Appeals Court Deliberates on Controversial Elections Manual Amid Political Tensions

The Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has entered a contentious phase following a recent ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals. This decision demands that the EPM adhere to the Arizona Administrative Procedures Act (APA), imposing strict regulations on how public agencies establish rules. The challenge now is whether the EPM can create guidelines under these new constraints.

Historically, the justification behind the EPM’s creation and revisions has been somewhat ambiguous. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes argues that aligning the EPM with the APA, which requires public notice, a minimum of 30 days for public comment, and the option for oral proceedings, is “impossible” due to existing deadlines.

The Republican Party of Arizona and the Republican National Committee, however, emphasize the necessity of complying with the APA. They believe that adherence to these procedures is crucial to ensure transparency and inclusiveness in a document that carries legal weight.

As a new draft for 2025 emerges amidst ongoing litigation, stakeholders reflect on the EPM’s historical significance. Established in 1966 primarily to guide electronic voting systems, the manual was later transformed into a comprehensive set of election procedures backed by the governor and attorney general. The 1973 amendment granted it the force of law, carrying penalties for violations.

The manual’s evolution has been marked by changes in political control and public engagement. Over the past quarter-century, various secretaries of state have approached the EPM differently. For instance, Jan Brewer, who served from 2003 to 2009, issued three updates, focused mainly on input from county officials, and noted minimal public interest at that time.

Ken Bennett, Brewer’s successor, bucked this trend by inviting wider participation from political parties and advocacy groups. His approach was designed to mitigate the feeling of exclusion that had characterized previous processes. Despite initial skepticism from his staff, he found that stakeholders were eager to contribute.

Recent administrations have faced challenges with the EPM. Michele Reagan, who took office in 2015, controversially skipped updating the manual in 2016, claiming the statute required updates only when necessary. This decision drew backlash and resulted in legislative changes mandating timely submissions of a draft and final manual by specific dates.

Fontes has since worked to establish a revised EPM, but a series of legal disputes followed the release of the 2023 manual. The Arizona Court of Appeals’ ruling that Fontes did not adequately comply with APA requirements jeopardizes the validity of the manual. This situation raises the stakes for both compliance and the integrity of Arizona’s election procedures.

Looking ahead, discussions are anticipated regarding potential legislative measures to exempt the EPM from APA requirements. As the office gears up for the next draft, the need for transparency and collaboration in shaping the manual is increasingly emphasized by political figures like Bennett. “Stay in your lane,” he advises, urging a focus on detail and adherence to state laws rather than creating new ones.