Fontes’ 2018 election plan draws ire from supervisors
Board says he has not outlined his changes sufficiently, fearing repeat of disastrous March 2016 polling situation
Recorder Adrian Fontes’ crusade to overhaul the Maricopa County election system is causing concern not only among voters and activists, but among another set of skeptics: the politicians who control his purse strings.
Members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors say Fontes has caused confusion among constituents without giving the board a heads-up, and has not outlined his proposed changes sufficiently, even though he must ultimately seek the board’s approval.
The supervisors say their top priority is making sure Fontes doesn’t stretch his office thin with new initiatives and fail to properly plan for the 2018 elections. They warn that they don’t want a repeat of the disastrous 2016 presidentialpreference election that occurred under his predecessor, when long polling-place lines kept some voters out until midnight.
“Any tinkering with one’s right to vote has to be well thought out, it has to be well planned and most importantly, it has to be justified,” Supervisor Steve Chucri told The Arizona Republic. “I understand the county recorder is new to this job and has all sorts of things to learn. But what’s surprised me a bit is ... we’re talking about massive change for a very important department that doesn’t have to be done in the first seven months of office.”
Fontes admits he should have talked with the board earlier about his proposals. But he maintains his communication with the public has been driven by a desire for transparency, and he believes his office is on track for 2018’s elections.
“What we’re doing is something they might not have paid very close attention to in the past . ... County government took this office for granted for a long time,” Fontes told The Republic. “There’s a communication culture that I’m still getting used to. There’s certain
things they want to hear about before we talk to the public, like this project, and we didn’t get to them with that ahead of time. So their criticism of that is fair.”
“Was it the political slap in the face that some people would want to portray it as?” he asked. “Absolutely not. Some of the supervisors have been very complimentary that they have had more communication from this office than they have in the past.”
Friction was on clear display Monday, however, when the board ended a 90-minute meeting about Fontes’ wide-ranging election goals by scheduling another session to continue their questioning.
The board members at times furrowed their brows or frowned as they sought clearer answers from Fontes and information about issues not explained in his presentation.
“This is the first time we’re hearing (your plans),” Board Chairman Denny Barney said, “so naturally you’ve had the benefit of the internal work you haven’t shared with us. And this is our chance to understand exactly what we’re being asked to consider.”
Among the issues the board found most perplexing: Why Fontes is advocating for an election system similar to the one that failed last year.
The “ballot center” system he proposes eliminates assigned polling places and uses fewer, but larger, sites that any voter can visit.
“You campaigned against that, and now we’re back to the same conversation,” Barney said at the meeting. “So you can appreciate our natural reticence to even consider it based on the experiences that we had. We recognize what you’re having us consider is a new approach.”
Fontes argues his new ballot center plan, if approved, would succeed because it includes more locations and more days for in-person early voting.
The plan also includes sending ballots in the mail to all 2.2 million voters, not just the 1.6 million already signed up for mail ballots. However, that change would require legislative approval.
The system would save money, reduce wait times, replace outdated equipment, allow voters to cast a ballot anywhere and eliminate the time-consuming problem of provisional ballots, according to Fontes. Those benefits swayed him from his previous opposition, he said. But supervisors remain wary. “He is trying to make fundamental, wholesale change, and I don’t see why some of this change is needed,” Chucri told The Republic. “... It’s very important to get it right, because you can’t afford to get it wrong.”
Another contentious topic is Fontes’ plan to redraw voting precinct boundaries and justice court precincts.
This summer he announced a proposed new voting-precinct map that would shrink some overloaded precincts, merge smaller ones and change names. Reprecincting previously happened in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2011.
The Recorder’s Office talked about the changes on Facebook, in the media and in a July 25 letter to precinct committee people, the political activists of all parties that represent the small voting areas.
Some activists and voters praised the idea, according to emails to the Recorder’s Office that The Arizona Republic obtained under the Arizona Public Records Law. But others complained. “I cannot understand why you are doing this now when it is to be done again in 2020!!” wrote Ann Jean Goncalves in an email, referring to the political redistricting process that will occur after the next U.S. Census. Reprecincting often happens in tandem with redistricting, but can occur at other times as well. “Why is taxpayer money being used so foolishly? Wait until 2020 to do it !!!!! ”
Precinct names also were a sore point. A proposed new precinct called “Hedgehog” drew the anger of Surprise voters.
“I absolutely think you are nuts to choose this name. There are NO hedgehogs in the area,” wrote Jacqueline Ng. “Where you get your names from I don’t (know), but I bet you wouldn’t name your district hedgehog.”
Fontes conceded some voters “got a little bit prickly” and noted the Recorder’s Office, in some cases, has followed their advice.
But he wouldn’t back down on the “Sun Devil” precinct he proposed creating around Arizona State University, whose boundaries form horns.
Supervisor Chucri called it “too cute by half.”
“You shouldn’t crack jokes in church for a reason. You shouldn’t make light of one’s right to vote,” Chucri said.
Fontes, an ASU alumnus, said he believes the office should encourage voter participation with fun.
“This doesn’t have to be staid and stoic and boring . ... The names of these precincts are just vanity,” he said. “My answer to Supervisor Chucri is: If it engages more voters, then absolutely yes (the name should stick). Go Sun Devils.”