Opinion: Vote no on Prop. 144: Arizona deserves better election policy

Arizona voters rely on the convenience and security of voting by mail. Proposition 144 could make this familiar process more complicated, difficult and expensive. Yet voters won't know exactly how it would change our election system until after the measure becomes part of our state Constitution.

That should concern every Arizona voter, regardless of political affiliation.

Arizona voters deserve elections that are secure, accessible and administered in ways voters can understand and trust. Changes to election laws should solve demonstrated problems, not create new ones

What problem is Prop. 144 trying to solve?

Arizona already has extensive safeguards against illegal voting. Voters must provide proof of citizenship when registering. In-person voters must provide identification, and mail-in ballots undergo signature verification before being counted.

Voter fraud in Arizona is extremely rare. Arizona's 2020 election was subjected to extensive audits, investigations and a Republican-led review of Maricopa County's results. None established widespread fraud that would have changed the election outcome.

Election security is essential. But new restrictions should address actual problems, not create uncertainty about a system that already has meaningful safeguards.

Proposition 144 would amend Arizona's Constitution to significantly change how elections are conducted. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, every voter would have to provide government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot, including when voting by mail. It would also require election officials to offer voters the option of having their ballots counted at their voting location on Election Day.

What would this mean for the millions of Arizonans who prefer voting by mail?

Today, voters complete their ballots at home, sign the ballot envelopes, and return them by mail or at authorized drop-off locations. Simple and convenient. Election officials verify signatures before counting those ballots.

Under Proposition 144, how would a voter provide government-issued proof of identity? Would they need to provide an original or copy of an ID? Which ID? What would happen if their ID is expired, lost, or unavailable or if the voter does not have access to a copy machine? And how would election officials protect personal information?

These aren't minor administrative questions. They could affect seniors, rural residents, working families and anyone who values the convenience of voting from home.

Prop. 144 only says the identification requirement would apply “as prescribed by law,” leaving key implementation details to future legislation (and an increasingly polarized legislature).

Voters are being asked to approve constitutional changes before knowing how those changes would actually work.

There are also significant potential costs.

Proposition 144 would require election officials to offer voters the option of having their ballots tabulated at their voting location on Election Day. Implementing that requirement statewide could mean purchasing additional equipment, hiring, training more election workers, and adopting new security procedures.

Who pays for all this? Arizona taxpayers.

If the new identification requirements also discourage voting by mail, more voters could turn to in-person voting, increasing demands on polling places and potentially creating longer lines.

And there is another important consequence that deserves attention. Proposition 144 would establish a new constitutional standard for reviewing election laws, potentially making it harder for voters to challenge future restrictions in court.

Why should Arizona voters surrender existing constitutional protections without a compelling reason?

Election administration needs room to adapt. Technology changes. Security threats change. Voting practices change. A constitutional provision is the wrong tool. Once Proposition 144 requirements are embedded in the Constitution, changing them becomes much more difficult, even if experience shows they are unnecessarily costly or burdensome.

Supporters of Proposition 144 understandably want secure elections and timely results. We share those goals. But election security and voter access are not competing priorities. Arizona can and should have both.

Proposition 144 leaves too many important questions unanswered while creating the potential for greater expense, more complicated voting procedures, and reduced constitutional protections.

Arizona voters deserve better than a constitutional amendment that raises more questions than it answers.

Vote no on Proposition 144.