It's unclear how mail-in voting could work if Arizonans approve Prop. 144

All it could take for that to happen is for lawmakers to do nothing.

A key provision in the ballot measure would spell out in the Arizona Constitution that every voter must show valid government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot in each election, whether voting in person "or any other method.''

Those who go to the polls personally already do that. By contrast, mailed-in ballots are verified by comparing the signature on an envelope with what county officials already have on file.

The latter method would become unconstitutional if Prop. 144 is approved.

Only thing is, there is nothing in the proposal to say how those who want to keep the convenience of mail-in voting could meet that constitutional mandate.

State Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, who wrote the proposition, has said it would be up to the Legislature when it convenes in January to figure that out, if voters approve it. But in two separate debates, he has failed to identify any specific idea.

More to the point is that there is nothing in Prop. 144 to explain what happens if lawmakers balk and fail to craft a legally acceptable method to provide ID for mail-in ballots — leaving no way for voters to comply with what the Arizona Constitution requires.

"That's what I'm afraid of,'' said Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. "And that's what I think Alex Kolodin intended, which is perfectly consistent with the way he's been introducing and sponsoring legislation for years.''

Fontes, a Democrat, is not strictly speaking as a neutral authority. Republican Kolodin is trying to unseat him in the Nov. 3 election.

But Fontes is not the only official who contends the measure, in the form that Kolodin got Republican colleagues in the Legislature to put on the ballot, could leave the nearly 90% of Arizonans who vote by mail without a legal remedy.

Tempe City Councilman Randy Keating, who is leading the anti-144 effort, said he has spoken with attorneys about the fact that the measure is built on the presumption that lawmakers will approve a method to allow those who cast mail-in ballots to comply.

"If the Legislature fails to do something to meet its obligations to allow vote by mail, then vote by mail is unconstitutional'' under Prop. 144, he said.

Kolodin did not respond to multiple messages and phone calls seeking comment.

Supporter: An agreement would be reached

Greg Blackie, deputy director of policy at the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and a supporter of the measure, said he believes that lawmakers and the governor — who would have to sign any proposal — would come to some sort of agreement. He said that's true even if Arizona continues to have divided government, with a governor of one party and a Legislature controlled by the other.

Keating is skeptical.

He pointed out that Republicans have made multiple efforts to kill the 1991 law, which entitles anyone to request a ballot be mailed to them and allows them to fill it out at home and drop it into the mail. Prior to that, people needed a special reason such as a disability or being away from a voting precinct on Election Day.

In 2022, the Arizona Republican Party — represented by Kolodin as its attorney — filed suit to have all early voting declared unconstitutional, arguing there's no such provision for it in the Arizona Constitution. That legal argument failed.

Two years later, the Republican-led Arizona House voted along party lines to effectively repeal the law, returning to the way it was prior to 1991 when early ballots went out only to those with special needs. The bill died in the Senate.

And in 2025 the Court of Appeals killed another lawsuit, also filed by the state GOP, to tighten up the rules that counties used to determine if a signature on a ballot envelope is valid.

Blackie said even if lawmakers fail to act, he believes there is another way to put Prop. 144 and its voter ID requirement into effect.

He said the key is his argument that the constitutional requirement for ID from all voters could be considered "self-executing.'' That, he said, means there is a mandate for someone to act — even in the event that lawmakers fail to approve a plan.

For example, Blackie said he believes whoever is secretary of state could decide he is empowered by that constitutional amendment to enact rules to detail what kind of identification is necessary for those who want to vote by mail, even absent specific legislative authority.

He conceded, though, any such administrative solution probably would wind up in litigation, with a court ultimately deciding whether any such rule is proper.

There's also the possibility that one political party might find the rules too lax while another argues they are overly strict.

And then there's the question of what happens if the secretary of state — whoever holds that office at the time — decides not to act.

Blackie said the decision on what is acceptable identification for early ballots could default to the recorders in each of the 15 counties. But here, too, there are legal hurdles.

"Do each of those get scrutinized about whether or not they satisfy the text of the Constitution in the government-issued identification being provided?'' he asked. And then there's the problem of what happens if recorders in each county come up with their own standards.

Justin Heap, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, could determine how it's satisfied there, Blackie said, a plan that might not sit well with Democrats. Conversely, he said, Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly, a Democrat, might have a different set of standards that Republicans would consider insufficient.

Past suggestions

There have been suggestions about how a voter ID requirement could work for early ballots.

In 2021, for example, state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, proposed that anyone sending in an early ballot also be required to provide a date of birth as well as either a driver's license number or county-issued voter ID number that would be inserted into the ballot envelope. That bill failed.

Other suggestions have included special ID numbers for voters or that those who vote by mail could provide a copy of a driver's license or other state-issued ID in a return envelope. But that has raised questions from those who say most people don't have copy machines at home.

Even if Prop. 144 is approved, Blackie said early voting still would remain an option. It would just be different.

He noted that nothing in the ballot measure would overrule other laws telling county recorders to mail out ballots to those who request them as an alternative to having to go to a polling place. But the difference is that these voters would have to return the ballots in person — whether on Election Day or to an early-voting location — and provide identification at that time.