Arizona SOS Adrian Fontes Had Nearly Four Years to Show Arizona What Experience Looks Like in Office and He FAILED
THE INCUMBENT SOS FLUNKS THE TEST!
PART 2 – WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE?
We established the test in Part 1…what makes a good Secretary of State includes knowledge of and experience in: Election law. Election Administration. Constitutional and Statutory Knowledge. Leadership. Management. Transparency…
And before we closed, we added some final qualifications: INTEGRITY, JUDGMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
Part 1 ended with a simple question about the man who already holds the office: How Has He Performed? Now it is time to answer it.
Adrian Fontes technically does get the “Experience” point, as he’s been Arizona’s Secretary of State since January 2023, but … What Did He Do with It — Especially When His Authority, Management or Judgment Was Tested?
- Not theoretical experience. Not campaign experience. Not the experience of advising someone else who held the office.
Before that, he served as Maricopa County Recorder & Elections Chief. So, unlike a challenger, Fontes does not have to ask voters to “imagine” what he might do in office.
Experience Deserves Weight. It Does Not Deserve Immunity from Scrutiny.
So, let’s review that experience…
That does not mean every ordinary function of the office becomes an accomplishment:
- Completing an election on schedule is important — but it is also the job.
- Certifying results is important — but it is also the job.
- Administering the statewide election system, working with counties and carrying out statutory duties are not extra-credit assignments.
- They are the baseline.
The real question is what Fontes has done beyond the baseline — and what his record shows when things did not go as planned.
INTEGRITY, JUDGMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A record is not measured only by successes. It is measured by what happens when a system fails, when a court says no, when information is mishandled, when authority is challenged — or when an officeholder is proved right.
That gives us a much more useful way to examine Adrian Fontes.
Not: HAS HE EVER MADE A MISTAKE? Of course he has…
But: WHAT DID HE DO WITH THE JOB WHEN THE TEST BECAME DIFFICULT?
THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE LEDGER
Fontes’s office has expanded voter-facing tools and election-security programs during his tenure. Such as: Arizona expanded BallotTrax statewide, allowing voters in all 15 counties to sign up for real-time ballot-status updates. The office also implemented Text2Cure to allow voters to address certain signature issues electronically.
His administration also established a dedicated election cybersecurity function, conducted cybersecurity and election-security exercises with counties and state and federal partners, and was recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with multiple national “Clearie” awards for election-administration programs.
One cybersecurity example is particularly concrete: after a vulnerability was identified in ConnectWise software, Arizona election-security partners were credited with helping counties detect and patch systems before they suffered compromises experienced elsewhere.
Those are real accomplishments. They belong on the record. So do the failures.
But A Report Card Does Not Stop at The A’s…
WHEN THE COURTS SAY YES — AND WHEN THEY SAY NO
Fontes has won important election-law fights. He has also lost some. And those two facts can exist at the same time.
In the major challenge over whether Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) must go through the Administrative Procedure Act’s formal rulemaking process, Fontes ultimately prevailed. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the EPM statute provides its own process and that the APA does not govern creation of the manual in the manner challengers had argued.
On that question, Fontes won. Voters lost.
But winning that structural fight did not mean every provision Fontes placed in an EPM was lawful. That victory answered only one question: how the EPM is created. It did not give the Secretary unlimited authority over what he could put inside it. In fact, on several specific provisions, courts drew boundaries — and Fontes crossed them.
Courts have separately restrained or struck provisions dealing with speech near polling places and particular election procedures after concluding that specific rules exceeded constitutional or statutory boundaries.
And This Question Did Not Begin When Fontes Became Secretary of State.
In 2020, while serving as Maricopa County Recorder, Fontes issued new instructions for mail ballots. The Arizona Supreme Court held that he “acted unlawfully,” concluding that the Recorder did not have constitutional or statutory authority to create those instructions.
Earlier that same year, during the COVID emergency, a Superior Court judge blocked Fontes’s plan to mail early ballots to registered Democrats who had not requested one for the Presidential Preference Election.
Different circumstances. Same underlying question:
Does An Election Official Understand Not Only What Power He Has — But Where That Power Stops?
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER “NO”?
We have three very different examples…
Example one: challenged EPM language.
When courts restrained certain language, later versions of the manual were revised or narrowed.
That belongs in the accountability column.
Example two: the protected-voter-data exposure.
This one is harder.
Fontes’s office accidentally released the addresses and telephone numbers of 373 protected voters. The error went undetected for nearly nine months.
When Fontes learned of it, he demanded accountability, affected voters were notified, efforts were made to retrieve the information, and a senior employee was terminated — although that employee disputed responsibility. Those are corrective actions.
But while affected voters were notified and corrective action was taken after the error was discovered, the broader public did not learn about the incident until much later through outside reporting. So, that raises a different accountability question:
CORRECTING A PROBLEM INTERNALLY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS EXPLAINING IT PUBLICLY.
EXAMPLE THREE: “THE BUCK STOPS WITH ME.”
Example three: the E-Qual candidate-petition system.
When the E-Qual candidate-petition system went down following an internal error, Fontes publicly accepted responsibility. He did not blame the programmer. He did not tell voters that somebody beneath him had made the mistake.
He said: “THE BUCK STOPS WITH ME.”
His office repaired the system. That is one example of public accountability. But accountability cannot depend on which mistake is being discussed.
SO WHY WAS THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE PROTECTED VOTER-DATA FAILURE SO DIFFERENT?
Now Compare Examples Two and Three:
In both cases, something went wrong inside the Secretary of State’s Office.
In the protected-voter-data incident, corrective action was taken internally — but the public learned about the failure much later.
In the E-Qual failure, Fontes publicly accepted responsibility.
Same Secretary. Different problems. Different public responses.
That comparison — not the existence of the mistakes themselves — is the point.
What Does an Officeholder Do When Something Goes Wrong?
That is exactly the question our integrity, judgment and accountability test was designed to ask.
Fontes has now given Arizona nearly 4 years of evidence (8 including Recorder). Some of it strengthens his argument for another term. Some of it raises legitimate questions.
- He has relevant experience.
- He has overseen election-security innovations and voter-service programs.
- He has won significant court fights, and lost others.
- He has also had provisions of his election manuals restrained or struck.
- His office has corrected some mistakes.
- And at least once, he publicly said exactly what voters should expect from the person at the top:
THE BUCK STOPS WITH ME.
That may be the most important standard of all. Because an incumbent does not run only on what he promises to do next…
HE RUNS ON WHAT HE DID WHEN THE JOB WAS ALREADY HIS.
Fontes Has Taken the Test. Now Arizona Gets to Grade It…
PART 3 — The Challenger Alex Kolodin Takes the Test
PART 4 — The Final Report Card
By Linda Brickman
©2026 Linda Brickman. All Rights Reserved.
All democrats are low IQ. No wonder they all fail. This is just another one that got elected by democrat criminality. Election fraud
He even looks stupid.
unfortunately, the lower IQ is all by design. It is aimed at the masses, the democrats are just more susceptible.
the elite billionaires want ot make people more stupid, as they are easier to control, make sick, or depopulate.
until we stop the deliberate poisons in the air, food, water, and pharma, we are fighting a losing battle.
Wow. Is it just me, or was that entire article a total mess…?
It wasn't you.
What Wasn't me? Fontes…of course not! LOL
and the 25th "not"
this commenter, David, was referring to the previous commenter when he said "It wasn't you"
Answering the original commenter, "Don"s question, of "Was it just me"?
Answer : It wasn't you.
meaning : the commenters are in agreement and unanimous that the article was a total mess.
Neither comment was actually about Fontes at all.
The response : "Fontes… of course not!" – actually makes no sense to me, or in this context, and I can't even figure out what you were trying to say… because you used the word "Not" again.
Fontes is NOT you.. was that the point there? like saying: the sky is not green…
so what color IS the sky? and why is it relevant?
Until we get rid of the poisons in the air, the food, and the water, we are just going to keep sinking…. by our enemy's design.
In order to enslave people, make them purposely sick, and depopulate them right in their face, the elite billionaire globalists had to posion the water, food, and skies.
it was mostly written by AI.
Obvious AF to me now.
Not a bit of it was AI! Check out the sources. You do not read enough!
Linda,
I very much appreciate the comment.. most authors do not have the guts to comment or stand by what they write.
you used the word "Not" 24 times in the article. then 2 more times in this last comment.
Each use of the word "Not" asks the reader to think of something that you are NOT trying to say, instead of something you ARE trying to say.
each use of the word "Not" means you are costing your reader mental energy while they try to figure out what you are trying to say.
This is a very common writing style for AI.
For example, this line:
"That comparison — not the existence of the mistakes themselves — is the point." – is such a classic AI line. Then, "the point" is immediately changed in the next line, which was probably from a follow up AI prompt, where the AI lost context of the previous prompts.
"the point" changed from the "comparison" to the now bolded question of "What Does an Officeholder Do When Something Goes Wrong?.
So, it is the Question that is the point, the comparison the point, or the answer to the question that is the point ?
This is common problem when using AI, the context, or main point, changes from one prompt to the next, so when pieced together, there is no coherence.
Humans might use the word "Not" once in a while, but not 24 times.
Anyone who has been writing for some time, knows the word "NOT" is a risk each time it is used. 24 times means we have a disaster.
Either it was AI written, AI-influenced, or you are just reading so much AI that you are sounding like AI yourself.
Do NOT think of an elephant… did you think of one anyway? now what is the point of an elephant to this article?
"Not a bit of it was" – so you wrote it all yourself? No, you used sources…
And I do "not" read enough? Does that mean I should read more ? read enough for what? should I read more of the "Nots" or more of the evidence that it was written by a human, which is what?
Sorry for the confusion. I AM writing for myself and the readzr; I DO use AI but only for the sources of my links, and I will be careful to only use POSITIVE words in my descriptions for now on. Unfortunately, people only read sensationalism and hardly ever the truth. I FOCUS ON THE TRUTH, even if folks are against it. Thank you for the clarification.
Actually, AI has its problems, but it is usually very good at writing such articles, essays, and other prose.
Just the facts sir. But then you already know the rest of the story…
Who cares? Fontes stole his seat. Another fake POS in office.
So did Hobbs and Mays!
DEI hire.
The face of a GRIFTER! Parasite!
The face of a GRIFTER! Parasite!
Don't worry, he will be re-elected. Mail in ballots will see to it.
Fontes….Mayes….Hobbs….Gallego……The Steal of the century…Disaster
The whole reason I left AZ four years ago for Texas, the writing was on the wall.
You waited a long time. I bailed 15 years ago. I could see it coming. Then again I was in Flagstaff. What a leftist cesspool that was.
Don't forget Kelly the AstroNutzi
Kelly. A Traitor,,,seditionist….a real piecr of work
He's a Worthless Putz! Most of AZs officials are Worthless Grifters
The Dems are true trash
Like WA, OR, CA, NV and NM SoS, they're ALL bought and paid for, thanks Soros and Singham!
Trumps CIA, NSA "FBI" the clown force unable to do anything
The article sure satisfied the word quota…but babbled all around any semblance of information.
It actually read as if trying to cover up failure while trying to appear as though exposing it.
Whose Covering up failure!? FONTES Did fail horribly! I sure am not holding back. I exposed it!
He's another selected & installed cabal puppet. They ALL must be removed from our govmt.
because there is no experience and intelligence in the higher levels of AZ govt. we are ruled by imbeciles
Messican DemoRat. Next.
Yep. Probably like many of those I know. Mexican First, American second.
Fontes will soon be judged by the Highest Court.
A difficult to follow article. This guy in AZ is a total failure. He allowed Hobbs to steal the election from Lake. A catastrophic mistake.
It was no mistake. It was by design.
Experience in being corrupt and not getting prosecuted for it.
They kept counting ballots until Fontes overtook Abe Hamadeh days if not weeks after the election.
They kept counting ballots until Fontes overtook Abe Hamadeh days if not weeks after the election.
.
He's not in Prison yet…?
Start arresting Law Enforcement…
.
Many people don’t know that in 2018 Adrian Fontes basically pioneered the two week ballot count to give cover for cheating. He was a Mexican Cartel Lawyer, and a self proclaimed Socialist and Bernie Brother. He was the Maricopa elections manager who started the two week counts. He was able to enable cheating to give cover for Sinema and Kelly who had poor support get elected.
Im sure they paid him a visit…
I believe it was the 2020 election, when he was Director of Elections, that Fontes allowed the early voting satellite locations in Democrat-heavy precincts to stay open and accept drop off ballots the weekend before Election Day. AZ law is clear that the locations must close the Friday before and not reopen, period, end of story. To make things worse in those precincts someone posted door hangers telling people the polling places were still open and to remember to vote. Also against the law. Of course by the time they got around to investigating it, envelopes and ballots had been separated and the votes had been counted.
If there are many crooks, serial liars, freaks, weirdos and incompetents in public office there are only two possible reasons for it . Either the electorate is incredibly uniformed and stupid that they willingly vote for such vile people to govern over them or the elections are rigged.
Does any Republican SOS ever favor the Republican votes to the point of impeding and obstructing all Democrat voters? By Purposely printing different ballots unacceptable by tabulators, creating technical glitches at polling places, sowing frustration and discouraging people standing in long lines.
sooner or later all democrats fail and yet they get elected/re-elected….
I have read boring tech manuals that made more sense to me than the “chicken scratch” I just read.
If THAT is what it takes to become a politician then they can have it, I despise politicians at best. Bureaucrats I like even less.
Three words: The Federalist Papers. Read it.
Fontes: Just another leftist clown.
Nothing Fontes has done has been to make the state voter roles clean and fair. Being the democrat he is – he is following the democrat playbook of refusing to provide informstion to the FEDERAL government to audit the lists – somehting democrats will die trying to keep hidden – and refusing to listen to constitutents who WANT voter integrity.
However, there is a mountain of difference with "voter" integrity and Fontes' complete lack of "integrity. He is and has been a cartel lawyer – is anti-American and WILL do anything he can to remain in power!
In other words do what democrats always do CHEAT!