On Thursday, the Arizona District Court struck down provisions of two laws requiring proof of citizenship for voters.
In the 109-page order for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, Judge Susan Bolton ruled that several proof of citizenship provisions within HB2492 and HB2243, “Voting Laws,” violated federal laws pertaining to voting rights. The overturned provisions concerned birthplace requirement disclosures for voter registrations, county recorders investigating voters based on a “reason to believe” someone is a noncitizen, and disclosure of residence in order to register for federal elections.
There are over 19,000 federal-only voters who haven’t submitted proof of citizenship.
“The Court finds that though it may occur, non-citizens voting in Arizona is quite rare, and non-citizen voter fraud in Arizona is rarer still,” stated Bolton. “But while the Voting Laws are not likely to meaningfully reduce possible non-citizen voting in Arizona, they could help to prevent non-citizens from registering or voting.”
Bolton ruled that HB2492 violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act because its requirement of proof of birthplace for voter registration was immaterial in determining eligibility to vote. Bolton said that since the provision wasn’t retroactive it wouldn’t apply to the approximately one-third of active voter registrations lacking birthplace.
“That Arizona has determined these voters are qualified to vote notwithstanding the lack of any meaningful birthplace information strongly indicates birthplace is immaterial,” said Bolton.
HB2243’s directive for county recorders to deny voters based on a “reason to believe” that the voter may be a noncitizen violates the Different Practices Provision, Bolton ruled. The judge said the provision would unfairly subject naturalized citizens to citizenship database checks, and not native-born citizens.
Bolton also ruled that the state couldn’t require individuals registering using federal-only forms to provide documentary proof of residence (DPOR). Bolton determined that the voting laws requiring attestation of residency was sufficient to determine eligibility.
“Because the Voting Laws require a State Form to include DPOR, the State Form is not ‘equivalent’ to the Federal Form,” said Bolton. “Arizona may not reject State Forms lacking DPOR and must register these applicants as Federal-Only Voters.”
However, Bolton ruled HB2243’s requirement of county recorders to investigate federal-only voters’ citizenship statuses doesn’t violate federal voting law, since the state doesn’t require individuals to submit additional information beyond the federal registration form. Bolton noted that overturning such investigatory efforts would leave states without the ability to discover proof of citizenship.
“Arizona must accept the Federal Form as prima facie proof of an applicant’s eligibility to vote but the NVRA does not preclude Arizona from independently determining that an applicant or voter is ineligible,” said Bolton. “Were the Court to embrace Plaintiffs’ theory that section 6 prohibited a county recorder from requesting information not contained on the Federal Form after confirming non-citizenship, Arizona seems left with no apparent means to request proof of eligibility before cancelling [sic] a registration.”
Bolton further ruled that the county recorders could use federal and state databases to review citizenship information.
Court proceedings revealed that county recorders haven’t submitted to the attorney general a list of all registered voters who haven’t provided documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) by Oct. 31, 2022 as required by HB2492. Therefore, the attorney general hasn’t investigated the citizenship status of any dubious registered voters.
Contrary to the claims of Democratic lawmakers and activists, Bolton said that neither of the proof of citizenship laws were enacted with the intent of purposeful discrimination.
“The legislative record lacks any indicia of a nefarious motive,” said Bolton. “And despite [witnesses’] account of Arizona’s history of discrimination, neither expert articulated a persuasive factual nexus between this history and the Fifty-Fifth Legislature’s enactment of the Voting Laws.”
Bolton also ruled that the voting laws primarily imposed burdens on county recorders and the attorney general, not voters.
“The Voting Laws’ ongoing database checks, investigations by the Attorney General, and potential rejection or cancellation of a voter’s registration are not burdens, but merely the consequences of not providing DPOC,” said Bolton. “Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court concludes that Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide DPOC.”
Bolton indicated that she was open to weighing the socioeconomic burdens for certain individuals — especially those considered marginalized — but that the Democratic parties and activist groups hadn’t presented any witnesses or evidence to prove that the voting laws would impede qualified voters from registering to vote or remaining on the voter rolls. Specifically, they didn’t estimate the quantity or demographics of those federal-only voters who lacked DPOC.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Phoenix resident Brian Anderson received a surprise last week when he checked the contents of his newly-registered UPS mailbox: a mail-in ballot made out to a woman who has lived in Fulton County, Georgia for the past decade.
“This person appears to have been living (and voting!) in Fulton County, Georgia since at least 2015,” said Anderson. “Yet her Maricopa ballots presumably have been mailed to this UPS box every election for the past decade?”
Why is there a Dem ballot in my (recently registered) UPS mailbox?
This person appears to have been living (and voting!) in Fulton County, Georgia, since at least 2015. Yet her Maricopa ballots presumably have been mailed to this UPS box every election for the past decade? pic.twitter.com/xb49Mr8424
Registered voters may obtain a mail-in ballot by either joining the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) or making a one-time request for such a ballot. Under AEVL, voters may receive early ballots by mail indefinitely, so long as they vote at least once every two election cycles, or four calendar years.
Anderson shared with AZ Free News what he’d discovered through public records: the woman named on the ballot had moved out of Arizona around 2013, and has voted in Georgia elections since at least 2016.
“I just don’t understand how no one has marked this lady as inactive after a decade,” said Anderson.
The continued mailing of ballots to ineligible voters doesn’t necessarily mean that those voters have voted in recent past elections.
Under a law passed in 2021 turning the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) into AEVL, SB1485, voters are supposed to be removed from AEVL if they haven’t cast an early ballot over the course of two consecutive federal election cycles and fail to respond within 90 days to a mailed notice from the county recorder. Such a response would have to include a written confirmation of that voter’s desire to remain on AEVL, along with their address and date of birth.
Removal from AEVL doesn’t cancel a voter’s registration, and doesn’t preclude the voter from rejoining AEVL.
The law is under ongoing litigation launched by progressive activists currently: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes. They allege that the laws violate the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments along with the Voting Rights Act by imposing a greater barrier to vote that disproportionately impacts non-white individuals.
The implementation of AEVL is also under the subject of another lawsuit from Arizona’s GOP legislative leaders challenging Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ Election Procedures Manual (EPM). They alleged that Fontes’ EPM contradicts the implication of SB1485.
Instead of county recorders issuing notices to AEVL members who didn’t cast an early ballot over the 2022 or 2024 election cycles in 2025, Fontes’ EPM directs county recorders to send notices to AEVL members who didn’t vote by early ballot in the 2024 or 2026 election cycles. The GOP leaders argued that the scope of SB1485 included the 2022 election cycle, though Fontes contended that the cycle predated the law’s passage since the cycle began on Jan. 1, 2021.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The secretary of state’s office lacks the processes in place to remove about 78,000 potential noncitizens and nonresidents from its voter rolls.
In its last two quarterly reports issued to the state legislature in May and August, respectively, the department reported that it had received reports of but not acted on over 78,200 potentially invalid voters. The secretary of state’s office didn’t respond to our inquiry as to whether they have since put in place any processes to remove those potentially invalid voters from the voter rolls.
Through the beginning of August, the secretary of state received reports of over 53,200 persons reported to have been issued a driver’s license or equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating ID license in another state; over 1,300 persons who admitted to not being a citizen on a jury questionnaire; and over 23,600 persons who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire. In those cases, the secretary of state’s office disclosed that a process for sending notices, placing voter registrations on inactive status, or canceling voter registrations was “in development.”
These reports were included as exhibits in a Monday filing by Attorney General Kris Mayes in the case Mi Familia Vota v. Adrian Fontes, a case seeking to nullify state election integrity laws requiring stricter standards for voter proof of citizenship and voter roll cleanups.
These reports were previously believed to have not been submitted to the legislature, per previous reporters’ accounts of an inability to obtain the records. According to the exhibits, the two reports were submitted to Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-AZ-14) and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-AZ-27).
Last month, the Democratic Party-backed activist groups secured a partial win in a ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton. The judge determined that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth by the two laws in question, HB 2492 and HB 2243, posed too great a burden on voters.
Several questions remain before the Arizona District Court in the case.
One concerns whether HB 2492’s requirement that voters provide their place of birth, referred to as the birthplace requirement, violates 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), referred to as the materiality provision.
“No person acting under color of law shall – deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election,” states the federal statute.
Last week, the Biden administration issued a brief declaring that birthplace wasn’t material to determining voter eligibility. Kristen Clarke, Civil Rights Division assistant attorney general, and Gary Restaino, Arizona District attorney, argued that certain individuals born in the U.S. can be noncitizens such as those with diplomat parents, those who later renounce their citizenship, and those born outside the country to U.S. citizen parents.
Another question concerns whether the voter list maintenance programs set forth by HB 2492 and HB 2243 violate 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(A), referred to as the discrimination provision, or violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
“No person acting under color of law shall – in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote,” states the federal statute.
Another concerns whether the NVRA requirement that states accept and use the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) federal voter registration form preempts HB 2243’s voter list maintenance program.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 6.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The District of Columbia attorney general is investigating Arabella Advisors, the dark money giant operating a national funding network for leftist nonprofits, including in Arizona.
The Washington Free Beacon discovered that the DC attorney general issued subpoenas last month to Arabella Advisors, as well as its largest clients, concerning investigative reporting about tax law aversion and illegal profiteering.
Arabella Advisors manages five nonprofits that funnel dark money funds into other leftist nonprofits and initiatives: New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, Windward Fund, and the North Fund. Their influence is expansive, both nationally and in Arizona.
The five nonprofits all funded One Arizona, a coalition of leftist nonprofits, who in turn funded Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Chispa AZ, Arizona Advocacy Network, ProgressNow AZ, and Mi Familia Vota. Those nonprofits used that funding to advance their causes in Arizona’s elections.
An outgrowth of the New Venture Fund’s front initiative, We Mean Business Coalition, collaborated with the Carbon Disclosure Project and World Resources Institute to create the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Last November, the Biden administration proposed granting decision-making power on defense contracts to SBTi. In February a key initiative of SBTi, the Advanced and Indirect Mitigation (AIM) Platform, launched at GreenBiz 23 in Scottsdale.
Another New Venture Fund initiative, Campus Vote Project, has a presence across 41 states. In Arizona, the initiative coordinates with Arizona State University, Mesa Community College, South Mountain Community College, Northern Arizona University, Eastern Arizona College, Cochise College, Chandler-Gilbert Community College, and Phoenix College to increase voter turnout among college students.
Prior to the 2020 election, only Mesa Community College and South Mountain Community College were recognized by the dark money-originating initiative.
Also concerning higher education, the New Venture Fund created a scholarship program fund that partnered with Northern Arizona University (NAU) last year to pay illegal immigrant students’ tuition.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund was a major funder to the nonprofit Way to Win, which spent $110 million in key states, including in Arizona, to ensure Democratic victories in 2020. Way to Win served as the sponsor to Progress Arizona (formerly ProgressNow Arizona), who was led by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ ousted spokeswoman, Josselyn Berry, until at least 2021.
Those listed as running Progress Arizona, according to their latest available tax return (2021), were:
Emily Kirkland (executive director): Arizona Education Association communications director; former senior political strategist for the Colibri Collective; former director of Organizing for 350 Massachusetts and communications coordinator for Better Future Project
Ariel Reyes (director): Instituto political director; former Arizona Wins political director; former lobbyist for the Torres Consulting and Law Group
Elsa O’Callaghan (director): consultant with Prickly Pear Consulting; executive director of Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; former staffer for California Rep. Karen Bass (D); and former Planned Parenthood Los Angeles staffer
Belen Sisa (director): unemployed DACA recipient; former Democracy Initiative campaign manager; former communications staffer for Democratic congressional candidates Victor Reyes (New Mexico) and Mike Siegal (Texas), independent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; and former staffer for Arizona Wins and Mi Familia Vota
Alexa-Rio Osaki (director): director of Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AZ AANHPI) Advocates; Arizona Coalition for Change communications director
Josselyn Berry (chairman)
The Hopewell Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund have issued much of the funding for Opportunity Arizona. Until 2021, one of the individuals behind that organization was Dacey Montoya: a principal player in many of the dark money groups, Democratic candidates, and progressive initiatives in Arizona.
Those listed running the organization, according to their latest available tax return, were:
Ben Scheel (executive director): director of Bright Phoenix; former deputy campaign manager for Phoenix city council candidate Karlene Parks
Ed Hermes (board president): attorney; Osborn Elementary School District governing board president; vice chair of the city of Phoenix’s Vision Zero Committee; Maricopa County Superior Court judge pro tempore; and Move Osborne Forward treasurer
Josh Zaragoza (board member): political consultant involved in Phoenix City Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari’s council campaign and ongoing congressional campaign; former chief of staff to Phoenix Councilwoman Laura Pastor; and former Human Rights Campaign organizer
Monica Pimentel (board member): Arizona Latino School Board Association president; Glendale Elementary School District governing board member; Maricopa County Deferred Compensation Committee member; and former Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlan (MEChA) vice president
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
🚨BREAKING: Federal Court BLOCKS key portions of Arizona voter suppression law requiring strict proof of citizenship to vote. Congratulations to our clients @votolatino and @MiFamiliaVota and the ELG team. Remaining parts go trial trial in November.https://t.co/nsXzORw1iY
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
