How Procedure Manuals Became Ground Zero
Arizona doesn’t just fight over statutes; it fights over the Election Procedures Manual (EPM)—the binder that tells every county exactly how to run elections. That manual has become the hottest object in state politics because whoever edits it effectively writes thousands of micro-rules: drop-box hours, signature checks, ballot curing, observer access, chain-of-custody minutiae. It’s the operational law between capital-L Law and the precinct table. Change the EPM, and you quietly change the election.
Why the EPM Matters More Than Most People Think
The legislature passes broad laws. County officials actually run elections. The EPM is the bridge—interpreting statutes into checklists and timelines for 15 counties with wildly different geographies and workloads. A single paragraph about “reasonable hours” for drop boxes or a tweak to how “mismatched signatures” are reviewed can swing thousands of ballots statewide. That’s why both sides now treat the EPM like a living weapons platform.
From Manual to Battleground
In recent cycles, Democrats and allied groups pressed to expand access via EPM language (broader curing windows, permissive guidance on early voting, flexible drop-box placement). Republicans countered that such expansions outpaced statute, using lawsuits and the AG’s office to force revisions or block enforcement. By 2023–2025, the fight settled into a pattern:
• Secretary drafts EPM →
• AG review & Governor sign-off (and/or back-and-forth edits) →
• Litigation grenade thrown within hours →
• County confusion while courts sort it out →
• Activist networks exploit whatever survives in real time.
The manual intended to standardize elections now standardizes the lawsuit calendar.
The Structural Edge: Iterate the Rule, Iterate the Field
Progressive law groups file early—before a draft EPM hardens—arguing that restrictive readings burden voters and violate state or federal protections. If they win, the victory flows straight to the field: expand the cure program, extend the help-desk hours, redeploy canvass scripts, update SMS copy. If they lose, they refile narrower. The goal isn’t to win every clause; it’s to keep administrative discretion moving one notch looser every cycle.
Meanwhile, conservative litigants focus on separation of powers—that the Secretary can’t “legislate by manual.” They win on that frame when EPM language strays beyond statute; they lose when courts accept “implementation detail” as within the Secretary’s remit. Either way, the clock is ticking—and the side with standing field infrastructure profits from any clarity that lands before ballots go out.
County Reality: Policy by Bandwidth
Maricopa isn’t Mohave, and Pima isn’t Apache. County recorders juggle staffing, scanners, language access, security, and the daily chaos of address changes. The EPM war effectively outsources policy to whoever can write the most enforceable sentence that a clerk can follow at 10:37 p.m. on day five of early voting. When courts tweak language in October, the counties don’t debate philosophy; they ask which line of the checklist changes—and whether they have the people to do it.
Three Levers That Decide Close Races
1. Signature Verification Guidance. “Substantial compliance” vs. “strict match” isn’t semantics. It’s a rejection rate. Tighten the review and you reject more. Loosen it and you cure more.
2. Ballot Cure Windows & Notice. If the EPM prescribes aggressive notice (text/call/mail) and more time, organized cure networks become decisive.
3. Drop-Box Rules and Hours. Boxes don’t just add convenience; they change when and how ballots arrive, which alters workload peaks and rejection patterns.
Each lever is administratively small and electorally huge—especially in a state where statewide margins live in the low tens of thousands.
The Messaging War (and Why It’s Not the Real War)
Publicly, the fight is framed as “access vs. integrity.” In reality, it’s “discretion vs. statute.” Progressives argue voters shouldn’t lose their voice over clerical errors or red tape; conservatives argue administrators shouldn’t invent law through guidance. Both stories sell. But the outcome turns on who can draft, sue, and operationalize faster than the other side can object.
How to Counter the EPM Machine (If You’re Not Writing It)
• Permanent Admin Team. Treat the EPM calendar like a fiscal year: track drafts, comment windows, and court dates.
• County Liaison Network. Build direct, apolitical relationships with county recorders so “clarifications” don’t arrive via Twitter.
• Pre-Cure Preparedness. If the ruling expands curing, don’t start recruiting volunteers in week three—have them trained in week zero.
• Narrative Discipline. Stop arguing abstractions. Argue paragraphs. Show how an EPM clause deviates from statute—line by line—so judges want to rein it in.
Bottom line: In Arizona, the election isn’t only on Election Day. It’s inside a PDF months earlier. Whoever edits the manual edits the margin.
Citations
• Insurrection Barbie – “The 2026 Ballot Wars” (Oct 2025)
• Arizona Secretary of State – Election Procedures Manual (overview/archive) (Accessed Nov 2025)
• Carolina Journal – Coverage of multi-front litigation strategy in election administration (2025)
• Elias Law Group – Election law litigation updates (Accessed Nov 2025)