State GOP audit finds irregularities, not illegalities in 2018 general election

Recorder Fontes has publicly stated that he opened the Tolleson location at the request of  Supervisor Gallardo and Tolleson Mayor Anna Tovar.   The Recorder has also stated that, “If it was up to me and I had enough people available, we would’ve had all 40 of the vote centers open all weekend long.”

What is known about the locations of the emergency voting locations is the partisan makeup of the five encompassing precincts:

  • Avondale City Hall is in precinct 282. There, Republicans make up 16.39% of the registered voters and Democrats make up 42.29%. The Avondale City Hall location is in Legislative District 19, which is represented by two Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives (Diego Espinoza and Lorenzo Sierra) and by Democratic Arizona state senator Lupe Contreras.
  • The Indian Bend Wash precinct consists of 31.82% registered Republicans and 77% registered Democrats. It is in Legislative District 23, which is represented by three Republicans in the state legislature (John Kavanagh, Jay Lawrence, and Michelle Ugenti-Rita).
  • The voting registration of the MCTEC Elections Department precinct is 27% Republican and 49.66% Democrat; MCTEC is located in Legislative District 27 which is represented by three Democrats (Reginald Bolding, Jr., Diego Rodriguez, and Rebecca Rios)
  • The Mesa Recorder’s Office is located in precinct 381, which is 21.85% Republican and 36.42% Democrat. The Legislative District 26, is represented by three Democrats (Isela Blanc, Athena Salman, and Juan Mendez).
  • The Tolleson location is in precinct 670 and is 11.40% registered Republican and 67% registered Democrat voters. Legislative District 19 is represented by three Democrats (Diego Espinoza, Lorenzo Sierra, and Lupe Contreras).

All five locations are in precincts with more registered Democrats than Republicans; four of the five overwhelmingly favor Democrats. Given the partisan imbalance of these locations, and given that the Recorder’s Office has not produced any documents or interview responses that offer a non-partisan reason for selecting the locations of the emergency voting centers, this Review preliminarily concludes that it is plausible that Recorder Fontes located these emergency voting centers in a partisan manner.

1C. Emergency Nature of the Emergency Voting Centers 

Section 16-542(H) of the Arizona Revised Statutes defines “emergency” as “any unforeseen circumstances that would prevent the elector from voting at the polls.” No case law exists that provides considerable additional detail to this definition. Arizona Recorders from other, non-Maricopa counties have interpreted this statute to require different things of emergency voters. Pima County noted clearly on its website that voting in the three days before Election Day was meant for voters with emergencies only. Pima County also placed physical signs to this effect at the emergency voting locations, and employees of the Recorder’s Office were trained to ask voters if they were there for emergency voting purposes.   The Recorder’s Office of Yavapai County was not open during the weekend before Election Day. However, the Yavapai County Recorder’s Office sent bipartisan teams to voters in places like hospitals to people who had emergency incidents and could not vote on Election Day.

During Helen Purcell’s time as Recorder of Maricopa County, the County required emergency voters to sign an affidavit attesting to their emergency. According to Purcell, she even turned away U.S. Representative J.D. Hayworth when he tried to emergency vote on the weekend before Election Day owing to his need to be in Washington D.C. for Congressional duties on Election Day. Purcell told him that he easily could have foreseen this scheduling conflict and voted according to early voting procedures and that his reasoning did not constitute an emergency. Purcell cited instances in which her Office allowed first responders to emergency vote before being deployed as examples of emergencies.

Neither the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office nor Recorder Fontes has responded to the public record requests and interview requests made pursuant to this Review on the topic of how the Recorder’s Office ensured that the voting on Saturday, November 3 and Monday, November 5 was limited to voters with emergencies. However, the Recorder did make multiple public statements regarding the purpose of the emergency voting centers and his obligation to verify the voter’s emergency:

  • “The intent of the [emergency voting] law is to make sure people who want to vote can All I’m trying to do is let people vote.”
  • “It’s not my business what your emergency is . . . I’ve got HIPPA laws that prevent me from asking. You’ve got your privacy that I have to respect”
  • “Still need to vote, but know you won’t be able to make it to the polls on Election Day? You can vote either Saturday and Monday at our Emergency Vote Centers.”
  • “Voters can decide if their situation qualifies as an emergency.” (This tweet has since been deleted, but a screenshot image is included in this Review).

As a result of Recorder Fontes’s comments, The Arizona Republic wrote in an article titled “Early voting locations: Vote Monday if you can’t make it on Election Day” that “[t]hough the vote centers are dubbed ‘emergency,’ the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office doesn’t define emergency and will serve anyone who shows up and is registered to vote.”    Another article for The Arizona Republic observed that “Phoenix resident Taiwah Vincent voted at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Elections Department in downtown Phoenix. She had already been downtown running errands, so it was convenient to drop by and vote.” And a 12 News headline read: “Busy on Election Day? You can vote today at these emergency polling locations.”

The resulting impression that emergency voting centers were open to voters possibly unavailable on Election Day, but requiring no further proof or testimony of an emergency, is a significant departure from emergency voting process under Recorder Purcell. Additionally, it could be convincingly argued that this is an inappropriate departure from the meaning of emergency as codified in Arizona statutes and as intended by the enacting legislature. However, the statute defining emergency is broad, and neither the statute nor the 2014 Elections Procedures Manual requires that Recorders take specific steps to ascertain the voter’s emergency.

1D. Coordination with Sinema Campaign

 The most serious allegation regarding the Recorder’s Office and the emergency voting center is the allegation that the Recorder’s Office coordinated the location and timing of the centers with the Kyrsten Sinema campaign for U.S. Senate. According to multiple people involved with campaigns in the November election, and public statements made from elected officials such as Republican John Kavanagh, the Sinema campaign arranged for a flyer-drop in the areas surrounding the emergency voting centers immediately prior to the opening of the centers. Such a flyer-drop could suggest that the Sinema campaign knew about the location of the emergency voting centers prior to their public announcement. A former staff member of the Martha McSally campaign did not comment on the allegation that the Recorder’s Office coordinated with the Sinema campaign, but did note that the McSally campaign was unaware of the expansion of emergency voting prior to the Recorder’s public announcement.

About ADI Staff Reporter 12171 Articles
Under the leadership of Editor-in -Chief Huey Freeman, our team of staff reporters bring accurate,timely, and complete news coverage.