Oversight Project and Pima County Republican Party Demand Arizona Uphold First Amendment in Elections Administration
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 12, 2026
Washington, D.C. – The Oversight Project and Pima County (AZ) Republican Party sent a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes demanding they unequivocally disavow provisions of the Arizona 2025 Elections Procedures Manual (“EPM”) that restrict the free speech rights of voters and poll watchers. The letter further asks the officials issue guidance directing all Arizona County Attorneys, County Recorders, election marshals, and state and local law enforcement officials to disregard certain provisions of the EPM and instead use already existing law to prevent voter intimidation.
In Arizona, the EPM has the force and effect of law. The 2025 EPM contains provisions that significantly and unlawfully curtail First Amendment speech rights near polling places. It does so by criminalizing actions poll workers deem “intimidating” including voter challenges or wearing a law enforcement uniform. The EPM goes further and prohibits electioneering audible from inside a voting location even if it is outside seventy-five foot limit dictated by Arizona statute. Arizona’s Democrat elected officials included similar anti-speech provisions in the 2023 EPM and were blocked from implementing them in Arizona federal court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oversight Project Director of State Litigation Neal Cornett gave this statement:
“Secretary Fontes and Attorney General Mayes should do the right thing and disavow enforcement of provisions so obviously ripe for abuse. Similar provisions of the 2023 EPM were enjoined because the courts recognized they were likely to chill political speech. No one should be afraid that raising a voter challenge or wearing their uniform to vote might subject them to prosecution.”
Pima County Republican Party Chair Kathleen Winn stated:
“Arizona law already provides robust protections against voter intimidation while balancing the constitutional rights of citizens to participate in elections. We expect our elected officials to ensure that any election guidance is clear, narrowly tailored, and focused on preventing actual intimidation without restricting lawful participation or protected political expression. The current EPM muddies the process and risks expanding the definition of ‘actual intimidation’ in a way that may criminalize lawful conduct.”
###