Arizona Secretary of State Faces Conflict of Interest Questions as Election Season Heats Up in Phoenix

A campaign finance complaint puts Arizona's top election official under scrutiny

A legislative candidate's campaign finance complaint has triggered a broader question about Arizona's election infrastructure. Can a state election official carry out their duties while also exercising their free speech rights? The answer matters to every voter in Phoenix and across Arizona as the 2026 primary season approaches.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has endorsed Dan Toporek, a Democratic candidate running in a contested legislative district in north Phoenix. The candidate he endorsed filed a campaign finance complaint with Fontes' own office. That overlap has drawn attention to a legal gray area in Arizona election law.

"I can chew gum and walk at the same time," said Fontes, a Democrat who is backing fellow veteran Dan Toporek in a contested legislative district in north Phoenix. "I'm a voter, too, and I have a First Amendment right to express myself."

Arizona law does not bar election officials from endorsing candidates

Arizona law does not prohibit election officials from making political endorsements. The state also has no statute blocking an election official from managing and overseeing elections when they themselves are on the ballot.

Fontes is seeking a second term as secretary of state. He said he will continue his duties through the upcoming primary and general elections without recusing himself from any decisions.

"No secretary has ever recused for that purpose, and that won't start now," Fontes said.

Fontes pointed to the historical record at the Statehouse. Former secretaries of state who ran for other offices did not recuse themselves. That includes Katie Hobbs in 2022, Jan Brewer in 2006, Ken Bennett in 2010, and Michele Reagan in 2018.

Republican candidates propose voluntary guardrails

Gina Swoboda, who is running for the Republican nomination for secretary of state, said the public overestimates the power the secretary holds over elections. She noted that the secretary of state does not run elections. That responsibility falls to each of Arizona's 15 county recorders. The secretary's role is oversight and certification of results.

"I think there's a perception these leadership roles have more power than they do," Swoboda said.

Swoboda said she would voluntarily refrain from participating in the logic and accuracy tests performed on ballot-counting machines if elected. She argued it is not a good appearance. She also said she would seek legislative scrutiny of any significant changes to the state's Elections Procedures Manual that could affect the secretary of state race.

Swoboda's Republican challenger, state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, did not return requests for comment.

National experts call for clearer standards

The question is not unique to Arizona. In 2000, then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris oversaw the contentious recount of Florida's presidential election results while also serving as co-chair of George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Election experts say Arizona lags behind other states in establishing formal recusal guidelines.

• Utah recently passed a law requiring election officials to take steps to avoid potential conflicts, according to John Milhofer, research director for the National Association of Secretaries of State.
• Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who is running for governor, has said she would formally recuse herself from actions that would affect the gubernatorial race.

"These types of questions arise and surface when we start to talk about our election infrastructure," said Tammy Patrick, chief executive officer for programs with the Election Center, which is run by the National Association of Election Officials.

Patrick noted that the problem extends beyond the secretary of state's office. County and local election officials face the same conflict questions. The issue is especially acute in rural counties with small staffs.

A 2022 report from Reed College found that 34% of election offices nationwide have no full-time staff dedicated to elections.

Proposed reforms aim to separate politics from elections administration

The Election Center has published suggested standards for handling conflict situations. The group encourages election officials to create guardrails for situations where they are on the ballot. Recusal from decisions that directly impact their own race should be one of those guardrails, to the extent feasible, according to the center's report.

The Election Reformers Network stated in a 2024 report that election officials should take a cue from the judiciary. Federal law and many state laws require judges to recuse themselves in potential conflict situations.

"Election officials are enough like judges that recusal guidelines should at least exist for elections," the Election Reformers Network stated.

Fontes said his office is structured so that political matters do not reach his desk. He said he had not seen the campaign finance complaint filed by the candidate he endorsed. His staff is still reviewing it to determine whether there is reasonable cause to forward it to the state attorney general for investigation.

"We're operating under this basic understanding that if there is a political matter, I'm not involved," Fontes said. Any decision, if needed, would fall to the assistant secretary of state, he said.

The question of whether Arizona should adopt formal recusal guidelines for election officials remains unresolved. No such legislation has been introduced at the Statehouse this session.

What this means for Phoenix voters

For voters in Phoenix and across Arizona, the conflict of interest debate raises a practical concern. Who oversees the fairness of an election when the top election official has a political stake in the outcome?

Fontes maintains that his office's structure prevents any appearance of impropriety. His opponents argue that voluntary guardrails would strengthen public confidence in the process.

The primary election will test whether Arizona voters consider an official's political endorsements a disqualifying factor or a protected expression of free speech.