2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Polling Place Locations and Line Management - A.R.S. 16?248 0 AZ law requires counties to use no more than half their usual polling places in the presidential preference election. Delete subsections C-E: eliminate requirement to consolidate polling places for the presidential preference election. 0 A.R.S 16-411 0 Counties have no statutory standards or criteria by which to make polling place or vote center decisions. Location, quantity, and/or propensity for long lines are not fully addressed. This contributed to the long lines in Maricopa County during the presidential preference election. - Add requirement for each county to establish a citizen commission (with members appointed in each supervisory district) to advise on and/or create alternative polling place plans. - Plans must be advertised and vetted during community meetings. Board of Supervisors must ultimately approve polling places and vote centers (along with the plan to manage wait times) with all evidence available to it. 0 Voters from across the state rely on the polling place locator, but not all counties provide enough information to locate polling places. - Add requirement to provide AZSOS polling place information in advance of the election, including street files and other GIS information to electronically locate polling places. Candidate Qualifications 0 A.R.S. 0 AZ law encourages sham candidacies by only requiring someone to be registered with a particular political party at the time they file their petitions. Clarify that a partisan candidate must be a continuously-registered member of the political party for which they seek nomination at the time they obtain their first petition signature, through the time they file their nomination paper, and through the time of election. 0 AZ law requires all candidates to be ?qualified electors,? which includes not being a convicted felon. But applying this provision to federal candidates may be unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court has held that states may not add qualifications for federal candidates. Issue was litigated in federal court this year. I Eliminate qualified elector requirement for federal candidates. A.R.S. 0 AZ law has current law that prohibits an unsuccessful primary candidate from running in the general election (this is commonly known as the "sore loser? law). But the law doesn?t necessarily cover someone whose petitions were so deficient that they withdrew or were ordered off the ballot after being challenged in court. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda I Clarify that candidate may not run as a write-in ifthey are challenged in court and are either ordered offthe primary ballot or withdraw from the primary ballot. 0 A.R.S. 16-343 0 AZ law currently permits a candidate to withdraw shortly after filing petitions and be replaced by their political party, even if there remain enough party candidates already on the ballot based on the number to elect. (For example, ifthree candidates from the same political party are running for State representative in the primary election, the political party currently may select a replacement candidate if one candidate withdraws?even though two candidates remain). This could lead to intentionally running candidates who could garner signatures only to drop out at pa rty?s behest. Additionally, election directors are burdened by unnecessary last-minute replacements. The statute was only intended for last minute replacements that would otherwise leave the party without a candidate. I In cases where candidate withdraws from the ballot after petition filing but before ballot printing, clarify that a political party cannot replace a candidate if there remain enough party candidates that equal or exceed the number to elect. 1' A.R.S. 0 Presidential electors must be identified in May, even though ballot printing does not occur until September. As a result of unreasonably early deadline, the Green Party missed their deadline to submit elector names. I Move deadline for identifying presidential electors to shortly after the primary election. I A.R.S. 38-29601 0 Clarify that candidate may not run for more than one federal office simultaneously. Voter Registration Processes 0 A.R.S. 16-120 0 Every few years the voter registration deadline for the general election falls on Columbus Day, creating a potential patchwork of deadlines across the state because various counties are open or closed on that day. I Add subsection B: ifthe voter registration deadline falls on a holiday or weekend, the voter registration deadline defaults to the following business day. 0 A.R.S. 16-168 0 cost for voter registration records has been challenged in federal court. I Subsection E: Need to define new ?reasonable cost? for voter registration records in statute, which is currently $.01 per record. Will propose a graduated cost model that is currently used in Texas. I Subsection F: clarify that email addresses may not be released (other than to recognized political parties). I Subsectiong clarify that counties must provide and ensure that all county voter registration information is populated into the statewide voter registration database. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Candidate Petitions A.R.S. 0 Petition statute should be modernized to allow electronic petition creation and submission. Clarify that the A2505 may require candidate petitions to be generated and filed electronically, including the requirement that petitions include a bar code or QR code to speed petition processing. Initiatives and Referenda - A.R.S. Statutorily-prescribed language on initiative/referendum petition headers creates potential compliance problems, especially under strict compliance for referenda. Sometimes deviation from the statutory language is necessary depending on the issue and jurisdiction, but groups are reticent to make commonsense modifications for fear of having their petition thrown out. AZSOS perhaps more readily can create a set of petitions that correspond to specific circumstances. I Eliminate statutorily-specified petition language and allow the A2505 to prescribe the petition header language. 0 Initiative/referendum petition statute should be modernized to allow electronic petition creation and submission. Clarify that the A2505 may require initiative/referendum petitions to be generated and filed electronically, including the requirement that petitions include a bar code or QR code to speed petition processing. I A.R.S. This provision requires an initiative group to form a campaign committee before applying for a serial number, but campaign finance law does not require a group to register as a committee unless they raise or spend $1,000. The initiative law needs to be consistent with campaign finance law. I Clarify that statement of organization is only necessary if required by A.R.S. in campaign finance law. 0 A.R.S. 19-112 0 Because current law assumes that only one initiative text may be attached to one initiative petition, the A2505 spends at least 10 days de-stapling initiative petitions using dozens of temporary employees. Allowing more signature sheets to be attached to one text would reduce costs and speed initiative processing. Subsection B: Clarify that up to three signature sheets may be attached one text/title. 0 Because people often sign the wrong county petition, the A2505 is forced to look up hundreds of specific addresses and determine the proper county of origin. For example, when residents in Queen Creek (Pinal and Maricopa) and Sedona (Yavapai and Coconino) sign a petition, the A2505 must look up each address in order to determine which county the address lies within. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda I Subsection C: Clarify that the A2505 may determine the county of the majOrity by relying on the city listed on the petition sheet. If the city lies within two counties, the A2505 may presume the address lies within the county listed on the petition header. The circulator language on the reverse side of a petition is somewhat confusing and often misinterpreted by circulators. I Subsection D: Eliminate statutorily-specified circulator language and allow the A2505 to create the prescribe the circulator language. 0 A.R.S. 19-114 0 Justices ofthe Peace are unnecessarily precluded from circulating petitions. Many years ago JPs conducted voter registration activities, but now only county recorders are charged with this function, so it no longer makes sense to exclude JPs from circulating. I Subsection A: Delete reference to justice ofthe peace so only county recorders are prohibited from circulating initiative petitions. 0 A.R.S. 19-118 0 Circulator lawsuits need clarification, especially since it is difficult to locate and serve the circulators. 2016 lawsuits confirmed how difficult it can be to apply this statute. I Subsection B: Amend statute to allow subpoena to be served on petition circulation company that employed the paid circulator, if the circulator or a person of suitable age cannot be located at the service of process address. The statute of limitations is unclear. I Subsection D: Clarify that the circulator registration lawsuit must be commenced within 5 calendar (not business) days. 0 A.R.S. 19-121 0 Because current law assumes that only one initiative text may be attached to one initiative petition, the A2505 spends at least 10 days de-stapling initiative petitions using dozens of temporary employees. Allowing more signature sheets to be attached to one text would reduce costs and speed initiative processing. I Subsection A: Clarify that multiple (up to three) signature sheets may be attached to the title/text. The AZSOS spends days reorganizing petitions so it can verify the circulator?s registration status. Current law requires local petition groups to organize the petitions by circulator before the petitions are turned in, but this does not apply at the state level. Having the petitions pre-organized would allow the A2505 to efficiently review groups of petitions instead of re-looking up circulators petition-by-petition. I Subsection C: Extend the organization by circulator/county requirement to petitions filed with AZSOS. AZ law requires an initiative to be filed within 2 years after "issuance for circulation," which is an ambiguous phrase. I Subsection D: Clarify that "issued for circulation? means "issued a petition serial number,? which a more definitive term. 0 A.R.S. {5 19-12101 0 AZ law that governs processing procedure for initiatives should be clarified and modernized. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Subsection requires the A2505 to eliminate "[t]hose sheets on which the signatures of the circulator or the notary are dated earlier than the dates on which the electors signed the face ofthe petition sheet." But this requirement already exists (and is more logical) in subsection 0 Eliminate subsection as duplicative. Subsection requires that a circulator must be registered with AZSOS before circulating, but doesn?t specifically provide that the circulator must be registered for the particular petition in question. 0 Clarify that the circulator must be registered for the correct serial number at the time of circulation. Subsection lists specified reasons for eliminating petition sheets, but it does not allow AZSOS to eliminate sheets for failure to comply with A.R.S. 19- (format requirements for a petition), A.R.S. (requirement to state "it is unlawful to sign this petition before it has a serial number), A.R.S. (requirement to have paid circulator'I volunteer" on each petition), A.R.S. (requirement to check either the paid or volunteer box), and similar requirements in A.R.S. - Add additional provision to clarify that the A2505 must eliminate petitions for failure to comply with A.R.S. or 19- Subsection requires AZSOS to strike signatures with missing address, but statute does not address hard cases like P.0. Boxes or incomplete addresses. 0 Add PO. Box or incomplete address as additional basis for disqualification. Subsection requires AZSOS to strike signatures with missing date, but statute does not address hard cases like partial dates. 0 Add incomplete date as additional basis for disqualification. Subsection requires AZSOS to strike signature if it appears the circulator printed all the names, but statute does not address what happens when someone else prints all the names. 0 Add printing other person's first/last names by any person as additional basis for disqualification. Subsection arguably requires the A2505 to number petition sheets only after it has stricken petitions/petition signatures. However the A2505 needs to number petitions early on when it scans the petitions into its computer system. 0 Clarify that petition numbering may take place at any time the filing officer deems appropriate. Subsection only requires the A2505 to count the number of sheets/signatures that are valid, but A.R.S. later requires the A2505 to count the sheets/signatu res that have been disqualified. - Clarify that the number of sheets/signatures disqualified should also be counted at the front end. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Subsection assumes that the A2505 will conduct a random sample by hand, and therefore specifies a time-consuming procedure to assure that a blank or already-stricken line isn?t randomly selected. However the statute doesn?t account for more efficient computer-generated random selections. - Clarify this subsection doesn?t apply if the A2505 uses a random signature generation program that does not select blank or already removed lines. A.R.S. {2 19-12102 0 AZ law that governs processing procedure should be clarified and modernized. Subsection requires a county recorder, upon processing initiative signatures, to return the "facsimile sheets? to the A2505. But the A2505 provides PDFs that need not be returned. 0 Eliminate need to return sheets to AZSOS Subsection requires the county recorder to notify the committee by mail once it completes its signature processing. But this provides little time for the committee to review the recorder?s actions and timely file a challenge lawsuit. I Require email notification to committee and AZSOS A.R.S. 19-121.04 0 AZ law that governs processing procedure should be clarified and modernized. A.R.S. 19-124 Subsection A requires a county recorder, upon processing initiative signatures, to return the "facsimile sheets? to the A2505. But the A2505 provides PDFs that need not be returned. 0 Eliminate reference to returned facsimile petition sheets. Subsection requires the A2505, when calculating the number of valid initiative signatures, to subtract "all signatures removed pursuant to section 19- which only means entire petition sheets and not petition signatures. The statute should reference A.R.S. 19-121.01 as a whole in order to account for all signatures the A2505 eliminated. Eliminate reference to ?subsection A, paragraph 1" Subsection specifies somewhat arcane wording for an initiative receipt. 0 Require AZSOS to provide a receipt addressing specified subjects (number of signature pages, number of valid/invalid signatures, number valid/invalid signature sheets, number ofsignatures selected for random review, and signature validity/invalidity rate), but without specifying the exact language ofthe receipt. 0 AZ law is unclear who must be identified when submitting a ballot measure argument, making it difficult for AZSOS to accurately administer the system. Subsection A: Clarify that the following persons must be identified: the person submitting the argument, the person/organization sponsoring the argument, and the person/organization paying for the argument. 0 AZ law discourages electronic submission of ballot measure arguments for publicity pamphlet. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda I Subsection A: Eliminate "sworn statement? but clarify that a declaration is required for the person submitting the argument, to affirm their identity and their permission to submit the argument on behalf of others. Clarify that the A2505 may require that all arguments be submitted electronically. 0 AZ law is somewhat ambiguous about whether to grant refunds for arguments that are not published because the initiative does not make the ballot. I Subsection E: Remove current reference to refunds and clarify that refunds are not required ifthe measure is not placed on the ballot. A.R.S. 19-125 0 AZ law creates two potentially confusing standards by which to describe an initiative on the ballot: either "designated by initiative petition? under subsection or "an initiative petition relating to [subject matter]? under subsection The former method is used the A2505 and approved by the AG when the official language is provided to counties, while the latter description is more useful but not subject to any uniformity (since the A2505 does not write this language, counties could potentially describe an initiative in different ways). I Subsection C: Eliminate requirement to describe an initiative as ?designated by initiative petition,? and replace with a requirement for the A2505 to draft (and AG to approve) language using the "initiative petition relating to [subject matter]? format. Election Officials 0 A.R.S. 16-407 0 Current law requires the A2505 to certify each election officer across the state, but includes no authority to decertify an official that commits misconduct. I Add AZSOS ability to decertify an election officer. Voting Equipment 0 A.R.S. 16-442 0 Voting equipment vendors in Arizona are not sufficiently aware of state law governing ballots and accessible voting equipment. I Subsection B: Clarify that voting equipment must comply with state law and the A2505 procedures manual, including ballot content, format and display. I A loophole in existing law allows a county to use voting equipment that was denied certification by the A2505. I Subsections G: Clarify that ?experimental? use of voting machines need not be authorized by AZSOS but may not be used to tabulate official results. Clarify that "emergency" use must be authorized by AZSOS but may be used to tabulate official results. Clarify that equipment may not be used for experimental/emergency use if equipment failed AZSOS certification. I A.R.S. 16-502 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda 0 AZ law governing ballot format, design and layout needs to be modernized. I Subsections specify the wording for instructions to be used on a ballot, which doesn?t account for the diversity among ballot formats used in Arizona. - Retain requirement to print "partisan" and "non-partisan? headings on ballot, but eliminate specific instructions so counties may use their own instructions. Subsection omits corporation commissioner from order of how offices should be listed on the ballot, which implicitly causes counties to print corporation commissioners last on the ballot. 0 include Corporation Commissioner along with Governor, to make clear that state senators and representatives are printed below the statewide offices. Subsection is contradictory: it requires candidate names to be rotated on the ballot "when there are two or more candidates ofthe same political party for the same office,? which does not apply in a general election. It then specifies that rotation is not necessary "ifthere are fewer or the same candidates seeking office than the number to be elected,? which has nothing to do with ?candidates ofthe same political party.? Furthermore, subsection states that candidate names are arranged in the order according to which party received the most votes for governor in that county. These disparate subsections can be difficult to reconcile. - Clarify that candidate name rotation is only necessary in the primary election when there are more candidates running than the number to elect. General elections remain subject to the policy outlined in subsection E, which requires candidates to be listed in the order that their political party received gubernatorial votes in the last general election. I Subsection is ambiguous about whether state judges appear before or after local county judges on the ballot. 0 Clarify that Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges seeking retention appear before Superior Court judges. Clarify that ballot layout must achieve clarity, providing appropriate separation and headings to ensure that voters understand the ballot. 0 A.R.S. 0 Up until earlier this year, Maricopa County used early ballot return envelopes that were translucent and could reveal a voter?s vote. I Clarify that early ballot return envelopes must be opaque and not reveal a voter?s vote choices through the envelope. - A.R.S. 16-624 0 AZ law is unclear about whether digital ballot images must be preserved, or whether they constitute public records that may be viewed by the public. Issue is currently in litigation. State needs to strike the right balance between election integrity (ensuring that the equipment accurately tabulated the ballots), not destroying the secrecy of the ballot, and not creating uncertainty about the election outcome into the future. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda I Clarify that if county?s tabulation equipment takes images of ballots for tabulation purposes, the scanned ballot images must be preserved and stored like paper ballots. Scanned ballots are not subject to public records requests, but a county may provide view-only access to scanned ballots prior to the county canvass, under the conditions that it deems appropriate. 0 A.R.S. 0 Although the A2505 by tradition notifies the Board ofSupervisors of the candidates who prevailed in the primary, no statute requires the A2505 to do so. I Clarify in statute that AZSOS must notify the Boards of Supervisors of nominees . Election Results - A.R.S. 16-622 0 AZ law allows election results to be transmitted to AZSOS by "electronic means," but results must be in a specified format. I Update statute to require election results to be electronically transmitted in format determined by A2505 0 Not all counties report results on election night (or in the days following election day) by ballot type, causing voter and media confusion. I Add requirement to report election results to AZSOS broken down by polling place ballots, early ballots, and provisional ballots. - A.R.S. 16-642 0 AZ law governing election canvass should be clarified. I Subsection A: Reconcile subsection A?s 6-20 day canvass timeline with A.R.S. 16-645. I Subsection C: If any county canvass is delayed past the statutory deadline, the A2505 may delay its canvass up to three business days until the final county canvass is complete. 0 More and more aggrieved candidates are asking Boards of Supervisors to alter election results. - I Clarify that a board of supervisors may not add/subtract votes from the canvass. A.R.S. 0 AZ law governing election canvass should be clarified. I Clarify latest date AZSOS may postpone general election canvass; current 30 day time limit is illogical in light ofthe requirement to essentially wait 30 days to canvass. Recounts - A.R.S. 0 Remove reference to "election contests? in recount statute, which creates confusion and is unintelligible. - A.R.S. 16-664 0 The recount statute does not address how the recount is to be conducted. I Subsection A: clarify that votes casted on accessible voting devices need not be "recounted" but simply must be re-uploaded. 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Subsection C: clarify that using a ?different program? is satisfied by reprogramming existing tabulation equipment to only count the contested race in question. 0 A.R.S. 16-665 0 AZ law governing the results of a recount should be clarified. I Clarify that a certification of nomination (in lieu of a certificate of election) is issued after a recount in a primary election. Clarify that the AZSOS/governing board need not re-canvass following the recount results. Judicial Review I A.R.S. 16-351 0 Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State is the agent for all defendants to be served in candidate challenge lawsuit, making it unnecessary to serve each county recorder, election director, and board of supervisors. I Subsection D: clarify that only the filing officer need be served on behalf of all defendants in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. - A.R.S. 16?667 0 Clarify that an election contest filed after a recount tabulation has finished (even ifthe recount results have not been publicly announced) makes the election contest dismissible. A.R.S. 16-672 0 Lawsuits have been filed in the last two cycles seeking to have a judge add/subtract votes in close races. This creates a race for campaigns to selectively find voters to rehabilitate their votes only. Clarify that an election contest (which occurs after the votes have been canvassed) is the sole judicial method to add/subtract votes following an election. I A.R.S. 0 Current law does not account for the fact that an election contest might still be proceeding at the time when ballots have to be printed. Clarify that an election contest hearing must be held and decided before ballot printing. I A.R.S. 0 Groups challenging a county?s review of initiative petition are expected to file lawsuits against each county recorder within 5 days of that recorder's certification, making it unwieldly to file over a dozen lawsuits before different counties. This many last-minute, disparate lawsuits make it difficult for county elections officials to meet ballot printing deadlines. I Clarify that when one or more lawsuits are filed against county recorders, but there is a current or previous action against the A2505, all future lawsuits should be filed in Maricopa County and consolidated with the A2505 lawsuit. 0 A.R.S. 19-122 10 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda 0 This statute was amended in 2015, but has been rendered almost usable because it does not provide for judicial review if the A2505 improperly allows an initiative to be placed on the ballot. This issue was litigated in 2016. I Need complete rewrite to allow for both mandamus actions (when AZSOS does not place measure on ballot) and injunction actions (when AZSOS does place invalid measure on ballot) in the initiative context. I Should provide for one unified cause of action, and account for possibility of A.R.S. lawsuit already underway (thus if a circulator lawsuit uder 19- was the first-commended lawsuit, then all future lawsuits should be consolidated before that court). 0 A.R.S. 19-208.04 0 Groups challenging a county's review of initiative petition are expected to file lawsuits against each county recorder within 5 days of that recorder?s certification, making it unwieldly to file over a dozen lawsuits before different counties. This many last?minute, disparate lawsuits make it difficult for county elections officials to meet ballot printing deadlines. I Clarify that when one or more lawsuits are filed against county recorders, but there is a current or previous action against the A2505, all future lawsuits should be filed in Maricopa County and consolidated with the A2505 lawsuit. 0 Need a judicial review statute akin to amended A.R.S. 19?122. 0 There is no statute in the recall article that provides forjudicial review ofthe actions. 0 The parallel provision in A.R.S. 19-122 was amended in 2015, but has been rendered almost usable because it does not provide for judicial review if the A2505 improperly allows an initiative to be placed on the ballot. This issue was litigated in 2016. I Need a judicial review statute to allow for both mandamus actions (when AZSOS does not place measure on ballot) and injunction actions (when AZSOS does place invalid measure on ballot) in the recall context. Political Party Qualification - A.R.S. The requirement to gather a minimum number ofsignatures in various counties is unconstitutional. I Remove requirement for signatures in 5 different counties. 0 A.R.S. The statute for processing a new political party?s signatures is supposed to track the provisions governing initiatives, however this statute was never updated after its counterpart in A.R.S. 19-121.01 was recently amended. I Make consistent with changes to A.R.S. 19-121.01. 0 Current statute arguably makes a local jurisdiction count all signatures, instead of conducting the random sample allowed in the statewide context. I Include provision similar to A.R.S. 19-141 to clarify this provision may be utilized by local jurisdictions. 11 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Criminal Provisions 1- A.R.S. 16-1016(2) Arizona?s ?double voting? law was struck down by Court of Appeals in 2015, leaving the AG without effective means to prosecute people who vote in multiple states during the primary or general election. I Amend "double voting? law to be constitutional. A.R.S. 0 Current law is ambiguous as to whether your sign may be used by your opponent. Amend political sign law to prohibit placing one?s sign into another candidate?s Sign. Recall Elections - A.R.S. The statutory petition header language uses the phase ?his,? which creates awkward results when a female Officeholder is being recalled. This was not a problem when substantial compliance governed recalls, but now that strict compliance has been applied, a recall group is faced with the difficult choice of either using "his" or modifying the language to say ?her? and risking the petition be thrown out for failure to strictly comply. Eliminate statutorily-specified petition language and allow the A2505 to prescribe the petition header language. 0 The legislature required strict compliance for the entire recall article in A.R.S. 19- 201.01, but this subsection still uses the phrase "substantial". I Remove reference to "substantially" and replace with ?strictly? to be consistent with A.R.S. 19-201.01. - A.R.S. 0 Because people often sign the wrong county petition, the A2505 is forced to look up hundreds of specific addresses and determine the proper county of origin. For example, when residents in Queen Creek (Final and Maricopa) and Sedona (Yavapai and Coconino) sign a petition, the A2505 must look up each address in order to determine which county the address lies within. Clarify that the A2505 may determine the county ofthe majority by relying on the city listed on the petition sheet. lfthe city lies within two counties, the A2505 may presume the address lies within the county listed on the petition headen A.R.S. 0 Current law assumes the A2505 will make photocopies of petitions and physically send ?facsimiles? to the counties, which impedes modern electronic processing. Clarify ability to process and transmit signatures electronically, similar to amended A.R.S. 19-121.01. A.R.S. 19?208.02 12 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda 0 Subsection requires a county recorder, upon processing initiative signatures, to return the "facsimile sheets? to the A2505. But the A2505 provides PDFs that need not be returned. Eliminate need to return sheets to A2505 0 Subsection 3(2) requires the county recorder to notify the committee by mail once it completes its signature processing. But this provides little time for the committee to review the recorder?s actions and timely file a challenge lawsuit. Require email notification to committee and A2505 0 A.R.S. 19-212 0 The legislature recently required strict compliance in recall elections. But if taken literally, this would also require recall candidate petitions to be judged under the strict compliance standard. (In other words, not only are the petitions seeking to calla recall election subject to strict compliance, but once the recall election is called, strict compliance could also theoretically apply to the candidate petitions ofthose seeking to run for the seat). This would create an inequity, since candidate petitions have always been treated under the substantial compliance standard. Need to clarify that, once recall election has been ordered, substantial compliance is the relevant standard for candidate petitions. Substantial compliance is mentioned in subsection but should be expressly reinforced. Lobbyist Filings - A.R.S. AZSOS needs authority to accept electronic filings and dispense with notary requirements. Delete reference to lobbyist registrations being filed under oath, which implies notarization. See proposed A.R.S. 41-1236 amendment. - A.R.S. AZSOS needs authority to accept electronic filings and dispense with notary requirements. Delete reference to lobbyist registrations being filed under oath, which implies notarization. See proposed A.R.S. 41-1236 amendment. - A.R.S. 41-1236 0 AZSOS needs authority to accept electronic filings and dispense with notary requirements. Clarify that all lobbyist reports and statements must be filed under penalty of perjury, but may be filed in electronic format without notarization. Miscellaneous - A.R.S. 0 Permit AZSOS to investigate voter fraud regardless of how A2505 is notified, not just via the toll-free telephone number currently authorized in statute. 0 A.R.S. 16-452 0 The statute establishing the A2305 authority to create the Elections Procedures Manual needs to be modernized. 13 2017 AZSOS Election-Related Legislative Agenda Subsection A: Clarify that the procedures manual is intended to achieve correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency with respect to all election practices, not just voting and tabulating ballots; clarify that manual should address all methods for UOCAVA voting, not just fax transmittal. Subsection B: Clarify that a new manual need not be produced before each election, and that the manual then?currently in existence governs elections until amended. Clarify that the AG and Governor review time periods only apply when the manual is amended. Subsection C: Remove criminal violation provision, but provide for citizen ability to seek writ of mandamus to ensure compliance with the Manual. 14