posted on election night.
More revisions include clarifying that counties must post outstanding ballots to the AZSOS ballot progress portal starting the day after the election for tracking the estimated number left to process and tabulate. Other changes halt the practice of mailing ballots to inactive voters, and recorders must notify a voter if changes are made to the voter’s record.
Arizonans can comment on the proposed revisions on the portal before August 31 at 5 p.m. Fontes must submit the revisions to the attorney general by October 1 for approval.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on X/Twitter. Email tips to .
Photo “Adrian Fontes” by Arizona Secretary of State.
The post Election Integrity Expert Criticizes Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ New Draft of Election Procedures Manual first appeared on The Arizona Sun Times.