Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, granted Votebeat an interview about the state’s 2024 election just before he met with Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes on Nov. 25 to certify the results.
His answers have been edited for clarity and length.
Q: So how did it go?
A: The election went very, very well. I think the voters know that, because they’re not paying much attention anymore. So, no controversies to speak of. Basically, we had some of the same concerns that every election has: a little hiccup here, a minor hiccup there, very localized in some of the counties. Other than that, statewide, we did really well, and I think our preparations paid off.
Q: Where’s the protest this time around? Where are the accusations of fraud?
A: Well, there are none, because election denialism is, I think, officially dead. We’ve shown that using the same systems, the same technology, the same people, in the same state, even with the same candidates, the voters can make a different pick. And that’s just where we’re at. So I think the movement of election denialism is going to be pretty desperate to find any more gas in their tank.
Q: Is it because Trump won?
A: It might be. But even if we had the same kinds of questions [about the integrity of the election], I think they’d [have] the same lack of evidence. Because none of the questions that have been asked before had any evidence behind them. None of the allegations of fraud before had any evidence behind them. So, I guess you can say Arizona’s election systems stand vindicated. Again.
Q: We saw delays in processing [cast ballots] because of the two-card ballot. Do you think that counties sufficiently staffed for that, or did they not think ahead on that point?
A: I think you can make the argument that a lot more resources could have been spent, earlier on, to clear any of the backlog from early voting. But at the end of the day, the counties really only have so many resources, and they knew that there was going to be a big crush at, and after, Election Day. So maybe they didn’t anticipate that they might need more folks earlier, but maybe they didn’t have the resources. And to be honest, election budgets are set well before the election, and these budgets were set well before we knew there were going to be two cards on the ballot.
Q: In Yuma, did you end up sending staff to help there? I know that their crunch had a lot to do with resources, people, space.
A: Yeah, same thing in Apache County. I had staff in Apache County. I had five of my staffers up there for like a week, some longer, just because they didn’t have the resources. But that doesn’t necessarily have to do with planning. It just has to do with the fact that some of these counties are so woefully underfunded by the state government, and none of us have any sustained federal funding.
And let’s not forget: These are federal elections, too, as I’ve been, you know, pounding on the lectern on Capitol Hill several times. You’ve got federal elections, with federal candidates, under federal rules, and no sustained federal funding. It is an unfunded mandate, and we have to fix it at the federal and the state level to get the counties to do their jobs.
Q: But isn’t it also on the state and the counties to fund it better?
A: Oh, 100%. I mean, let’s look at the presidential preference election, for example. The state government doesn’t fully reimburse the counties for this mandatory, party-exclusive exercise. The parties can choose whether or not to participate. It’s up to them. The taxpayers have to pay for it, but the counties have to absorb half the cost, which is unreasonable, and it’s unrealistic. And until we get that dollar amount, which is fixed in statute, changed, we’re going to continue to have this problem.
Q: So will you be asking for that this upcoming legislative session?
We’ve got a laundry list of things we’re going to be asking for this session, and a lot of it has to do with helping the counties do their jobs better. I’m also happily having conversations with members of the Legislature to figure out ways that we can do it quicker as well.
Q: Do you think that all the commotion about the delayed results is justified? Do you want faster results here?
A: I don’t personally think we need faster results, but this is a democracy and I’m not the only one who gets to decide. A lot of people want faster results, and I think we can find solutions. But we do have to work together, and I’m more than happy to do that. I’ve already had conversations with several lawmakers. My role in this conversation will really be as technical adviser. We want to make sure that we’re not sacrificing accuracy, or access, just to get quicker results.
Q: But on access, a big part of that is limiting the early voting [ballot] dropoffs to the Friday before, or some point before, Election Day. Do you support that part?
A: Not without an alternative. Not without the capacity for the ballot to be processed, one way or another. I think it’s wrongheaded to reduce that access, that last couple of days worth of access for voters, just to get faster results. So, again, if it limits access or limits accuracy, I’m going to be against that solution. But if we can find workarounds and fund them, then of course I’m going to be in support.
Q: Some of the quickness of the results, though, in the smaller counties has to do with staffing … or other mechanical things. So shouldn’t counties be taking a look at that, too, to improve the speed?
A: I spoke with one of the lawmakers who’s responsible for purse strings. I’ll just characterize it that way. And I said, look, you know, only a couple of our counties tabulate on site — the vast majority do central tabulation — so you’re talking about purchasing an enormous amount of equipment and the training and the staffing that goes along with them, not to mention the maintenance and insurance and storage costs when you’re not in the middle of your election cycle. These are considerations that folks like me, in my office, will be able to bring to the conversation.
Q: Another thing that came up on Election Day was the bomb threats. Can you talk about what it was like hearing about that the first time?
A: Well, unfortunately, this office has been dealing with threats for years, and we have a pretty strict protocol and a pathway for that information to flow internally. We trained really well with all of our counties on how to approach this type of information, and the result was a very smooth flow of information back and forth between law enforcement and elections officials in our office and law enforcement at the federal, state, and local level. So I think we dealt with it about as well as one could. And the good thing is, because of that clear communication and the preparation, it didn’t expose us to any real delays in voting.
Q: What are you taking away from this election? What are you thinking about going into the next cycle?
A: I think we can fine-tune the preparation that we engaged in. I’m also very grateful for my experience at the county. We have a team here, as you know, that has a whole bunch of former elections officials in it, and I think that’s the first time in a couple generations that this office has been as prepared because of that experience. … And I feel really, really good about that. So is there some fine-tuning that we can do? Yes. Can we lend some support to help some of the counties move other things in different directions? Absolutely.
Q: But there were a few small mistakes and especially by some of the newer administrators. Do you think you did lend enough support from this office to make sure that they were ready to go?
A: There were several examples where we felt like some of the newer folks had a little bit of bumps in the road, where they may not have followed the processes that we were recommending. But we don’t dictate what happens in the counties. All we can do is lend a hand, lend support, and lend the best training that we can, and we did all of that.
Q: All right, switching gears a little bit, in the Washington Post, there is a story saying that the [Department of Justice] might, once Trump is in office, investigate, look back at the 2020 election. What’s your thought on that?
A: I mean, when it comes down to it, we know that there’s never been a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing in 2020. That would be, what do you call it? Spoiled grapes? …There’s no reason to look back at that stuff. We know that 2020 was great. And how do we know? Because 2022 and 2024 used essentially the same systems, fundamentally the same laws, and mostly the same people. And the voters had a different opinion in ‘20 than they did in ‘24. Big deal, right? We’ve got a lot of other issues in this country that we should be dealing with, and I think a look back that way would just be a waste of time and energy.
Q: I have to ask you about the governor’s race. Are you considering it, and is it because there’s something wrong right now?
Let’s make it clear. I was approached by folks who were making these suggestions, and I found it to be very complimentary. And you know, there’s never a reason to say no to the conversation. But I’m focused on being secretary of state, and serving where the Arizona voters have put me. And I’m excited about what the next couple of years hold here. … I’m happy with my team. I’m happy with our performance, and I’d like this to reflect a bit on how great of a job we’re doing now and not worry about the politics of tomorrow.
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.
