- Lead
- 7,310
- Total
- 15,183
- vs nation
- R+46.7
- Turnout
- 53.5%
Graham County, AZ
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 53.5% of 28,622 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 6,715
- Total
- 15,029
- vs nation
- R+49.1
- Turnout
- 54.9%
- Lead
- 4,724
- Total
- 12,281
- vs nation
- R+40.6
- Turnout
- 48.3%
- Lead
- 4,467
- Total
- 11,905
- vs nation
- R+41.4
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 4,889
- Total
- 12,007
- vs nation
- R+48.0
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 4,282
- Total
- 10,720
- vs nation
- R+37.5
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 2,652
- Total
- 9,664
- vs nation
- R+28.0
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 284
- Total
- 9,296
- vs nation
- R+11.6
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+48.1MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 39,2322024 5-year
- Median household income
- $67,3252024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 52.7%2024 5-year
- Black
- 1.6%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 30.8%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+65.4 in 1936MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+48.1 in 2024MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Liberty County, TX · twin score 82.0
Midterm durability
Total general-election participants divided by same-year citizen voting-age population. These are total ballots or participating voters—not presidential candidate votes.
- 2024 total turnout
- 53.5%15,327 participants ÷ 28,622 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +15.5 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off versus state
- -1.6 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026 scenario
- 38.0%–41.9%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
| Election | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 · Presidential | 12,535 | 25,961 | 48.3% | A/A |
| 2018 · Midterm | 10,786 | 26,648 | 40.5% | A/A |
| 2020 · Presidential | 15,113 | 27,526 | 54.9% | A/A |
| 2022 · Midterm | 11,006 | 27,942 | 39.4% | A/A |
| 2024 · Presidential | 15,327 | 28,622 | 53.5% | A/A |
Sources and methods
- 2016: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 293/111.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2020: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 301/2.
- 2022: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 306/183.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
Precinct data
Results by precinct
42 precincts · 29,957 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -009 PIMA 9009 PIMA 9 | 306 | 1,925 | 2,273 | 4,504 | 6.8% | 42.7% | R+35.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -007 THATCHER 7007 THATCHER 7 | 336 | 1,193 | 1,565 | 3,094 | 10.9% | 38.6% | R+27.7 |
| Precinct -015 SAFFORD 15015 SAFFORD 15 | 388 | 849 | 1,267 | 2,504 | 15.5% | 33.9% | R+18.4 |
| Precinct -002 SAFFORD 2002 SAFFORD 2 | 370 | 782 | 1,196 | 2,348 | 15.8% | 33.3% | R+17.5 |
| Precinct -005 LAYTON 5005 LAYTON 5 | 299 | 865 | 1,178 | 2,342 | 12.8% | 36.9% | R+24.2 |
| Precinct -018 JACKSON 18018 JACKSON 18 | 186 | 836 | 1,048 | 2,070 | 9.0% | 40.4% | R+31.4 |
| Precinct -019 DESERT HILLS 19019 DESERT HILLS 19 | 134 | 770 | 928 | 1,832 | 7.3% | 42.0% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -001 SOLOMON 1001 SOLOMON 1 | 214 | 574 | 806 | 1,594 | 13.4% | 36.0% | R+22.6 |
| Precinct -006 THATCHER 6006 THATCHER 6 | 100 | 621 | 751 | 1,472 | 6.8% | 42.2% | R+35.4 |
| Precinct -011 BYLAS 11011 BYLAS 11 | 534 | 123 | 665 | 1,322 | 40.4% | 9.3% | D+31.1 |
| Precinct -020 ARTESIA 20020 ARTESIA 20 | 106 | 538 | 660 | 1,304 | 8.1% | 41.3% | R+33.1 |
| Precinct -003 SAFFORD 3003 SAFFORD 3 | 143 | 394 | 543 | 1,080 | 13.2% | 36.5% | R+23.2 |
| Precinct -008 CENTRAL 8008 CENTRAL 8 | 45 | 475 | 526 | 1,046 | 4.3% | 45.4% | R+41.1 |
| Precinct -016 PERIDOT 16016 PERIDOT 16 | 383 | 107 | 498 | 988 | 38.8% | 10.8% | D+27.9 |
| Precinct -004 LAYTON 4004 LAYTON 4 | 148 | 308 | 462 | 918 | 16.1% | 33.6% | R+17.4 |
| Precinct -014 THUNDERBIRD 14014 THUNDERBIRD 14 | 43 | 216 | 273 | 532 | 8.1% | 40.6% | R+32.5 |
| Precinct -017 CACTUS 17017 CACTUS 17 | 48 | 139 | 189 | 376 | 12.8% | 37.0% | R+24.2 |
| Precinct -010 FORT THOMAS 10010 FORT THOMAS 10 | 25 | 190 | 0 | 215 | 11.6% | 88.4% | R+76.7 |
| Precinct -013 BONITA 13013 BONITA 13 | 14 | 126 | 0 | 140 | 10.0% | 90.0% | R+80.0 |
| Precinct -021 QUATRO CERROS 21021 QUATRO CERROS 21 | 17 | 78 | 0 | 95 | 17.9% | 82.1% | R+64.2 |
| Precinct -012 KLONDYKE 12012 KLONDYKE 12 | 15 | 30 | 49 | 94 | 16.0% | 31.9% | R+16.0 |
| Precinct -023 FORT GRANT 23023 FORT GRANT 23 | 4 | 26 | 36 | 66 | 6.1% | 39.4% | R+33.3 |
| Precinct -022 GILA RIVER 22022 GILA RIVER 22 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 21 | 42.9% | 57.1% | R+14.3 |
| Bonita 13 Voting District04_0400913 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Bylas 11 Voting District04_0400911 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Cactus 17 Voting District04_0400917 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Central 8 Voting District04_0400908 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Jackson 18 Voting District04_0400918 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Klondyke 12 Voting District04_0400912 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Layton 4 Voting District04_0400904 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Layton 5 Voting District04_0400905 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Peridot 16 Voting District04_0400916 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Pima 9 Voting District04_0400909 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Safford 15a Voting District04_0400915 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Safford 15b Voting District04_0400919 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Safford 2 Voting District04_0400902 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Safford 3 Voting District04_0400903 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Solomon 1 Voting District04_0400901 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Thatcher 6 Voting District04_0400906 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Thatcher 7 Voting District04_0400907 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Thomas 10 Voting District04_0400910 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| Thunderbird 14 Voting District04_0400914 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
Presidential margin, 1912–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1912 | +41.3% |
| 1916 | +48.7% |
| 1920 | +8.6% |
| 1924 | +17.9% |
| 1928 | +13.2% |
| 1932 | +59.3% |
| 1936 | +65.4% |
| 1940 | +45.7% |
| 1944 | +35.0% |
| 1948 | +27.5% |
| 1952 | +0.2% |
| 1956 | −17.1% |
| 1960 | −8.7% |
| 1964 | +2.4% |
| 1968 | −12.2% |
| 1972 | −28.8% |
| 1976 | −8.8% |
| 1980 | −24.7% |
| 1984 | −25.7% |
| 1988 | −19.8% |
| 1992 | −8.0% |
| 1996 | −3.1% |
| 2000 | −27.4% |
| 2004 | −39.9% |
| 2008 | −40.7% |
| 2012 | −37.5% |
| 2016 | −38.5% |
| 2020 | −44.7% |
| 2024 | −48.1% |
U.S. House
Each row shows U.S. House votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
U.S. Senate
Each row shows U.S. Senate votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
U.S. Senate special elections
Each row shows U.S. Senate special votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
| Year | Vote lead | Democratic | Republican | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020Special · Class III | R | 30.4%Mark Kelly4,506 | 69.6%Martha McSally10,303 | 14,813 |
Governor
Each row shows Governor votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Registered voters
By party of registration, over time
Registration leans Republican; the presidential vote runs 17 points more Democratic.
20,375 registered voters · 2026
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
−228 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −192 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $58,452 in average income, against $69,039 for residents who stayed — 15% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+13.1 on average — 35 points more Democratic-leaning than Graham County, AZ itself (R+48.1).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Maricopa County, AZ155R+3.5
- Greenlee County, AZ72R+40.9
- Pima County, AZ67D+15.2
- Cochise County, AZ43R+23.1
- Pinal County, AZ32R+22.1
- Gila County, AZ23R+37.6
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Maricopa County, AZ135
- Pima County, AZ67
- Greenlee County, AZ65
- Cochise County, AZ37
- Gila County, AZ23
- Pinal County, AZ21
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | −301 |
| 2012 | −394 |
| 2013 | +97 |
| 2014 | +243 |
| 2015 | −625 |
| 2016 | −372 |
| 2017 | −643 |
| 2018 | +302 |
| 2019 | +607 |
| 2021 | +194 |
| 2022 | −178 |
| 2023 | +602 |
| 2024 | +504 |
| 2025 | −228 |
Graham County's high desert terrain and small-town economy have produced presidential margins above R+40 in each of the past several cycles, making it a consistent outlier even within a state that has trended competitive at the statewide level.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 65.4 points in 1936 and a Republican high of 48.1 points in 2024. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 3.5 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 48.1 points.
A population of 39,232, a 53% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $67,325 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Liberty County and Jerome County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Graham County, Arizona. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/04009/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.