Arizona State Representatives hear arguments on constitutional amendments that could change how Arizonans vote

PHOENIX – The audience in the packed hearing inside the Arizona House of Representatives listened intently Wednesday afternoon to Republican state Rep. Alexander Kolodin as he explained why he thought picture identification should be required to vote in Arizona. 

“Our constituents have been there with us. They want a system that enshrines ID for every voter,” Rep. Kolodin said. “And those of us who are not and have never been racist know that it’s not difficult for anybody to get a voter ID.”

A crowd opposing the resolution burst into laughter. Rep. John Gillette, the Republican chairman of the meeting, banged his gavel to call the room to order.

“No outbursts or you will all be removed,” Gillette said.

The scene revealed just how divided some Arizonans are on the proposed resolution that would alter how voters cast their ballots.

The proposed amendment states, “The people and the legislature may enact laws governing elections, including early voting and mail voting, provided such laws are reasonably connected to a legitimate state interest Including timely and accurate election results, efficient election administration, election security, and preserving public confidence in the integrity of elections.”

The ambiguous wording of the amendment could cause miscommunications, and some critics worrry, could sew chaos as elections approach.

The previous version of the bill listed specific ID requirements to vote, including mail-in, but never stated how they would be implemented.

Wayne Schutzsky, a KJZZ political reporter, explained that it could increase voter confusion.

“The Republican version of this ballot referral, it should go to voters, has a strict voter ID requirement has to be presented at the time of voting or something along those lines, which is really confusing because think about the people who are mailing in their ballots,” Schutzsky said. “How do you do that? It doesn’t really prescribe how you would do that. So that’s a concern.”

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1001 was introduced by Republican Sen. Shawnna Bolick from Legislative District 2. A mirrored bill in the House, House Concurrent Resolution 2001, was also introduced by Republican Rep. Kolodin. They have both passed committees and await full votes in both chambers. 

The drama in the statehouse is playing out as a federal grand jury approved a subpoena for digital 2020 voting data from Maricopa County. It also followed an FBI raid seizing voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, in January.

Kristi Noem, the former Homeland Security secretary, visited Arizona in February to promote the GOP-backed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The SAVE Act would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. But it’s already a state law in Arizona. 

The SAVE Act, or the Safeguard American voter Eligibility Act, has been one of President Donald Trump’s priorities, publicly demanding a vote and threatening to refuse to sign any other bills until it is done. But data suggests it is unclear whether the new rules in the SAVE Act would confer a partisan advantage, as would be the case here in Arizona for similar changes in the amendment.

A report published last year by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland titled “Who Lacks Documentary Proof of Citizenship” says it is unclear what party would benefit.

“Many Americans of all political identities lack DPOC,” or documentary proof of citizenship, the study found. “More research is needed to understand how, if at all, the SAVE Act would impact electoral outcomes.”

When asked why the FBI obtained Arizona records, Trump said, “They probably thought that the election was rigged, right?”

SRC 1001, also named “The Fast, Accurate, Secure Transparent Election Results Act” or “The Fast Election Results Act” could be on the next November general election ballot, subject to voter approval, if approved by both the House and Senate.

Living United for Change in Arizona, which opposes  the resolution, set up a tent outside the Senate building to bring awareness to the legislative hearing. Vivian Serafin, the communications coordinator for LUCHA, said that the organization has always been active in Arizona Legislature meetings.

“LUCHA was around during SB 1070, giving them a hard time, making sure that the community was aware of what they were trying to do,” Serafin said. “We are in strong opposition to SRC 1001.”

LUCHA also had community members testifying against the bills and attending the meetings, Serafin said. 

“We’ve been packing the rooms of these committees so that these are not done in the dark,”  Serafin said. “That’s what the Republican lawmakers are hoping for, to be doing these committee meetings by themselves in empty rooms. We’re here to make sure that does not happen.”

César Fierros, the communications director of LUCHA, explained that the resolution could make voting more difficult for minority communities and impede on Arizona voter’s rights. 

“A lot of Arizonans vote by mail, and communities of color, brown, Black and Indigenous, are going to be directly impacted by these laws,” Fierros said. “They’ve betrayed their voters.”

Fierros said the resolution isn’t really about voter security. Instead, he said, it was an attempt to shift attention away from unpopular Republican policies.

“The Legislature is laser-focused on trying to disenfranchise Arizona voters. Arizona families are dealing with a massive affordability crisis, struggling with the cost of living,” Fierros said. “There’s a realization among MAGA Republicans that their agenda is incredibly unpopular and they’re trying to subvert the 2026 elections, disenfranchising folks directly impacted by their disastrous agenda.”

Related