Arizona and Georgia election officials describe how they are responding to President Trump’s push to reshape voting processes

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Gabe Sterling, a senior official in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, spoke separately to PBS NewsHour Politics about how election administrators in battleground states are responding to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the voting process. The conversations, published July 17, focused on election administration work ahead of future federal and state contests and on how state officials say they will continue to run elections under existing legal frameworks.

Fontes, who leads Arizona’s chief elections office, said Arizona administrators are emphasizing election security and voter access while carrying out responsibilities required by Arizona law. In the interview, he addressed the practical challenge of ensuring the public understands how voting works, including the roles of county officials and the state’s oversight process. The discussion also touched on the way state agencies respond to claims that question election integrity.

Sterling, who is associated with election operations within Georgia’s Secretary of State office, described Georgia’s approach to election management and public-facing explanations of procedures. Sterling said his office is focused on ensuring that election rules are followed consistently and that information about voting is clear, including information provided to voters and the public about how ballots are handled and counted.

Both officials’ remarks were framed against the backdrop of President Trump’s public statements, which PBS NewsHour Politics characterized as efforts to reshape the voting process. The interviews presented the administrators’ perspective on how such federal-level pressure and rhetoric can affect election administration messaging, public confidence, and the day-to-day work of election offices.

The officials also described the limits of what election administration can change through presidential influence alone. In both interviews, the emphasis was on the authority state election systems operate under, including state statutes governing voter registration, ballot processing, and certification timelines. That division of responsibilities, they indicated, is central to how administrators defend the integrity of results and maintain continuity between election cycles.

While the interviews focused on administrative and public-information tasks, the officials’ comments also underscored operational priorities for states managing security and compliance. Those priorities, as described by Fontes and Sterling, included coordinating with local election authorities, responding to questions from the public and stakeholders, and continuing to run elections according to the procedures already established in state law.