New Laws, New Maps Can Complicate Election Administration Across the I-10 Corridor 

by Maya Chari
APM Research Lab Ten Across Data Journalism Fellow

From Arizona to Florida, rapidly changing laws and shifting district lines are making the administration of elections increasingly complex.

Fair elections are fundamental to democracy. In recent years, however, elections in the United States have come under increased scrutiny. This has been particularly true in the politically influential Interstate 10 region. This southernmost region of the country includes some of the nation’s largest states and counties, reflecting the political dynamics and divisions shaping contemporary America. California, Florida and Texas wield considerable influence in national elections, as do major metropolitan counties like Los Angeles, Harris (Houston) and Maricopa (Phoenix), which are among the most heavily populated in the country. Due to this, these places can wield considerable influence in state and national elections. In recent history, the region has also been the scene of some of the nation’s most dramatic and headline-grabbing election controversies. Ten Across spoke to several election officials from states across the I-10 ahead of the 2026 Election Science, Reform and Administration (ESRA) conference about their work and the evolving challenges they face.

“Since really 2000 in Florida, but through the last couple of decades, there’s a lot more oversight of one election official. There is more distrust of what we do, of the system,” said Mark Earley, the supervisor of elections for Leon County, Florida. 

During the 2000 presidential election, Florida’s extremely close race infamously resulted in a recount dispute that advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Earley, this crisis forever changed the way his state approaches elections, driving a higher standard of professionalization and a state partnership with Florida State University to create a 30-course-training program for election officials. 

But even with a well-trained workforce, rapidly changing election laws can pose challenges. In our recent conversation, Earley pointed out Florida House Bill 1205, which added additional restrictions around citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives, and  Florida House Bill 991, which requires voters to present proof of citizenship to register to vote, as examples of recent legislative changes that have affected elections management. 

“We have to be able to adjust our technology and our procedures to comply with election law changes, and that gets difficult sometimes. A lot of those require inter-agency computer communications using databases that weren’t really intended to do those kinds of things. And so we’re struggling with that [a bit] in Florida right now,” he said.

Gabriella Cázares-Kelly, the recorder for Pima County, Arizona, also described the challenges of dealing with rapidly changing elections laws. “What I hear from my predecessors is that, you know, there used to be 10 election bills a year. It’s been over 100 every single cycle since I’ve been in office in the past six years.”

The nonprofit Voting Rights Lab is currently  tracking 85 bills potentially impacting elections in Mississippi, 56 in Arizona, and 36 in California. California’s proposed changes include a voter ID law.

  Election laws can have a major impact on voter experiences. Michael Pomante, a political science researcher at Claremont University, has created the Cost of Voting Index, an annual measure of how easy or difficult the various states make voting. The index incorporates factors such as ease of registration, voter ID policies, mail voting and absentee voting. 

According to this index, states along the I-10 vary widely when it comes to ease of voting. This index ranks Mississippi as the state where it is most difficult to vote. Texas and Alabama are ranked not far behind, while California occupies the other end of the spectrum as the third-easiest state in which to vote in 2026.  

Cázares-Kelly said she’s seen firsthand how new laws around signature verification and proof of citizenship can cause difficulties and distrust among voters. The latter is especially problematic in a state like Arizona, which has high populations of seniors, students, and snowbirds, groups who may have particular difficulty in providing additional or unexpected levels of documentation. Arizona also has a relatively large Native population, many of whom rely on non-standard addresses and tribal identification cards.

“Those kinds of things, you know, they sound really good on paper. We’re going to confirm that every United States citizen is eligible to participate. How hard could that be? Well, turns out it’s really hard for some people, depending on their situation,” Cázares-Kelly said.

Amy Burgans, the Clerk-Treasurer for Douglas County, Nevada, also expressed concerns about legislation at both federal and state level unintentionally making the administration of elections more difficult. 

“The legislators making the laws that we have to implement don’t understand the ramifications, and aren’t asking the right people questions to ensure that the laws create better and more secure elections,” she said. “I feel like the people that are making the laws should be educated on how elections actually work instead of making laws based on misinformation.”

She cited a recent law that changed Nevada’s practice of front-end automatic voter registration, where potential voters can opt in or out of voter registration during other transactions at state agencies like the DMV, to one of back-end automatic voter registration, where elections clerks follow up via mail to inform a potential voters that they have been registered to vote. It can be an unanticipated and cumbersome role for the clerks, said Burgans. The bigger issue, however, has been the number of voters in Douglas County who do not receive mail at their residential addresses.
“So the law has tied our hands to sending a letter to a mail receptacle that doesn’t exist, which is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” she said. 

And then there’s redistricting. The recent Supreme Court decision, Louisiana v. Callais, is the latest of several judicial acts removing guardrails on partisan gerrymandering. As a result of the new opportunities for political gamesmanship introduced by such decisions, several states have been engaging in “redistricting wars” in very close proximity to the 2026 midterm elections cycle. 

Researchers at Oklahoma State University and the University of Georgia conducted a survey of public opinion towards redistricting, which they presented at ESRA 2026. They found that a majority of Americans — across political parties — opposed legislative redistricting and redistricting wars. 

In Florida, Earley said that changes in district boundaries on short notice can stymie election workers. “New maps just got passed and we have qualifying [elections] in about two or three weeks,” he said. “That’s a big challenge here locally.”

Above all, every election official we spoke with emphasized the overriding importance of transparency and building public trust. They readily encourage public participation, whether visiting their offices or volunteering, as one of the most effective means of understanding. 

“Election officials are always trying to build up faith in elections and improve, but it’s always easier to tear things down than it is to build things up,” said Earley. “So folks that are trying can really undermine faith in elections. And if citizens don’t have faith in elections, then they look for other alternatives to change the government. And that’s a very dangerous thing. Or they just don’t participate in elections. And that’s frankly a very dangerous thing too.”