Judge sides with Pinal County over Fontes in fight about precinct-based voting system

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cannot force counties to let voters cast ballots at any polling place without permission from the county board of supervisors.

In Arizona, most county boards have voted to adopt a vote center model, which allows residents to cast ballots at any voting location throughout the county.

But Pinal County still uses a precinct-based system that requires voters to show up at their assigned polling place.

In an order issued Friday, Judge Scott Blaney wrote that only the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, not Fontes, can change that.

The order stemmed from a case the Pinal County board filed against Fontes, challenging a part of Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual, a detailed rulebook for election officials giving them guidance on how to comply with state law.

Pinal County challenged a section that requires counties with precinct voting to let voters who show up to the wrong polling place to vote anyway using an accessible voting device, machines designed to help voters with disabilities cast their ballots.

That requirement would force Pinal County to upload every potential ballot style onto accessible voting machines at every polling place. That’s because voters in different precincts could have different ballots depending on the school district, local government and other races taking place in their communities.

“If the voter declines or is unable to travel to the voter’s assigned polling place, permit the voter to vote a provisional ballot in the correct ballot style for the voter’s assigned precinct using an accessible voting device that is programmed to contain all ballot styles,” according to the manual, which was drafted by Fontes and signed off on by Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes.

In a social media post, Fontes said he was trying to ensure access for voters with disabilities, by giving them the opportunity to cast ballots at any polling place.

“So, where we were trying to help voters with disabilities just go to whatever polling place they can get to the easiest and cast a ballot from anywhere in their county, these folks want everyone to go to only their own assigned precinct,” Fontes said.

And he argued most counties are already doing this anyway.

“We have the equipment. We have the technology. And 14 out of 15 counties, starting with Yavapai County in 2012, use the method that we were promoting to help all these voters,” Fontes said.

But Blaney found that provision violated the law, because it essentially forced Pinal County to adopt a voting center model by allowing out-of-precinct voters to visit any polling place and have their vote counted.

The law only allows boards of supervisors to decide to adopt a vote center model, he found.

“The Secretary cannot accomplish indirectly what he is not permitted to do directly,” Blaney wrote.

The judge found the rule also put an undue burden on local election officials in Pinal County by forcing them to spend time uploading all ballot types onto machines, retraining workers and processing more “provisional” ballots — or ballots cast outside the voter’s precinct that must be verified before they are counted.

Blaney also argued that the rule could actually disenfranchise disabled voters in Pinal County by creating longer lines for accessible voting devices at some polling places, pointing out the manual requires counties to let all out of precinct voters — not just those with disabilities — use the accessible machines.

“Even if disabled voters are not disenfranchised, these voters justifiably express frustration when non-disabled individuals use devices … that are specifically designed for disabled persons,” he wrote.

Pinal County officials praised the ruling, saying it reaffirmed that counties have control over their own election systems.

“This is a matter of principle. Pinal County has always utilized the precinct-based voting model, and our voters tell us they want to keep it that way, primarily for reasons of security and control,” Jeffrey McClure, chairman of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement.

Fontes claimed “the court sided with conspiracy theorists” and accused the Pinal County Board of sticking with precinct-only voting due “some weird political motivations,” though he did not elaborate on either of those claims.

Pinal County has faced several well-documented election issues in recent years, including running out of ballots at multiple polling places in the 2022 primary. Those problems then fed into unfounded conspiracy theories claiming widespread fraud has impacted Arizona’s elections.

But Dana Lewis, the Pinal County recorder, reiterated that the court case — and Blaney’s decision — are about local control.

“The Maricopa County Superior Court made it clear, the Constitution and state law cannot be overridden by an elected Secretary of State attempting to usurp the authority of locally elected Boards of Supervisors in determining how elections will be managed,” she said in a statement.