Arizona Proposition 211, Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022)

Arizona Proposition 211
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Campaign finance and Elections and campaigns
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

Arizona Proposition 211, the Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative, was on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported requiring that persons or entities that make an independent expenditure of $50,000 or more on a statewide campaign or $25,000 or more on a local campaign must disclose the names of the money's original sources, defined as the persons or businesses that earned the money being spent.

A "no" vote opposed requiring that persons or entities that make an independent expenditure of $50,000 or more on a statewide campaign or $25,000 or more on a local campaign must disclose the names of the money's original sources.

Election results

Arizona Proposition 211
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,736,496	72.34%
No		664,111	27.66%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How did Proposition 211 change campaign finance laws in Arizona?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 211 requires that anyone making independent expenditures of more than $50,000 on a statewide campaign or $25,000 on a local campaign to disclose the names of the money's original sources, which would be defined as the persons or businesses that earned the money being spent. It requires disclosure reports and transfer records to be made by any covered person (someone who spends a total of $50,000 or more in campaign spending in statewide campaigns or a person who spends $25,000 or more in another campaign), as well as requiring transfer reports to be made by donors who contribute $5,000 or more to a covered person. It prohibits structured transactions.

Who were the campaigns behind the initiative?

See also: Support and opposition

The Voters' Right To Know PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee received $1.39 million in contributions, and spent $1.32 million.

What were the arguments for and against the initiative?

See also: Arguments

The Stop Dark Money campaign, which was paid for by the Voters Right to Know PAC, said that voters should be able to see certain donors who were contributing to campaigns that were not required to be disclosed. “Under current Arizona law, a few dark money power brokers get special treatment, the rules that all the rest of us must follow don’t apply to them. These well-funded organizations and individuals exert a major influence in elections by spending money on advertisements and promotions supporting their candidate or ballot proposition. This 'Dark Money' spending is frequently used to bombard the voters with negative ads, misleading information, and even outright lies,” the campaign said. Former Arizona Governor John Fife Symington III (R) endorsed the measure, and said that Arizonans “have a right to know who is participating in our elections.”

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club said that the initiative would violate the First Amendment right to free speech, and would be a mechanism for certain donors to be targeted. “The Voters’ Right to Know Act is another attempt to silence free speech—and to target, harass, and dox private citizens,” the organization said.

How did the initiative get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

In Arizona, for a citizen-initiated state statute to qualify for the ballot, the amount of signatures a measure needs is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. In 2022, this meant 237,645 valid signatures were required to put the initiative on the ballot.

The Voters Right to Know organization filed the ballot initiative on March 19, 2022, and submitted 393,490 signatures on July 7, 2022. Signatures were verified by a random sampling process, in which 5% of the signatures filed were sampled. On August 26, 2022, the secretary of state found that 285,144 signatures were found valid after county review, qualifying the measure for the ballot. A total of $1,220,000 was spent to collect the 237,645 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.13.

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the constitutional amendment.

Transfer records: Regarding the transfer records that must be made by covered persons

A covered person—someone who spends a total of $50,000 or more in campaign spending in statewide campaigns or a person who spends $25,000 or more in another campaign—must maintain transfer records before they can use or transfer the donor’s funds for campaign spending.

A donor must be notified that their contributions may be used for campaign spending and that this information may have to be reported to the appropriate government authority for exposure to the public.

A donor may opt out of having their contributions used for campaign spending by notifying the covered person within 21 days. The covered person cannot use the donor’s contributions until 21 days after the written notice is provided to the donor, or whenever they receive the donor’s written permission.

A donor who contributes $5,000 or more in an election cycle to a covered person must inform the person of: the identity of the person who contributed $2,500 or more in original funds being transferred; the amount of that person’s original funds being transferred; and any people who have previously transferred the original funds. If more than one transfer has previously occurred, the donor must disclose all previous transfers and intermediaries. This information must be provided by the donor within 10 days of receiving the written request by the covered person. These records must be maintained for five years and be provided on request to the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Disclosure reports: Regarding the disclosure reports that must be made by covered persons

Disclosure reports must be filed by a covered person (someone who spends a total of $50,000 or more in campaign spending in statewide campaigns or a person who spends $25,000 or more in another campaign) within five days of spending or accepting in-kind contributions totaling $50,000 or more.

The report must include the name of the person who controls the funds, the identity of any entity established or controlled or financed by that person, the contact information of the custodian of the transfer records and at least one person who can control how the traceable funds are spent, the total amount of traceable funds owned or controlled by the covered person, each donor who has contributed more than $5,000 of funds or in-kind contributions during the election cycle, and the identities of any intermediaries, as well as the information of any person who has received $1,000 from the covered person during the election cycle.

Subsequent reports must also be made within three days if the covered person spends another $25,000 during statewide campaigns or $15,000 for any other type of campaign.

All disclosure reports will be made electronically available to the secretary of state.

The identity of sources who are protected from disclosure by law, court order, or at shall not be disclosed.

Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission: Providing the commission the enforcement of provisions in this act

The Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission is the primary agency authorized to implement and enforce the act. This includes enforcing rules and regulations, penalties, conducting investigations, and establishing what campaign finance or donor records must be maintained.

Any order from the commission must be treated as an order from a superior court. If the commission imposes a penalty on a person and that person does not timely seek judicial review, the commission may file a report of the fine to a superior court.

The commission may establish disclaimer requirements regarding public communications for a covered person (someone who spends a total of $50,000 or more in campaign spending in statewide campaigns or a person who spends $25,000 or more in another campaign). At minimum, these disclaimers will display the names of the top three donors who made the three largest contributions to the covered person during the election cycle. If this is not possible, such as by using a social media message or text message, this disclaimer must be provided easily and immediately for viewers to obtain.

Citizens Enforcement Action: Providing citizens the ability to file a complaint against those who violate the act

Any Arizona citizen may file a complaint with the Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission regarding any person violating any section of this act. If the commission dismisses the complaint or does not take legal action within 90 days, the citizen may bring a civil action against the commission.

Structured transactions: Prohibits structured transactions

Structuring (the act of breaking up financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements) any contribution, expenditure, disbursement, or other transaction under this act is prohibited.

More stringent action: Provides for more stringent action to be made by a governing body

The legislature, a county board of supervisors, or a municipal government is allowed to enact more stringent disclosure provisions than those contained in the act.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Proposition 211 Proposed by initiative petition relating to the disclosure of the original source of monies used for campaign media spending Official Title Amending Title 16, Arizona revised statutes by adding Chapter 6.1; relating to the disclosure of the original source of monies used for campaign media spending. Descriptive Title The law would require entities and persons spending over $50,000 on statewide campaigns or $25,000 on other campaigns, not including personal monies and business income, to disclose the original donor of contributions over $5,000; and create additional reporting and enforcement provisions.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring additional disclosures and reporting by entities and persons whose campaign media spending and/or in-kind contributions for campaign media spending exceeds $50,000 in statewide campaigns or $25,000 in other campaigns, including identifying original donors of contributions of more than $5,000 in aggregate; creating penalties for violations of the law; and allowing the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to adopt rules and enforce the provisions of the law. A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on campaign finance reporting requirements.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 13, and the FRE is 23. The word count for the ballot title is 85.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 18, and the FRE is 23. The word count for the ballot summary is 89.

Support

The Voters' Right To Know PAC was leading the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• Frmr. Arizona Gov. John Fife Symington III (R)

Political Parties

• Pima County Democratic Party

Organizations

• Civic Engagement Beyond Voting

Arguments

• Former Gov. Fife Symington: “Arizonans have a right to know who is participating in our elections. Today undisclosed contributions could be coming out of state, out of country, organized crime groups, drug cartels, or even foreign governments. We must put an end to this. We must return the power to the voters, to the people of our great State and demand that contributions be disclosed. This is as it was and as it should be today.”
• Stop Dark Money, the Voters Right to Know PAC: “Under current Arizona law, a few dark money power brokers get special treatment, the rules that all the rest of us must follow don’t apply to them. These well-funded organizations and individuals exert a major influence in elections by spending money on advertisements and promotions supporting their candidate or ballot proposition. This “Dark Money” spending is frequently used to bombard the voters with negative ads, misleading information, and even outright lies. At Stop Dark Money, we are supporting a ballot initiative that, if placed on the 2022 ballot and passed by Arizona voters, would require ALL major contributors to clearly identify themselves if they invest more than $5,000 in support of a campaign or a candidate.”
• Will Humble director of the Arizona Department of Health Services: "Dark money is political spending on election advertising by anonymous sources. It is called “Dark Money” because we can’t see who’s sponsoring the messages in political ads. Under current Arizona law, rich power brokers get special treatment and unduly influence elections by secretly spending money on advertisements and promotions supporting their candidate or ballot proposition. This “Dark Money” bombards voters with negative ads, misleading information, and even outright lies ... Proposition 211 will fix that. It simply builds transparency into our political system by requiring ALL major contributors to identify themselves if they spend more than $5,000 for a campaign or candidate."
• Pinny Sheoran, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona: "A “yes” for this measure will require any person spending over $50,000 on statewide campaigns, or $25,000 on other campaigns, to disclose the original sources (people or corporations) of contributions exceeding $5,000. They must also disclose their largest donors in their campaign materials. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission, a non-partisan, voter-established body, will enforce this Act. Violations could incur substantial penalties."

Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Arizona

Organizations

• Americans for Prosperity
• Americans for Tax Reform
• Arizona Free Enterprise Club
• Center for Arizona Policy
• Goldwater Institute

Arguments

• Arizona Free Enterprise Club: “The Voters’ Right to Know Act is another attempt to silence free speech—and to target, harass, and dox private citizens … But just to be sure you know exactly who this initiative is targeting, consider this. Corporate media, big tech, and other liberal institutions are exempt from the measure. And the way it is drafted would also exempt most labor unions. That means the disclosure requirements of this measure would disproportionately impact conservatives. They’re not even trying to hide it! They want to dox conservatives, intimidate them, and harass anyone who doesn’t believe what the Left wants them to believe or say what the Left wants them to say.”
• Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy Action: "Prop 211 is a clear attempt to chill speech of some individuals, opening them up to harassment and bullying and is likely unconstitutional."
• Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club: "One of the bedrock principles our country was founded upon was the right to free speech, which includes being able to support causes and issues they believe in without fear of harassment and intimidation. Just last year the US Supreme affirmed this right, declaring that any effort to require non-profit organizations to publish the names of their donors and supporters is unconstitutional. Yet Prop 211 ignores the first amendment and would attempt to implement a draconian disclosure scheme that would be impossible for any group to comply with and would immediately lead to litigation. Even more offensive is that the measure would not apply to the media, big tech or to the labor unions, which have a specific carve-outs in Prop 211 that exempts them from the disclosure requirements."
• Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy Action: "The hypocritical nature of this initiative is apparent in the fact that it demands disclosure from private groups, but big tech, corporate media, and labor unions are all exempt. Ironic that all those exempted favor one party over the other. All citizens should be free to put their money and effort behind campaigns they support without the risk of conspired retaliation by those in opposition. The measure is also likely unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are free speech."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2022.

The Voters' Right To Know PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee received $1.5 million and spent $1.5 million.

Ballotpedia did not locate political action committees opposing the ballot measure. You can share information about ballot measure committees, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,549,696.01	$9,066.00	$1,558,762.01	$1,496,522.97	$1,505,588.97
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$1,549,696.01	$9,066.00	$1,558,762.01	$1,496,522.97	$1,505,588.97

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 211
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Voters' Right To Know	$1,549,696.01	$9,066.00	$1,558,762.01	$1,496,522.97	$1,505,588.97
Total	$1,549,696.01	$9,066.00	$1,558,762.01	$1,496,522.97	$1,505,588.97

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
David Tedesco	$818,000.00	$0.00	$818,000.00
Voters' Right to Know PAC	$138,500.00	$0.00	$138,500.00
Robert Bertrand	$135,010.00	$0.00	$135,010.00
David Higgins	$65,000.00	$0.00	$65,000.00
Ernest Garcia II	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Campaign finance requirements in Arizona

See also: Campaign finance requirements in Arizona

Candidates in Arizona file campaign finance reports with the Arizona Secretary of State through an online system. Before a candidate may file campaign finance reports, he or she must form a candidate committee. Campaign finance reports must cover all financial transactions related to the campaign beginning the day the candidate committee files the Statement of Organization and continuing until the day the candidate committee files a Termination Statement.

While contribution limits exist in races for gubernatorial elections, or for the State Senate and House of Representatives, there are no contribution limits for political committees, political parties, Super PACs, or ballot measures.

Other campaign finance disclosure ballot measures

In Alaska, voters approved Ballot Measure 2 by 50.55%-49.45%, which, along with establishing a ranked-choice voting system, required that donors that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the ‘’true sources’’ of the political contributions. The true sources, in the Alaska measure, were defined as persons and entities whose contributions are derived from wages, investment income, inheritance, or revenue from selling goods or services.

On April 7, 2022, several political donors and independent expenditure groups filed a federal lawsuit alleging that certain campaign finance disclosure provisions of Ballot Measure 2 were unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. The lawsuit challenged the provision requiring persons and entities that make political contributions of more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions. It also challenged the provision requiring disclaimers on political communications and ads identifying any out-of-state contributors that funded the communications and ads. On July 14, 2022, a federal judge denied the request to block the campaign finance provisions of Ballot Measure 2.

Campaign and election measures on the ballot 2022

See also: Elections and campaigns on the ballot

1. Alabama Amendment 4, Prohibit Changes to Election Conduct Laws within Six Months of General Elections Amendment (2022)
2. Louisiana Amendment 3, Classified Civil Service Employee Public Support of Family Members' Campaigns Measure (2022)
3. Kansas Constitutional Amendment 2, County Sheriff Election and Recall Amendment (2022)
4. Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (2022)
5. Arizona Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022)
6. Arizona Proposition 131, Create Office of Lieutenant Governor Amendment (2022)
7. Michigan Proposal 2, Voting Policies in Constitution Amendment (2022)

Path to the ballot

Process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Petitions can be circulated for up to 24 months. Signature petitions must be submitted four months prior to the election at which the measure is to appear.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 237,645 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 7, 2022.

If the secretary of state certifies that enough valid signatures were submitted, the initiative is put on the next general election ballot. The secretary of state verifies the signatures through a random sampling of 5 percent of submitted signatures working in collaboration with county recorders. If the random sampling indicates that valid signatures equal to between 95 percent and 105 percent of the required number were submitted, a full check of all signatures is required. If the random sampling shows fewer signatures, the petition fails. If the random sampling shows more, the initiative is certified for the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

• The organization Voter's Right to Know filed the ballot initiative on March 19, 2022.
• On July 7, the Voter's Right to Know campaign submitted 393,490 signatures.
• On August 17, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Mikitish rejected a legal challenge to the measure.
• On August 26, 2022, the secretary of state found that 285,144 signatures were found valid after county review, qualifying the measure for the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,220,000.00 was spent to collect the 237,645 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.13.

Leibsohn v. Hobbs

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Should each circulator provide a separate affidavit for each petition they are gathering signatures for, and must a registration disclose the circulator's full residential address, including the unit number?
Court: Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County
Ruling: The court rejected the challenge by the plaintiffs. The statute does not support the claim that the affidavit must specifically relate to each new initiative. The residential addresses provided by petitioners were sufficient, and while a unit number is required, it is only required if a unit number is necessary to ensure that the individual could be contacted or questioned.
Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, et al.	Defendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al.
Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state needs to require petitioners to file separate affidavits for each petition they plan to circulate for. The addresses provided from circulators were not sufficient, and must include a unit number.	Defendant argument: The law does not require a new affidavit for each registration. The statute only requires the circulator's "residence address" and the plaintiffs have not provided proof that the addresses were insufficient so that the circulators could be contacted.

  Source: Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruling

On August 17, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Mikitish rejected a legal challenge to the measure. The lawsuit argued that each petitioner must supply an affidavit for every initiative they plan to gather signatures for, and that the addresses on each registration must also supply the unit number. Judge Mikitish ruled against the claim that each affidavit must specifically relate to each new initiative, and that the unit number on addresses of the registration of petitioners is only necessary to ensure that the individual could be contacted or questioned. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 25, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the initiative.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.

How to vote in Arizona

Poll times

In Arizona, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Arizona, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of an Arizona county. A voter must be 18 years or older on or before Election Day. Arizona also requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote for state and local elections

To be eligible to vote in an election one must register at least 29 days prior to the election. Individuals can register online, in person at the county recorder's office, or by mail.

Automatic registration

Arizona does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Arizona has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Arizona does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Arizona law requires 29 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Arizona requires voters to submit proof of citizenship with their voter registration application to vote in state and local elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website: "A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a 'federal only' voter)." Accepted proof of citizenship include:

• An Arizona Driver's License/Identification Number
• Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number
• A photocopy of U.S. naturalization documents
• A photocopy of a birth certificate and supporting legal documentation (i.e., marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name.
• A photocopy of a U.S. passport.
• A photocopy of a Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.

On August 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order partially granting the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans' request to enforce a 2022 law related to proof of citizenship requirements. The court allowed the enforcement of the provision requiring the state to reject state voter registration forms submitted without proof of citizenship. Previously, a person who submitted a state voter registration form without proof of citizenship could still be a federal only voter. After the court's ruling, a person unable to provide proof of citizenship would need to submit a federal voter registration form in order to vote in federal elections. Read more about legal challenges to this law here.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Arizona Voter Information Portal, run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Arizona requires voters to present photo identification or two forms of non-photo identification while voting.

The following were accepted forms of identification as of July 2024: Click here for the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

Voters can present one of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s photograph, name, and address:

• Arizona driver’s license
• U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID, issued with printed name and address
• Arizona ID card
• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID

If a voter does not have one of the above forms of ID, the voter can present two of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s name and address:

• Utility bill in the voter's name
• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
• Valid Arizona vehicle registration
• Arizona vehicle insurance card
• Indian census card
• Property tax statement
• Recorder's certificate or voter registration card
• Tribal enrollment card or other tribal ID
• Valid U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID with a printed name and address or
• Any mailing in the voter's name that is labeled "official election material"  

Additionally, if a voter presents photo ID that does not list an address within the precinct in which he or she wants to cast a vote, that person may present the photo ID with one non-photo identification material from the second list above. The identification material should include the voter’s address.

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Campaign finance on the ballot
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot

Arizona

• Arizona ballot measures
• Arizona ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls