Cochise County Supervisors Consider Election Law Boundaries

When the Cochise County supervisors gathered to discuss the upcoming August election, they were acutely aware of past attempts by county leaders to push the limits of state law.

This rural area in Arizona, situated along the Mexican border, saw two Republicans on the Board of Supervisors previously attempt to discard the election machines during the 2022 midterm elections. Their plan was halted by a judge, who ultimately required them to confirm the county’s election outcome under scrutiny.

Supervisor Tom Crosby, re-elected last year, is currently awaiting trial for charges linked to his actions during that election cycle. The two newly-elected Republican supervisors are well aware of his situation. They know just how critical it is to adhere to election rules, as highlighted by warnings from the Secretary of State.

Despite this, during a meeting on August 5, Supervisor Frank Antenori expressed a desire to revisit the state’s laws, questioning whether the board was indeed required to use machines for vote counting. The county manager, Kathleen Gomez, mentioned that if Antenori had been in office during 2024, he would have opted not to certify the election results due to prior vote-counting issues.

“I think we need to pursue this in court,” Antenori remarked regarding the supervisors’ obligation to validate the election outcome. “We must make a point to challenge this again, or we should push for Congress to amend the law.”

With another midterm election on the horizon, it appears the supervisors are ready to once again test the constraints of state election laws designed to secure accurate, safe, and timely voting results. Research has shown that hand-counting votes is less reliable and more time-consuming. Missing certification deadlines could disrupt the transfer of power from local agencies to federal entities.

Even though claims of election fraud have diminished in Arizona since Donald Trump’s victory in the previous presidential election, ongoing conversations among supervisors hint at the lasting effects of those claims on future elections, likely extending to 2026 and beyond.

Adrian Fonz, the Democratic Secretary of State, was invited to the August meeting but chose not to attend after noticing a participant who had previously encouraged supervisors to block election certification. According to public records obtained from LoteBeat, following the meeting, his communications director stated that no discussions occurred regarding the issues he was raising with the supervisors. He emphasized that repeatedly questioning Arizona’s validated election system would likely undermine public trust rather than resolve genuine concerns.

Image of Duplicated Concerns

Antenori’s goal for the August meeting, as expressed in an invitation extended to Fonz, was to “evaluate proper processes to guarantee transparency, enhance voter confidence, and verify the machine’s integrity.”

Another speaker, Paul Rice, a Phoenix resident lacking formal election experience, had previously challenged the use of state voting machines. Since 2022, he has lobbied supervisors to eliminate voting machines altogether.

His main argument centers on the claim that laboratories that accredited the state’s voting system prior to the 2022 elections were not properly accredited. Crosby and former manager Peggy Judd had supported Rice’s position regarding certification.

At that time, then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs provided supervisors with clarification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, explaining that the laboratory was correctly accredited. However, the board still postponed the vote and sought to hear directly from both Rice and Hobbs, which ultimately did not occur, leading to the judge demanding proof before the state-imposed deadline.

Rice accepted the invitation to the August meeting and spoke extensively without any counterarguments from the county attorney’s office. He reiterated his assertions about lab certification, arguing that he did not believe the county was obligated to use the machines and claimed that certification laws were vague.

He insisted that while state law requires supervisors to “canvas” results, the expectation to “certify” them was unclear. In his view, “canvas” only meant reviewing vote totals.

When responding to Rice’s assertions, Fonz’s spokesperson, Thacker, pointed to state law penalties indicating that electronic aggregation equipment is necessary for counting ballots. Thacker emphasized that the court had clarified that hand counts permitted under state law should only occur during post-election audits of a limited number of votes.

Rice’s claims regarding canvas and certification were disputed by Thacker, who stated that these assertions were merely semantic, asserting that the process of canvas is, in fact, an act of verification.

Ali Morse, a Cochise County resident who opposed the supervisors’ actions in 2022, mentioned feeling a sense of déjà vu while listening to Rice’s presentation.

“It appeared that the board’s session was an attempt to reiterate the questionable explanations that led to Crosby’s illegal refusal to conduct a proper canvas during the 2022 election,” Morse noted in a letter to local editors.

Jenny Guzman, program director for Common Cause, warned that misinformation shared at the meeting was alarming.

“It’s crucial for public officials, particularly county supervisors, to be accurate in their communications with voters,” Guzman said. “They serve as the primary link to the community.”

Supervisors at a Crossroads

The recent discussions are part of a broader effort by new supervisors to address concerns regarding election integrity.

In a conversation earlier this year, supervisors expressed a goal of transitioning back to precinct-style voting, which would mean allowing voters to only cast ballots within their precincts rather than anywhere in the county.

Antenori emphasized the need for proactive legal strategies to ensure they wouldn’t face issues as they prepared for the upcoming election. “Otherwise, it feels like we’re digging our own graves,” he said.

After this discussion, Fonz sent a letter to the supervisors warning that any hand counting outside of a prescribed review would create numerous logistical challenges.

Despite his earlier intentions to do away with voting machines, the county ultimately invested $308,000 in two new high-speed counting machines. During an earlier meeting, Antenori reiterated his desire to test the election laws in court ahead of the election.

Gomez expressed her intent to eliminate the machines, stressing the belief that state law mandates their usage. In a recent interview, she pointed out that although machine malfunctions during the 2024 election didn’t alter results, they did result in significant delays in the counting process, complicating the certification of the election.

During an April gathering, she urged the public to be patient as supervisors worked through these issues, mentioning the legal ramifications of ignoring the law and suggesting that failure to comply might lead to severe consequences.

These discussions occur amid accusations against Crosby, who has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy-related charges concerning election officials. Awaiting trial, he has requested the county to cover about $300,000 in legal fees, which was initially submitted to the insurance pool representing the state’s counties. However, the pool recently denied the claim, stating it does not cover costs from fraud or other criminal activities.

In private meetings last week, supervisors explored their next steps amid these ongoing challenges.