The Arizona Legislature’s ad hoc committee on election integrity and Florida‑style voting systems on Thursday examined a proposal to adopt four core elements of Florida’s approach to elections — an early voter ID number, an earlier cutoff for late‑returned mail ballots, routine address verification each cycle, and a ban on foreign funding of election operations — and heard county recorders warn the changes will require funding, IT upgrades and tailored rules for rural counties.

The committee, chaired by Representative Alexander Colladen, opened the meeting by describing those four components as the package under review. “An early voter ID number … speeds up tabulation because you don't have to compare signatures anymore,” Colladen said, listing the other elements as cutting off “late earlies,” routine address verification and a foreign‑funding ban. He said the ad hoc panel will hold several meetings and take public feedback before drafting bill language.

Why it matters: supporters say the reforms would shorten the time it takes to produce results and restore voter confidence after slow tabulation in the 2024 general election; county officials warned they face practical, geographic and technical barriers to implementation that could blunt benefits without additional resources. The session combined committee questions, detailed testimony from county recorders and public comment.

County recorders described operational constraints and local differences. Pima County Recorder Gabriela Casasres Kelly said Pima County spans “around 9,000 square miles” and currently operates about 18 early‑voting sites; she warned that shortening the period for returning ballots could leave some rural voters with long drives to return ballots and urged caution before adopting a strict cutoff. “That leaves Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, where people in that 9,000 square miles would only have 3 locations, which could be up to a 2 and a half hour drive to return a ballot,” Casasres Kelly said to illustrate travel burdens in her county.

Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heath, speaking as the county’s recorder and not for the recorders’ association, said he broadly supports the Florida model and argued that cutting off late‑returned mail ballots is the clearest way to speed results. “If results take 2 weeks to come out, no one is going to trust the results, no matter what they are,” Heath said, arguing that late mail‑in ballots that arrive on election day create a large backlog for signature verification and transport that delays tabulation.

Both recorders stressed address verification as a way to reduce ballots mailed to wrong addresses and to shrink the “early active” mailing lists that automatically receive ballots. Heath proposed a pre‑election address verification notice — for example a 90‑day confirmation — that would let counties pause automatic mailings to addresses that do not respond.

Technical and staffing challenges were a recurring theme. Marissa Hamilton, who identified herself as a private citizen with experience managing large data projects, told the committee that county IT tools “do not have the reference tools that they need” and said recorders’ databases and search functions lag private‑sector systems. Several witnesses (including the recorders) asked the legislature to consider funding IT improvements, staffing, or targeted appropriations — particularly for smaller counties with very limited elections staff.

Signature verification also drew scrutiny. Multiple speakers described signature review as subjective, slow and difficult to scale; a public volunteer, Susan Thomas, described variability in historical signatures and how a cured signature becomes the new reference point for future comparisons. That testimony underscored supporters’ argument for replacing signature comparison with a machine‑readable early‑voter ID for mail ballots.

Committee members and witnesses also flagged policy design choices that could change voter access. County staff asked whether address confirmation would be prescriptive in bill text or left as a menu of options for counties; Jen Marson, a local elections official, told the committee, “we would like a little more prescription if it's gonna go in this format,” urging clearer language on how counties should verify addresses and how the policy would phase in if the measure were a ballot referral.

Several speakers urged caution about putting certain elements on the ballot because a voter‑approved constitutional or statutory change would be harder to amend later. Casasres Kelly and others said they would prefer legislative statute language and complementary funding for counties rather than an immutable ballot referral that could lock in procedures before operational issues are resolved.

Public commenters and legislators pushed different emphasis points. Some urged precinct‑level voting or elimination of vote‑by‑mail; others, including representatives on the committee, stressed the need for data before drafting final language. Representative Lydia Hernandez and Representative Betty Villegas expressed a preference for broad consultation across geographically and demographically diverse districts so any changes do not unintentionally disenfranchise rural, mobile or low‑income voters.

No formal votes were taken during the hearing. Committee staff and counsel were asked to draft bill language in statutory form and to return with additional data, including (per requests on the record) counts of ballots sent to curing, comparisons of curing rates across cycles, and the availability/status of third‑party tools mentioned by witnesses.

The committee recessed and will convene further hearings to take public testimony and refine the draft language; members signaled they plan to weigh operational concerns, funding needs and county‑specific waivers or thresholds before finalizing a bill.

Ending note: The ad hoc committee framed the discussion as an iterative process that balances a stated goal — faster, more trusted results — against practical constraints raised by county election officials and public commenters. The committee asked recorders for follow‑up data and signaled additional hearings in the coming weeks.