2024 Elections: Legal Battles Shift Focus from Results to Administration

The 2024 election cycle has ushered in a significant rise in election-related litigation, shifting focus from individual race disputes to broader issues concerning election administration. Legal challenges that began in 2022 have persisted, creating a complex environment heading into the next electoral year and possibly beyond.

Andrew Gould, an election attorney, notes the trend of increased litigation over time. “I don’t see that changing in 2025,” he stated, highlighting a potential lack of a downturn in legal challenges surrounding elections. Notably, many cases may carry over into 2026, particularly with a new Elections Procedures Manual on the horizon.

In early 2024, legal scrutiny on the 2022 election continued, as various groups including the Legislature, the Republican National Committee, and the Arizona Republican Party raised their own challenges to the Elections Procedure Manual. This set a precedent for a slew of lawsuits related to ballot initiatives and other electoral processes.

Despite the whirlwind of pre-election litigation, challenges to actual election results were notably subdued this year. “This year, the margins just weren’t close,” Gould explained. He suggested that a shift towards larger electoral victories could reduce the appetite for challenges, as a narrow win tends to invite scrutiny.

The litigation landscape has transformed, with more focus on the administrative aspects of elections rather than disputes over individual candidates. This trend, Gould suggests, is likely to continue as stakeholders seek clarity about the rules that govern the electoral process.

Next year, challenges to the Elections Procedure Manual will remain in play, given the Secretary of State’s Office’s obligation to revise the manual. A draft is expected to be submitted to Attorney General Kris Mayes and Governor Katie Hobbs by October 1.

Recently, a Superior Court ruling addressed legislative challenges to the manual, invalidating certain provisions regarding voter registration status updates. The court insisted on allowing adequate procedures for election canvassing, ensuring no votes were omitted from statewide counts.

In September, significant legal setbacks for the manual occurred when both a federal judge and a Court of Appeals judge blocked specific provisions concerning definitions of voter harassment, as well as the Secretary of State’s ability to certify elections without non-compliant counties.

Outstanding issues include responsibilities of election recorders, particularly concerning the management of ineligible voters on registration rolls. Gould anticipates that as awareness of legal precedents grows, challenges will emerge earlier in the electoral cycle, circumventing potential dismissals tied to timing issues.