Report: Funding cuts led to voter lines

Officials dispute analysis of 2016 election debacle

For thousands of voters in Arizona’s largest county, March 22, 2016, is a day they will never forget.

They stood in line, for up to five hours, to cast a ballot in the state’s presidential preference election — a fiasco that sparked national outrage and cries of voter suppression.

Now, a new report seeks to explain what led to unprecedented lines at the polls in Maricopa County, and to quantify the number of voters harmed as a result.

The analysis was compiled by Jeffrey Mason, a former business-systems analyst for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, who spent months reviewing the 2016 election, along with other issues at the office.

Among the key findings in his report are concerns about a cut in state funding for the election that led county elections officials to scale back the number of poll workers — a decision that created long lines for voters.

Mason also concludes that more than 133,000 voters were disenfranchised when they were deterred from voting given the long wait — a number that state elections officials dispute.

But his report has generated an onslaught of criticism, including from Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, the county’s top elections official, who commissioned it.

He has publicly said it is a rough draft and full of hyperbole and inaccu-

racies.

Mason said Fontes refused to release the report when he finished it in late June because Fontes was concerned that it would harm his office’s relationship with Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan and others.

Mason resigned from his position with the county on July 16 and provided

“I disavow this report, its conclusions, analysis, and the untimely and unauthorized release of it in the strongest terms. It is a ham-handed look-back and offers no new information . ... ”

with a complete copy of the report he submitted to Fontes.

Mason said he quit because he was frustrated that his report wouldn’t be publicly released. He said voters have a right to know what created long lines at the polls so it doesn’t happen again.

“I believe the integrity of that report and what’s in it,” Mason said. “My concern has always been focused on the truth, getting the truth to the voters.”

However, Fontes has disavowed the findings. In a letter to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors after the report was provided to he said it was a draft “filled with errors, poor analysis, conjecture and hyperbole.”

“I disavow this report, its conclusions, analysis, and the untimely and unauthorized release of it in the strongest terms,” Fontes wrote. “It is a ham-handed look-back and offers no new information .... ”

His criticism of the report intensified last week as asked multiple public officials for their reactions to it.

Fontes, a Democrat, took office in 2017 after defeating the former recorder, Republican Helen Purcell, in the November 2016 election. Her defeat was largely spurred by criticism over the brouhaha at the polls earlier that year.

Purcell said that while she takes issue with some parts of the report, particularly claims about staff in the Recorder’s Office, she agrees with its finding that a cut in funding for the election led her office to reduce polling places.

But Fontes’ letter said the report was never intended to be publicly aired.

Fontes hired Mason in November, as a contract analyst, to review procedures in the office, including problems involving the 2016 election. His office paid Mason more than $75,000 over seven months.

While Fontes was quick to disavow the report last week, his office has also come under fire over it.

Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Chucri, chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, said he has asked the county attorney to investigate whether public funds were misused to create a “political hit piece.”

“I think this document is reckless, so reckless that I referred it to the county attorney to investigate,” said Chucri, a Republican. “I question the motives behind it. I question why Mr. Fontes would hire someone to do this particular job.”

A spokeswoman for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office didn’t respond to a question about Chucri’s call for an investigation.

The report comes as Fontes tries to navigate a difficult political landscape as a Democratic official who must work with the GOP-dominated board of supervisors and Reagan to run elections.

In his letter, which was sent to the board and Reagan, Fontes said he values his work with them more than Mason’s “attempt to make great drama” over past issues.

One of the more controversial aspects of Mason’s report is the degree to which he says Reagan, the state’s top-ranking elections official, failed to prevent long lines at the polls in Maricopa County.

While the county administers its own elections, Mason contends Reagan’s office should bear the “primary blame” for the botched election.

“As the chief elections officer of the state, Michele Reagan has the responsibility to make sure all the counties are able to succeed in delivering fair elections to the voters,” Mason wrote. “She knew the election was underfunded.”

Reagan has blasted the report. She said Fontes called her last week and apologized for the ordeal, saying the report was not meant to be released.

“It seems like someone’s opinion more than fact,” Reagan said of the report. “It’s like a manifesto written by some disgruntled person... (Fontes) didn’t get his money’s worth.”

Mason’s criticism of Reagan centers on confusion about how much funding the state was expected to provide the county for running the presidential contest.

In 2015, the Arizona Legislature passed a law that generally cut how much state funding counties receive for conducting preference elections (Arizona’s version of the presidential primary) to $1.25 per eligible voter.

The law concerned county officials because it has cost Maricopa County more than $3 per voter to hold the preference election in the past, the report states.

Mason said Reagan’s office contributed to the confusion because the state’s Elections Procedures Manual — a document she releases to outline election rules for county recorders — stated that counties would still be fully reimbursed.

Reagan said Mason’s complaint about funding is inaccurate. She said the state ultimately set aside $4.5 million to reimburse the county for the election; the county ended up using only $2.9 million.

“We had the money for them,” Reagan said. “They did not use it all.”

But Mason contends the state provided funding for the election after the fact. He said county recorders planned for the election, including the number of polling places, thinking they would need to cut costs.

In Maricopa County, the number of pollingplace workers was cut by more than half compared with the 2008 presidential preference election, from 1,985 workers to 719 in 2016, his report states.

The reduction in the number of workers caused delays in how quickly polling places could process more complicated provisional ballots, Mason concluded.

Purcell, the county recorder at time, said that it’s “absolutely true” that funding concerns played a role.

“Of course it was a factor,” she told

“We knew there were going to be limited funds from the state, so naturally we would try to look at limiting expenses.”

The county reduced the number of polling places to 60 voting centers, down from the 200 polling sites used in the 2012 preference election. Purcell’s office said the move saved about $900,000 to $1 million.

Mason’s report alleges that Purcell — who apologized for the episode in 2016 — was made a “scapegoat” for Reagan and other GOP officials who played a role in the funding decision.

Purcell said that while the county would likely have had many more polling places if funding wasn’t a concern, she still accepts responsibility for the decision to drastically reduce polling places.

“The blame can be laid with me and I said that at the time,” Purcell said. “I said it was my fault. I made a bad decision.”

Mason’s report also heavily criticizes Reagan for not updating the Elections Procedures Manual, which he contends she is legally required to update for each election.

Reagan’s office has never issued a new manual since she took office in 2015, though it is in the process of creating one. She said she isn’t legally required to update the manual for every contest.

Mason argues Reagan’s failure to update the elections procedures manual is a violation of state law. He said Gov. Doug Ducey, who is tasked with approving it, allowed his authority to be undermined when he didn’t provide that check and balance on Reagan’s office.

A spokesman for Ducey agreed with Reagan’s interpretation of the law, and said the governor is merely tasked with reviewing the manual, not creating it.

In the end, Mason said missteps related to the 2016 preference election wouldn’t have changed the outcome. President Donald Trump, then the front-runner for the GOP nomination, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ front-runner, won Arizona by large margins.

But, Mason said, he’s concerned that long lines could be a problem again in 2020 given state law still limits funding for counties that hold the elections.

“I feel I’ve done my civic duty to get it out there,” he said of his report. “I’m willing to stand by that.”