Ad hoc committee moves to replace signature checks with early-voter ID, sets instructions, tabulation and audit tasks

The Arizona Legislature’s ad hoc committee on election integrity and Florida-style voting systems reviewed public and county feedback and directed staff to amend a draft measure that would replace signature-verification of mail ballots with a unique early-voter identification number and related administrative changes.

The committee chair opened the meeting by thanking participants for input from the first hearing. "I really appreciate all of the feedback that we got at the first hearing," the chair said. The committee then reviewed page-by-page comments from county recorders and other stakeholders and discussed changes the sponsor wants included before the bill is posted for amendment.

Committee members and staff focused on several operational issues: how voters will obtain and use the early-voter ID number, whether entering that number can substitute for the usual affidavit signature, how counties would provide instructions and online portals, protections for the ID’s privacy on public records, a possible limitation of new requirements for smaller counties, and whether to require or fund on-site tabulation of ballots. "We're here broadly in support of the ideas about speeding up the efficiency of elections and adopting some of the ideas that have been, discussed," said Greg Blackie of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club during public testimony.

Nut graf: The changes the committee discussed could alter how mail and early ballots are verified, how quickly results are available, and what county election offices must provide. Committee members repeatedly balanced a desire for faster, more objective verification with concerns about access for voters who lack internet or easy access to identification documents and about costs and staffing for smaller counties.

Most significant points discussed

- Replace signature verification with an early-voter ID number: The sponsor confirmed the bill will remove the stray signature-verification language and use a numeric early-voter ID to verify ballots. Committee members asked staff to include explicit options in the bill language so the ID could be the new unique early-voter ID or, optionally, a voter’s driver’s license or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Greg Blackie told the committee that offering multiple options “would resolve some of the problems” for voters who prefer a readily available number.

- Voter instructions and access: Members directed staff to require counties to provide the early-voter ID to registrants in multiple ways—initial mailing with instructions, placement on or on the back of the voter ID card, and an online portal linked through county websites and the Secretary of State’s site. The committee discussed security and privacy trade-offs, noting that the registrant ID number is currently included on files sold to parties unless it’s placed in a nonpublic/redacted portion. A member noted the number could be made available on the card but kept off the publicly purchasable voter-roll extract.

- Ballot attestation and curing process: Members debated whether entering the ID number should substitute for a signed affidavit on the ballot envelope. Some members raised access concerns for voters who may not readily retrieve the ID number; others said the ID number could be treated as an attestation if the bill states that by entering it the voter affirms eligibility. The committee explicitly preserved the existing cure process for ballots that fail verification and discussed a separate proposal to let voters see their affidavit image during curing; the chair said that would be included only if there is bipartisan support.

- Same-day drop-offs and ID-verified on-site option: The sponsor said the bill will keep the timeline-bill provision allowing a voter who brings an early ballot to a voting site on election day to show ID in person so their ballot can be processed without numeric verification. That option was described as preserving voter choice while helping speed returns.

- On-site tabulation and county costs: Public testimony from Greg Blackie advocated for mandatory on-site tabulation to increase access, speed and security. County representatives warned that smaller counties previously opposed mandatory on-site tabulation because of fiscal and logistical burdens. Committee members directed staff to consult counties about whether an appropriation would be needed and, if so, what threshold (for example, counties over 500,000 registered voters) might apply for different requirements.

- Call-center hours and operational limits for small counties: A proposal to require call centers for all election offices to be open until 7 p.m. during voting and curing periods drew concern that small counties would struggle with staffing. The sponsor suggested limiting some operational requirements for larger counties, and asked staff to draft language that reflects different county capacities.

- AI-assisted verification and audits: Recorder Heap raised that AI could assist signature verification; committee members discussed allowing counties to use AI verification only with committee approval and with random manual audits and public hearings to maintain confidence. Members emphasized keeping the manual cure process for transposed or ambiguous entries.

Public testimony and county input

Greg Blackie, representing the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, supported the draft’s objective ID standards and proposed allowing drivers’ license numbers, last four of SSNs or a unique voter ID number as acceptable forms. He also advocated on-site tabulation as an access and security improvement.

Garrett Culver of the Pinal County Recorder’s office invited committee members to visit the county’s new elections facility and described it as “internationally recognized for being both so secure and transparent at the same time,” offering to brief the committee on administration differences between large and smaller counties.

Next steps and action items

Committee members set an internal deadline for draft amendments and assigned tasks to staff. The chair asked for the instruction language to be drafted and delivered to staff by Monday at noon; the formal amendment posting deadline was stated as Tuesday at noon. Staff (Joel) was asked to coordinate with county recorders on appropriate language for cyclical address verification, online portal feasibility, and possible cost/appropriation language for on-site tabulation.

The chair said the committee may meet again later in the week to consider amendments and that subsequent legislative committee action will determine whether changes move forward to formal hearings.

Ending: The sponsor said the goal of the process is a deliberative, public bill that increases speed, security and public confidence in Arizona elections and thanked members and witnesses for their input.