Last week, Arizona’s Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes issued an opinion stating that roughly 200,000 voters mistakenly listed in state election records as having provided proof of U.S. citizenship should remain on the rolls, despite questions about their citizenship status and potential conflicts with Arizona law.
As reported by AZ Free News in November of last year, 218,000 voters were confirmed by Senate President Warren Petersen to have obtained their driver’s licenses prior to the 1996 requirement to apply with proof of citizenship, went on to get a duplicate license, and then registered to vote for the first time or re-registered to vote after 2004.
For over 20 years, they were caught up in a compatibility issue between the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the state’s voter registration system.
JUST IN: Attorney General issues opinion on how AZ should treat 200K voters caught up in state error tracking voter citizenship. They should remain FULLY ELIGIBLE to vote, Mayes writes, because recorders don't have authority to remove them from rolls/make federal-only. STORY IN🧵 pic.twitter.com/ww8qtN4zFt
According to VoteBeat’s Jen Fifield, AG Mayes’ opinion marks a notable departure from how election officials have been working to remedy the problem with counties issuing notices to voters in an attempt to collect the information.
“If an Affected Voter responds by providing such evidence, that should dispel doubt,” Mayes wrote. “But if an Affected Voter does not respond, the mere lack of response does not, under current law, authorize the county recorder to cancel the voter’s registration, in whole or in part.”
Fifield, citing the Arizona Attorney General’s manual, noted that it is unclear whether or not the county election officials will conform to Mayes’ formal opinion, which is advisory in nature and does not carry the force of law.
“County recorders may take steps to inquire whether the affected voters are U.S. citizens, including by asking them to provide satisfactory evidence of citizenship,’’ Mayes wrote.
Mayes’ opinion came in response to a request made in May by fellow Democrat Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. In a statement, Fontes said he has appreciated Mayes’ guidance, writing, “The opinion stands for the notion that these folks have a right to vote,’’ he told the AZ Capitol Times.
“And it falls to the government to prove otherwise–which is the way every other accusation, every other denial of rights exists,” Fontes said. “So the burden has shifted back to where it belongs.’’
In a statement, Fontes wrote, “The consistent treatment of voters caught up in this situation between counties is most important to ensure everyone’s voting rights are protected. I am glad we now have a clear path forward.”
Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Gina Swoboda agreed with Mayes’ opinion, in particular her assessment of the county recorder’s limited authority to cancel registrations.
“If the recorders have affirmative proof that one of the voters is a non-citizen, they may initiate a notice and cancellation process,” Swoboda told the AZ Capitol Times. “But they may not otherwise do so because of this error.”
Coconino County Recorder Aubrey Sonderegger told the Arizona Republic that the news was welcome. “It’s exactly what Coconino County has been doing all along,” she said. “We have more than cut our list in half.”
She added that “These people weren’t doing anything nefariously” but were merely caught up in the timing of the voter registration standard changing. “I’m very relieved to hear the AG opinion,” she said. “It just means we can keep doing what we’ve been doing.”
According to the Secretary of State’s office, the current number of affected voters stands at 202,760. Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap issued a notification on June 26, 2025, to the 83,000 county voters on the list, informing them that they must submit proof of citizenship within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in reclassification as federal-only voters, and they will not be issued state and local ballots.
Through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the U.S. House of Representatives reauthorized the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) through December 31, 2028, and enacted its largest-ever expansion.
This act broadens eligibility to include new populations, such as Northern Arizona counties and additional uranium workers, while continuing support for those affected by the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
The expanded RECA provides a one-time, lump-sum payment of up to $100,000 to qualifying individuals or their survivors, offering critical restitution for those who developed serious illnesses due to radiation exposure.
Representative Eli Crane (AZ-02) announced that the reauthorized act now covers individuals in Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, Gila, and Mohave counties in Arizona affected between January 1951 and November 1962, as well as uranium workers employed in covered occupations from January 1, 1942, to December 31, 1990.
The program also extends to onsite participants of nuclear tests and those impacted by the Manhattan Project waste.
RECA provides a non-adversarial alternative to litigation, requiring no proof of causation. Claimants qualify by demonstrating a compensable disease and presence in a designated area or occupation during specified periods.
The program, administered by the Department of Justice, is designed to resolve claims efficiently, using existing records to minimize administrative costs for both claimants and the government.
The four qualifying categories are Downwinders, onsite participants, uranium workers, and Manhattan Project waste victims.
Downwinders are individuals who developed certain cancers after radiation exposure from U.S. nuclear tests between 1944 and 1962.
The program now includes several Arizona counties along with eligible areas in Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada.
To qualify, individuals must have lived in one of the areas during a specific time period and have been diagnosed with a compensable disease such as leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, or certain primary cancers.
On-site participants were individuals present at U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests before January 1, 1963, and later developed a compensable disease.
Uranium workers also receive compensation for individuals employed in uranium mining, milling, core drilling, ore transport, or remediation efforts in mines or mills located in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, or Texas between January 1, 1942, and December 31, 1990.
To qualify, uranium workers must have been employed for at least one year during the time period and been diagnosed with a compensable disease such as lung cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis, pneumoconiosis, cor pulmonale related to lung fibrosis, or renal cancers.
Lastly, Manhattan Project waste victims get compensation for individuals exposed to Manhattan Project waste in designated areas of Missouri, Tennessee, Alaska, and Kentucky.
To qualify, individuals must have lived, worked, or attended school for at least two years after January 1, 1949, in designated zip codes and have a compensable disease.
The expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act delivers long-overdue justice, honoring those whose lives were forever changed by radiation exposure.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Let’s start with a very simple truism: you can’t have prosperity without people.
Human beings are the most valuable resource, because it is human ingenuity that creates and cultivates all other earthly resources. We as human beings are the custodians and protectors of the planet, not its destroyers, as the radical environmentalists would have you believe.
The richer and more technologically advanced we become, the more likely we are to avert a catastrophic event like a giant meteor crashing into the planet and destroying all life.
Which brings us to a potentially ruinous trend: many countries are literally running out of people.
This alarming chart on births and deaths in Europe is a terrifying glimpse into the future of a new dark age of the western world, if birth rates don’t start rising — and quickly. Europeans are becoming extinct.
Negative population growth is a sure killer of prosperity and human flourishing. It’s also contrary to Christianity and most other religions, which instruct us to “be fruitful and multiply.”
It’s not just Europe. Japan and Korea will cut their populations in half over the next 80 years if they don’t start moving away from one child per couple rates of propagating.
Why are rich countries depopulating the planet?
For 60 years, prophets of doom like Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”) and governments around the world — including our own — warned that we all had a moral obligation to save the planet by having fewer babies. There were periods of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, forced birth control, and — in advanced nations like in Europe and the U.S. — a cultural sneering at families with four or five or six kids.
That mendacious propaganda campaign worked all too well. Look what it has wrought.
There are other explanations. As we have gotten richer — and especially as women’s earnings have risen — the “cost” of having a child in terms of lost income, has risen. Women are less likely to have more than one or two children. To be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that women should be paid less!
Marriage rates have declined, and vows are coming later in life, so the median year for a woman to have a child keeps rising — leaving fewer fertility years left for multiple children.
Religiosity has declined somewhat in our more secular “me first” society. That’s sad because childless couples tend to be less happy. And why have kids if you don’t believe there is a divine reason we were put on this planet?
The solutions to this problem aren’t obvious. Pro-natalist government policies, like paying people to have kids and offering free childcare have had spotty levels of success.
The U.S. has delayed the demographic crisis happening in Europe and much of Asia through immigration of young workers. Not only do immigrants increase the population, but they tend to have more kids than native-born Americans.
But even with immigration, we in America have an obvious aging problem.
One simple step is to start celebrating as a society the virtues and the self-sacrifice of motherhood. Our schools and our teachers and our clergy and our political leaders need to keep pushing the message that the greatest contribution men and women can give to saving our species is to have more kids — as soon as possible.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.
Former University of Arizona (U of A) ethics professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school with the help of Liberty Counsel, after being fired for publicly advocating for his parental rights at Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) meetings.
Grossenbach, a CFSD parent and resident, is the founding member of ‘Save CFSD,’ a “non-profit organization focused on educating parents about school board policies and issues and fundamental parental rights.” According to the lawsuit, he was “unceremoniously terminated” by U of A leaders, “at the demands of internet trolls’ intent on silencing his speech.”
In a press release issued Friday, Liberty Counsel announced the lawsuit on Grossenbach’s behalf. The Christian legal ministry explained, “In 2023, Grossenbach spoke several times at school board meetings, which [were] attended by hundreds of concerned parents, and delivered two-to-three-minute, pre-written speeches. He routinely included a disclaimer that he spoke for himself and not for his employer, and expressed without hate, slander, or violence how the district’s policies violated parental rights.
“The lawsuit then states that ‘anti-religious zealots turned digital critics’ coordinated over social media to silence Grossenbach and SaveCFSD by getting him fired from his job. Subsequently, numerous anonymous complaints were filed against him with the University of Arizona encouraging the university to discipline him for speaking out about his rights and beliefs.”
Liberty Counsel revealed, “In November 2023, the university informed him that it would not be renewing his part-time teaching contract for the following Spring ethics courses citing it had received funding for a full-time faculty member. However, the university never hired a full-time professor nor offered his ethics course the following Spring. In fact, the university posted advertisements soliciting resumes for additional part-time professors meeting Grossenbach’s exact skills and experience to teach similar courses he had been teaching for years.”
👨⚖️ I was fired after speaking at my school board meeting, so I filed a lawsuit… https://t.co/agUPXo5qJV
The attorneys argue that despite Grossenbach’s good performance and positive reputation, U of A terminated his employment “after discovering that he was an outspoken Christian advocating for change within his local school board to protect his family.” They claim the university subsequently stalled the disclosure of public records regarding his termination for 239 days in violation of Arizona law.
“[The University of Arizona’s] actions have inflicted irreparable damage to Professor Grossenbach’s professional career and reputation, ended his academic pursuit of a doctorate degree, decreased his earning potential, and reduced his income,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “Further, when Professor Grossenbach was terminated, he lost a potential textbook publishing deal, furthering his financial loss and reputational damage.”
According to the lawsuit, Grossenbach was terminated on November 30, 2024, after serving in his role for over three years “on the basis of complaints lodged by anonymous online censors targeting his constitutionally protected speech regarding his sincerely held religious beliefs, in his private capacity, separate and apart from the workplace.”
The professor filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and obtained a Notice of Right to Sue on May 25, 2025.
“Professors at public universities and colleges do not shed their constitutional rights to free speech and religious exercise when they work for a university,” said Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “Professor Daniel Grossenbach engaged in constitutionally protected speech, religious expression, and religious exercise and was speaking on matters of public concern regarding his faith, morality, and the community. The University of Arizona cannot fire a professor for his protected speech. Viewpoint discrimination is unlawful and violates the First Amendment and religious discrimination violates Title VII.”
Liberty Counsel is seeking a permanent injunction to declare the university’s Nondiscriminatory and Anti-Harassment Policy and Statement of Professional Conduct illegal and unlawful, along with compelling U of A “to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of its employees.” The lawsuit also asks the court to reinstate Grossenbach to his former position, restore his benefits, and award damages.
Grossenbach’s efforts with ‘Save CFSD’ and exposure of controversial whistleblower audio released in May have been reported on by AZ Free News. The Professor also penned an op-ed on AZ Free News in October 2024 discussing his termination.
The U.S. Border Patrol’s Yuma Sector has established a National Defense Area within its area of operations to boost security along the southern border and address illegal cross-border activities.
The designated zone, neighboring the Roosevelt Reservation along the Barry M. Goldwater Range and the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, aims to enhance border protection and mitigate environmental damage caused by illicit activities.
The National Defense Area authorizes military personnel to temporarily detain individuals who unlawfully enter the restricted zone.
Detainees will be transferred to U.S. Border Patrol agents and may face criminal charges for violating defense property regulations, unauthorized entry onto military property, and illegal entry, in addition to removal proceedings.
Clear signage has been posted throughout the National Defense Area to warn that unauthorized entry is prohibited under federal regulations.
The signage reads:
“WARNING
RESTRICTED AREA:
This Department of Defense property has been declared a restricted area by authority of the commander in accordance with the provisions of the directive issued by the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21, Internal Security Act of 1950.
UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY IS PROHIBITED
All persons and vehicles entering herein may be detained and searched. Photographing or making notes, drawings, maps, or graphic representations of the area or its activities are prohibited unless specifically authorized by the commander. Any such material found in the possession of unauthorized persons will be confiscated.”
This initiative mirrors similar National Defense Areas established in Texas and New Mexico, designed to curb illicit drug and human smuggling while reducing environmental degradation caused by cross-border foot traffic, litter, and vehicle activity.
The Yuma Sector’s National Defense Area demonstrates a continued commitment to defend the southern border, protecting national security, and preserving the region’s natural resources.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
