Gina Swoboda Affirms Democratic Pima County Recorder’s Reading of the Observer Law

”Pima has never allowed it.”

A sharp divide opened inside the Arizona Republican Party this week as the AZGOP’s X page, controlled by Gina Swoboda, publicly rejected Queen Creek Republican Sen. Jake Hoffman’s claims that Pima County violated state law when political-party observers were denied access to ballot replacement centers during last week’s election.

The dispute began on Election Day when Hoffman took to social media alleging that GOP observers were being blocked from what he called “polling places” in Pima County.

“I am getting reports out of Pima County that elections staff are turning away political party observers at polling places,” Hoffman wrote. He labeled the situation “voter disenfranchisement” and said there was “total chaos at some locations.”

Hoffman continued pressing the point, asking “What is Pima County hiding?” and describing the facilities as “vote centers” while urging immediate litigation against the county.

Within hours, the Arizona Republican Party posted its own statement that contradicted Hoffman’s narrative directly. They wrote:

“FYI. These are ballot replacement centers only. They are run by the recorder. Therefore no observers. The Legislature would need to change statutes to require observation during early voting. Pima has never allowed it.”

AZGOP on X.

Christy Kelly, editor of State 48 News, covered the controversy for the Arizona Globe. Readers can find that story here.

Republican Secretary of State candidate Alexander Kolodin addressed the issue on The Afternoon Addiction.

“Observation should be allowed whenever ballots are handled,” Kolodin said. He argued that the term “ballot replacement center” is a semantic distinction and added, “Let us not get confused. This is a polling place.”

His full interview can be found here along with remarks from Pima County Republican Chair Kathleen Winn here.

VoteBeat interviewed Swoboda about the viral video that circulated online. The article said the following:

Swoboda, who is a certified election officer in Arizona, defended the workers shown in the footage. “What I see is three election workers doing their job,” she said. “They open the drop box and it is full and that is the sign of a good turnout.”

She warned that mischaracterizing such videos places innocent people at risk. “These posts on X that inaccurately suggest wrongdoing are part of a pattern,” Swoboda said. “This trend is dangerous in a time of rising political violence.”

Winn told radio host Garrett Lewis that her observers noticed the ballot drop box overflowing and notified the Pima Recorder’s Office. “They didn’t even know,” said Winn.

Reactions online said the overflowing ballots heightened concerns, especially with observers being turned away.

The conflict escalated on November 13 when the AZGOP released a longer statement that said the Republican National Committee was in alignment with Swoboda. The statement firmly rejected Hoffman’s calls for a lawsuit.

Swoboda’s comments are in reference to Hoffman’s posts claiming that the RNC agrees with Hoffman.

The Legal Disagreement: Statutory Silence Versus Constitutional Transparency

This dispute is not just a political spat, but a pure legal conflict between two competing theories of election oversight.

The first camp follows strict statutory construction. Their position is simple: observer access exists only where the Legislature has explicitly granted it. Arizona law is clear about where observers must be allowed — in the tabulation room under A.R.S. 16-621; during adjudication, duplication, and signature verification; and at polling places or vote centers under A.R.S. 16-590 and the Elections Procedures Manual. Beyond those enumerated areas, counties have no legal obligation to admit observers under strict construction.

This is where A.R.S. 16-558.02 becomes pivotal. The statute governs ballot-replacement sites, the very locations at the center of the current conflict, and it treats them as an entirely separate category from polling places or vote centers. Voters may be issued a replacement early ballot, fill it out immediately, and return it in a sealed envelope, but the law never incorporates observer rights. There is no reference to party representation, no transparency mandate, and no tie-in to the observer protections found elsewhere in Title 16.

Under the strict-construction view, that silence is decisive. If the Legislature did not require observer access, counties are free to limit it. Replacement sites, in this interpretation, fall neatly into a statutory void.

The second camp approaches the issue from a constitutional transparency perspective. They argue that when a location performs the functional role of a polling place — issuing ballots to voters, allowing them to vote on-site, and collecting those ballots — it becomes a de facto voting location. And once a facility functions as a voting location, transparency rights flow from constitutional principles, not statutory permission. In that view, the absence of statutory language does not extinguish observer rights; it heightens the need for judicial protection of them.

Under this interpretation, statutory silence is not a loophole. It is a constitutional warning sign. The constitution intended elections to be observable, and the courts, they argue, must step in when modern election practices evolve faster than statutory language.

These dueling theories, statutory text versus constitutional transparency, now define the Arizona debate. Some counties have aligned themselves with the strict-construction model, treating replacement centers like administrative offices rather than polling locations. Others counter that the nature of the activity, not the name of the facility, determines the level of transparency required.

As the dispute continues, one fact remains unchanged:

State 48 News has made repeated attempts over the past several months to obtain comment from Chairwoman Swoboda. She has not responded. This article will be updated if and when she chooses to address our inquiries.