A conservative grassroots organization has sent letters to election officials in every “major jurisdiction” asking what measures are being taken to ensure the security of Arizona’s ballot boxes and calling for the right to monitor those boxes during the general presidential election.
According to reporting by the Arizona Republic, one of these letters was received by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on Aug. 15, just days after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that Fontes had overstepped when crafting the Elections Procedure Manual.
All eyes are on Arizona as it will be a crucial swing state in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The court case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Adrian Fontes, was brought to court by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Yuma resident Philip Townsend and the America First Policy Institute, where they jointly claimed that Fontes violated First Amendment rights when setting limitations on what actions and behavior are allowed outside and in a polling place.
“The Court is troubled by section III, ‘preserving order and security at the voting location,’” reads the court order. “From pages 180 to 183, the EPM contains what this Court finds to be speech restrictions in violation of our Arizona Constitution, misstates or modifies our statutes, and fails to identify any distinction between guidance and legal mandates.”
While supporters said the EPM provisions ensured the safety and security of Arizona elections, the court has ruled it unlawful and no prosecution can befall anyone who violates this portion of the EPM.
“What, for example, constitutes a person communicating about voter fraud in a harassing manner? Or, for that matter, ‘posting’ a sign in an intimidating manner? How does a person either do this behavior – whatever it means – or avoid it? And what content printed on a t-shirt might be offensive or harassing to one and not another? What if the t-shirt says, ‘I have a bomb and I intend to vote!’? Where does the Secretary draw the line?”
The repeal of this part of the EPM would make it illegal to prosecute CPAC individuals from monitoring ballot boxes.
“It is our intention to place monitors near a selection of drop boxes in select counties across Arizona,” reads the letter from CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp. “We also are considering using open-source information to identify those who are not eligible to vote.”
In an opinion written by Schlapp on Aug. 30, he said this choice was made to “ensure that drop box observation activities are performed in such a way as to renew public confidence in fair, free and transparent elections.”
“We have identified unmonitored boxes as one area that undermined people’s faith in fair elections,” reads an Aug. 22 statement from Schlapp on X. “Hence, we have been planning on a program like this for an extended period of time for states that have failed to establish robust protocols for monitoring drop boxes.”
Sen. Priya Sundareshan and Sen. Anna Hernandez said in a joint statement on Aug. 29 that they are concerned that CPAC and other GOP allies will use this ability to harass and intimidate those using ballot drop boxes.
“Once again, Republicans are brazen enough to write down their radical plans to attack our democracy,” reads the statement. “First, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announces its plan to recruit 100,000 people to ‘monitor’ early and election day voting. Then, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) emailed Arizona elections officials their plan to watch and film voters as they lawfully drop off their early ballot.”
Additionally, they note the time that a judge ordered a group in 2022 from taking photos and filming voters within 75 feet of a ballot box and posting them online.
“Now, CPAC, by their own admission, is promising cameras and video equipment to film voters in ‘a selection of drop boxes in select counties’ based on repeatedly debunked claims of voter fraud,” reads the statement. “These groups’ coordinated plans will subject voters to intimidation based entirely off of what ‘observers’ think looks ‘suspicious.’ Since 2020, we’ve seen more debunked claims of voter fraud and illegal ballot collection than we count, and yet no evidence was ever provided.”
The statement also says that although the court ruled that the EPM rules prohibiting voter intimidation are void, voter intimidation is still a crime and wants to remind voters ahead of the presidential election that they have a fundamental right to vote without being intimidated or harassed.
