HB2390 amends Arizona’s election statutes governing secure online nomination petition signatures. The bill expands the existing online signature collection system, which the Secretary of State must provide, for candidates seeking city or town office, county office, justice of the peace, constable, and precinct committeeman positions. It keeps the requirement that only eligible qualified electors may sign, that identity be verified, and that filings be transmitted to the appropriate election officer through a secure internet portal.
The key policy change is that, beginning in 2025, candidates may use the online system to collect up to 110% of the minimum number of required nomination petition signatures, rather than being limited to the minimum number through 2024. The bill does not create a new petition process; it modifies the cap on how many signatures may be gathered electronically for the covered local offices.
Impact
HB2390 changes A.R.S. § 16-317 by broadening the amount of nomination petition support that may be collected online for certain local and county offices. It affects election administration by directing the Secretary of State’s secure portal to support a larger share of petition signatures for candidates for city or town office, county office, justice of the peace, constable, and precinct committeeman. The bill leaves in place the verification and transmission requirements for online signatures and does not apply to state-level offices or other offices outside the listed categories.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally well received and moved with strong bipartisan support. It passed the House and Senate by wide margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes, with only isolated dissent in a few stages. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the change is a modest administrative update to election filing procedures rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
The main point of contention, to the extent there was any, appears to have been limited to whether expanding online petition collection to 110% of the minimum could affect petition integrity, election administration, or candidate access. The single no vote in some stages suggests at least one legislator had reservations, likely about the scope of online signature collection or the security and verification of electronic petitions. However, the lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials makes it difficult to identify more specific objections.