Related Articles
The man charged with administering Arizona’s elections isn’t concerned about the state’s ability to securely hold elections. But he’s going to have to persuade millions of other people to feel the same way.
Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, was elected Arizona’s secretary of state in 2022. A lawyer who previously worked as a prosecutor in Colorado and Arizona, and served as the Maricopa County Recorder before taking office, Fontes must now take on the role of convincing the state’s voters that its elections are legitimate.
Arizona is possibly the market leader in ridiculous election conspiracies and deniers. After former president Donald Trump falsely claimed fraud following the 2020 election, a sham audit to investigate claims of election fraud was conducted by Cyber Ninjas, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Arizona state Senate. Cyber Ninjas falsely claimed that 300 dead people voted; the firm shut down after refusing to release public records to comply with a court order.
In 2022, Arizona election workers faced violent threats, and Trump used technical glitches to stoke fear about the legitimacy of election results. Kari Lake, a prominent election denier who received Trump’s endorsement for governor, refused to concede after losing the election, and made multiple attempts to get the courts to overturn the result. (Lake is now running for Senate.)
Fontes already has his hands full in the lead-up to the 2024 election. In November, two Republican Arizona county officials, Peggy Judd and Terry Crosby, were indicted by the Arizona attorney general on felony charges of conspiracy and interference with an election officer. The charges stemmed from their alleged efforts to delay the certification of votes in the 2022 general election, citing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. (An attorney for Crosby told Reuters there was no crime and that his client will be vindicated. Judd did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
In an interview with WIRED, Fontes spoke about his plans to protect election workers in 2024, his thoughts on generative AI and deepfakes, and what he thinks of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk’s knowledge of Arizona’s elections.
This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.
WIRED: What is keeping you up at night?
Fontes: Well, the most critical things that are keeping me up at night don't have anything to do with the technology. It has to do with a lot of the unknowns out there. Human error being blown up by election denialists, by social media.
That's what's bothering me more than anything else. Our systems are quite good, we've got lots of checks and balances, we have a relatively decent grasp on what [threats] AI could pose. We're gonna stick with the basics in our trainings. We're gonna keep it as simple as possible for our voters so they can follow the instructions as easily and cleanly as possible.
At the end of the day, we've got to be ready for just about anything. So there's no one particular thing that's really keeping me up. It's sort of the universe of concerns that are kind of bouncing off of each other.
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
WIRED: I was at the Turning Point USA event this weekend, and Charlie Kirk [the founder of Turning Point USA] said onstage that elections in Arizona had become less secure. I'm wondering what you'd say to that?
Fontes: Charlie Kirk doesn't know shit about Arizona's election. So I don't know what he's talking about. Our elections are far more secure than they even were in 2020, which were the most secure elections that we've had. I'd like to hear why he thinks that. Where does he get his information from? What facts does he have to support that statement? Who has he actually spoken to in the election administration world? And why does he think that by increasing our security profile, working more closely with federal, state, and local law enforcement and technology officials, how that all makes our elections less secure?
Charlie Kirk is a grifter, who only stirs the pot for his own profit. And what he's doing is eroding the trust that Americans have in one another. That's his MO and he's free to do that under the First Amendment. But he's not paying any of the price and the consequences. He personally is shielded in his privilege, from the erosion of our democracy, from the lack of trust, and the fact that we've lost a lot of people because of the threats that his rhetoric brings to bear. So I think he should reconsider. Maybe potentially just supporting his assertions with some facts, that might be a good start.
WIRED: Can you explain why Arizona in particular attracted so many election conspiracy theories?
Fontes: One of the things that is important [to] realize about Arizona is that we are historically a place where, I will kindly say, free thinking is kind of a normal thing. You know, we don't have generations-long institutions that have really locked themselves into power for long periods of time. We don't have any royal families who made millions and millions of dollars here locally, and then invested locally. We are an amalgam of people from all over the country and all over the world. And when you have this really diverse soup of different ways of thinking and looking at things, folks might gravitate toward one space or another. And that free thinking sometimes becomes, you know, a good breeding ground for some of these conspiracy theories. It can go off the rails a little bit, once in a while. But that's okay. American democracy requires a diversity of thought. And it's our intellectual freedom that is one of our biggest strengths.
Now, we still have to agree on the outcomes of elections. That's the golden thread that holds the entire fabric of our society together. And that's the one piece of our civic culture that is now being attacked. That's different than what we've seen in the past and the conflicts that we've seen issue by issue, whether it's immigration, or abortion, or the economy or gas prices, or whatever.
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
WIRED: Talk to me about the relationships you have with your peers in the Arizona state government. How cooperative are they with you? And do you have any fear that they may try to undermine the results of the election?
Fontes: We have very good relationships, even with people who find themselves in the election denialism space. There are some things that we very much agree on. For example, Representative Alex Kolodin—one of the biggest election denialists, who has actually sued me several times and who was just recently disciplined by the state bar—he and I have actually worked very closely together on some issues. We disagree on a lot of stuff, but he's going to be sponsoring one of the bills that we're bringing forward to help us better and more frequently train our election officials here in Arizona. But you know, when we're sitting in a conference room behind closed doors, and the lights and cameras are not on us, generally speaking, we can find common ground when it comes to the pragmatic application of skillsets regarding the operation and administration of our elections. It's when the cameras get turned on that people sometimes go astray a little bit.
WIRED: How do you plan to protect election workers? And do you have any fears of violence at the polls or other places?
Fontes: Political violence has become a part of the regular conversation here in America. And I think that's shameful. At the end of the day, if you're threatening violence or committing acts of violence to achieve a political end, that's terrorism. To protect our election workers, we're working very closely with state, local, and federal officials. We've been increasing our security funding. We've been hardening our physical security, personnel security, information technology security, networking security across the board, working closely with CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency].
We are sending folks from that agency to every one of our counties, and they are doing surveys, they're looking at the counties to advise them. We're working with the National Guard day in and day out, to help monitor the circumstances online and in other spaces. We now have four security personnel working in different spaces in the secretary of state's office to monitor and alert when we see activities out there that might be problematic or might need further investigation. At this stage, we're doing everything we can to bring as much information to law enforcement as possible. God willing, the violence and threats of violence will go away soon, so that we can get back to the notion of just running elections as we have done for the past several generations.
WIRED: Are you personally prepared to become a target of Donald Trump and his supporters?
Fontes: Well, I'm already a target. I've already been threatened, my family's already been threatened. We are already struggling to meet my personal security needs and the security needs of my own family. This is already a reality for me, but our democracy is worth it.
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
When I volunteered to give my life to be a United States Marine, I didn't think that after being honorably discharged, I would continue to have to live under threat. And it's a sad day in America, where civilian officials doing civilian jobs have to suffer these kinds of threats and these kinds of violence. Is this the country that we want to live in? Do we want regular civilian activities to be the target of threats of violence or actual violence? These are Americans who were bringing it here and that's embarrassing.
WIRED: What has it been like to experience the attacks on your family and safety?
Fontes: Well, thankfully, so far, it's just been threats. And we really are grateful to law enforcement, who continue to monitor the internet and other communication channels to make sure that we stay safe. It's not pleasant. And you know, my partner, my children, we're all very cognizant of it. And it's not something that I would wish on anybody else.
WIRED: You ran a tabletop exercise [a simulation of potential scenarios in the upcoming elections] over the past few days. Was there anything that stuck out to you or surprised you?
Fontes: I think the advancing technology and generative AI really was brought home for a lot of folks in the room. One of the deepfakes [at the exercise] was created with only base information from the internet and then some free tools. They created a deepfake of me and of another elected official in Arizona, using that person's permission and some footage that they took. And that one was strikingly better. And they actually had that official speaking German, speaking Chinese, in what appeared to be really, really well-placed lip movements, eye movements, all that stuff. In another six to eight months, those technologies are going to improve.
People have always been able to lie, but the effectiveness of those lies is now augmented and significantly increased. So AI doesn't present new threats. It presents broader and deeper threats that we're already working to deal with.
WIRED: The Colorado Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Trump can't be on the ballot. Can you talk about why you have defended Trump's right to be on the ballot and what you make of the Colorado decision?
Fontes: My position is that Arizona statute obliges me to put Donald Trump on the ballot where he has already qualified for the ballot in two other states. So my position is in defense of Arizona state law and our order under the rule of law, and whether or not I think Mr. Trump ought to be on the ballot is irrelevant. I have a duty to execute the law. As for Colorado, that's a Colorado question. And I have a feeling that the United States Supreme Court will have to step in at some point.
WIRED: What would you say to an average voter who believes that elections in America and elections in Arizona are rigged?
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
Fontes: I would ask them if they're hearing that from elected officials who were elected in the same system that they're questioning. If you're hearing it from someone who is currently in office, they got there because they got elected, because people voted for them. And those votes actually counted. The burden has been shifted to the defender of the system instead of the person trying to accuse the system of being problematic. I want to know why. I want to see the facts that have allegedly been kept from public view, I want to see the actual evidence that has never surfaced in any state anywhere, to show that there's some kind of widespread fraud or that elections are fickle.
I want to see the facts just like [speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives] Rusty Bowers wanted to see the facts. Just like [Georgia secretary of state] Brad Raffensperger wanted to see the facts. Just like sensible Republicans and Democrats across the country have wanted to see the facts. The burden should rest on the accuser. And if someone is accusing our systems of being corrupted, they need to show us the facts that they're using to come to that conclusion. Otherwise, their accusations are empty.
