by Staff Reporter | Jun 15, 2026 | Must Read, News
By Staff Reporter |
Republican State Rep. Alex Kolodin (LD3) is one of two contenders vying to unseat incumbent Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
Kolodin, a longtime election lawyer, has been in the Arizona legislature since 2023.
Kolodin has previously defeated Fontes under different circumstances.
In 2020, Kolodin won an Arizona Supreme Court case against Fontes which determined the latter, while Maricopa County Recorder, had wrongly told mail voters that crossing out votes wouldn’t spoil their ballots. That ruling allowed Arizonans to further challenge election officials on unlawful actions.
In 2024, Kolodin again defeated Fontes in court, securing a requirement for the latter to comply with duties under the National Voter Registration Act.
Earlier this year, Kolodin successfully passed an election integrity bill (HB 2022) to ensure Arizona’s election timeline aligned with federal requirements and protected military members overseas from disenfranchisement.
Kolodin also led on HCR 2001, the Arizona Secure Elections Act, which promises to strengthen voter ID requirements through an amendment to the Arizona Constitution. The measure passed the Arizona Legislature and is now headed to the statewide ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would mandate voter ID, declare citizenship as a mandatory qualification for registering and voting in elections, ban foreign funding in elections, and limit ballot acceptance times to Election Day.
Facing off against Kolodin in the primary is former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda.
Kolodin and Swoboda debated last month, with PBS moderating. Both said voters desire more reasons to trust their elections: competence, transparency, reliability, and experience.
Swoboda acknowledged that many voters believe elections have been rigged in recent years, but that the state has addressed issues with the administration, Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), and equipment through legislation and court challenges.
“The way I say it is, when people say, ‘Was it stolen?’, they were stolen fair and square,” said Swoboda.
Swoboda said issues with the EPM would always exist, but that the only issues that matter are those that affect the outcome of the election.
“We just won everything that was winnable in [20]24,” said Swoboda.
Kolodin disagreed with Swoboda’s view that the issues with the elections system, namely the EPM, have been resolved. He pointed to the Pima County GOP lawsuit against Fontes which alleges that Fontes’ EPM threatens voters’ free speech.
“The voters of Arizona are ready to move forward and have an elections system that we can be proud of,” said Kolodin.
Kolodin also questioned why Swoboda continues to defend the exclusion of political party observers in the EPM. Swoboda said she was merely backing what the law was at the time.
Swoboda criticized Kolodin for his 2023 admonishment by the State Bar of Arizona. Kolodin was punished for participating in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election.
Kolodin defended mail-in voting as the right of Arizona voters, and said that his efforts in the legislature have been to make that voting method more secure.
“Arizonans love our mail-in voting. Most Arizonans use mail-in voting, and nobody is coming to take that away,” said Kolodin.
Similarly, Swoboda said that Arizona has used mail-in voting for a while and does it well, and indicated that Arizona has further to go to secure the voting method against potential fraud.
The two contended whether the ballot referral under HCR2001 would “crush” mail-in voting. Kolodin claimed Swoboda was “misleading” voters on the referral, which he said was measures to improve the security of mail-in voting. Swoboda claimed the county recorders stand opposed to the referral.
“The voters of Arizona are the only stakeholders that I care about,” replied Kolodin.
Kolodin said it was “extremely important” to boost voter participation, especially in rural areas. However, Swoboda said it wouldn’t be her job as the secretary of state to ensure voter turnout was high.
In closing statements, Kolodin said his focus was on restoring public perception of integrity in Arizona’s elections.
“What the voters have been waiting for is elections that we can be proud of again,” said Kolodin.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jun 2, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Voters’ personal information was exposed after Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ office accidentally publicized them in violation of the law.
For nearly two years, Fontes’ office avoided publicization of the mishap. Their communications remained limited to the victims of the accidental publicization.
It was Votebeat who first found and reported on secretary of state records detailing the blunder this week. Fontes didn’t provide comment for the article. However, his chief of staff did go on the record.
Nearly 400 voters were impacted in the unintended disclosure in 2024. These voters were part of Arizona’s Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), which promises confidentiality for certain individuals with court orders of protection from the publicization of personal information like home addresses and phone numbers.
ACP members are often victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or stalking. Some are members of the justice system, including police officers.
According to these email records uncovered by Votebeat, Fontes staffers failed to notice their accidental publicization of protected voters’ information for nearly nine months. It was only by chance at a meeting that one keen-eyed staffer realized the mistake.
Fontes’ office said the former director of voter registration, administration, and technology, Craig Stender, was to blame. Stender passed away in March.
Stender denied wrongdoing immediately around the time of the office’s discovery of the error, which occurred in October 2024. Email correspondence from Stender indicated a breakdown in communication between the analyst who pulled the data and Stender.
Fontes’ chief of staff, Keely Varvel, told the secretary of state’s human resources department in an email that Stender had incorrectly instructed an analyst on pulling voter records. Stender was fired in October 2024.
Varvel told Votebeat that the records, properly pulled, would have been redacted automatically.
Staffers responded to impacted voters with information detailing what entities received their confidential records. This included a researcher at the University of Arizona and four out-of-state political data firms. One recipient passed along the protected voter records to another out-of-state political data firm.
While Fontes has publicly declared his commitment to protecting voter information, he never publicly announced this breach in trust concerning his office’s handling of confidential voter data.
Much of that rhetoric has centered around Fontes’ fight with the Trump administration over voter records. A federal court ruled that the Trump administration didn’t have justification to require Fontes to turn over voter registration records.
The Department of Justice sought Arizona’s entire voter registration list, which includes the full name, date of birth, home address, and driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number.
Fontes has also been very public in his criticisms of attempts to go after noncitizen voters.
Fontes has asked Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap to send him the information on the alleged hundreds of noncitizen voters discovered in Heap’s county. Heap opted to go to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office with the information, much to the chagrin of Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes. (Following two warning letters from Mayes, Heap did comply and submit the noncitizen voter list to Mayes’ office for investigation).
Fontes cast doubt on the accuracy of Heap’s noncitizen voter list, arguing that the federal database used by election officials to confirm citizenship had a high error rate and couldn’t be trusted without further verification.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | May 26, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap turned over potential noncitizen voter records to Attorney General Kris Mayes for review on Friday.
Heap’s referral follows two letters from the attorney general’s office — one from early April, one from earlier this week — warning Heap that his delay in referring the alleged noncitizen voters to them violated state law, as first reported by Votebeat.
Heap responded to the first letter claiming that he need not comply with the cited statute because their office had not yet canceled the voter registrations of the individuals identified as potential noncitizen voters. Instead, Heap placed those identified voters in a “Not Eligible” status pending submission of documentary proof of citizenship.
Heap gave notice of the status change of the potential noncitizen voters to Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in early March, citing the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) as justification. The attorney general office contends that Heap had misapplied his duties toward proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration to registered voters.
In that notice, Heap refused to hand over the potential noncitizen voters’ information to Fontes.
Similarly, Heap told the attorney general’s office in response to its first notice letter to him that a referral of the potential noncitizen voters would be “premature.” In mid-February, Heap announced to the public that he was referring the noncitizen voters to the attorney general’s office in addition to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO).
So far, Heap’s office has only submitted a referral of the alleged noncitizen voters to the MCAO.
In the most recent letter from Mayes’ office, Criminal Division Chief Counsel Nicholas Klingerman rejected Heap’s legal interpretation as incorrect.
“You cannot place ‘not eligible’ holds on these registered voters and fail to issue criminal referrals,” wrote Klingerman. “The statute does not authorize an indefinite administrative suspension for the purported noncitizen registrants, nor does it allow county election officials to choose which prosecuting agency may investigate these possible violations of state law.”
State law requires county recorders to cancel the voter registrations and notify the county attorney and attorney general for possible investigation of any registered voters for which the recorder has obtained information and confirmed noncitizenship.
In March, the MCAO began the early stages of its investigation into over 200 individuals over allegations of noncitizen voting. The recorder’s office identified the individuals through the federal database expanded last October by the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes of voter roll citizenship verification, the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements.
The most recent letter from Mayes’ office also accused Heap of intentionally misleading the public.
“At this point, your insistence that you are following the law is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. Moreover, your statement that criminal referrals would not be appropriate despite having acknowledged the requirement to refer these individuals to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and making a criminal referral to MCAO, suggests your intent is to mislead,” said Klingerman.
Last April, all 15 counties throughout the state began undertaking certain efforts to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls following a lawsuit.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | May 20, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Republican candidate for the Arizona secretary of state race stands in support of precinct-based voting.
Alexander Kolodin, a Republican lawmaker representing LD3, told Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller in a sit-down interview that precinct-based voting had “the opposite” effect of disenfranchising disabled voters.
Rather, Kolodin said that the vote center model preferred by his opponent — incumbent Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat — presents a greater risk for disenfranchisement because of the distance between vote centers.
“Precinct-based voting — I want to make this very clear — is the opposite of disenfranchising disabled voters. It is the vote center model that disenfranchises the most disabled voters because, again, it’s that travel time, it’s that distance,” said Kolodin.
Kolodin added that the distances between vote centers compared to precinct polling were more costly, gas- and time-wise. Kolodin likened the cost to taxation, with the greater burden on disabled voters.
“It’s almost a poll tax. Imagine how much gasoline it costs these days to drive 30 miles. You drive 30 miles there and back, I tell you in my car that’s going to cost me $10, $15 bucks. So, I’d have to pay that money in order to vote,” said Kolodin. “It’s hard for me to get a caregiver who can have that much time to take me if I’m a disabled person that far to vote, whereas if I have a polling place in my precinct, that becomes a much easier lift for me.”
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Fontes lost a court fight with Pinal County over its precinct-based voting model. Fontes sued in 2024 to force the county to adopt vote centers under the guise of retaining precinct-based voting.
In the 2025 Election Procedures Manual (EPM), Fontes mandated that all counties with precinct-based voting repurpose the Accessible Voting Devices (AVDs) to contain provisional ballots for the entire county. AVDs were intended and used exclusively in the past for voters with disabilities. Under Fontes’ design, precinct-based polling places would deprioritize voters with disabilities by requiring them to share this specialized voting equipment with out-of-precinct voters.
The court ruled that Fontes’ mandate would likely disenfranchise disabled voters.
Fontes dismissed the judge’s ruling as “sid[ing] with conspiracy theorists” in a social media post. He claimed his 2025 EPM policy wasn’t rooted in a desire to force “de facto” vote center models, as the court ruling stated, but instead an intent to allow voters with disabilities to vote wherever they wanted in the county.
“We were trying to help voters with disabilities just go to whatever polling place they can get to the easiest and cast a ballot from anywhere in their county,” said Fontes. “Unfortunately, for now, the politics have won in the court.”
However, that EPM policy didn’t explicitly limit AVDs usage to out-of-precinct voters with disabilities. The policy opened up the AVDs to all out-of-precinct voters.
“If the voter declines or is unable to travel to the voter’s assigned polling place, permit the voter to vote a provisional ballot in the correct ballot style for the voter’s assigned precinct using an accessible voting device that is programmed to contain all ballot styles,” stated the 2025 EPM. “The election official should inform the voter that their provisional ballot will be counted only if it is confirmed the voter is otherwise eligible to vote and did not vote early or at another voting location and had that other ballot counted as determined by the County Recorder.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | May 15, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
On behalf of the Pima County Republican Party and Chairwoman Kathleen Winn, the Oversight Project, filed suit over the 2025 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that grants election officials broad, vague authority to remove voters and involve law enforcement.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, with the approval of Attorney General Kris Mayes and Governor Katie Hobbs, issued the 2025 EPM through 2027. The document carries the force of law, with violations punishable by up to four months in prison.
The challenged provisions allow election officials to remove voters or summon law enforcement for actions such as wearing clothing, uniforms or official-looking apparel “intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters”; “aggressive behavior”; “raising repeated frivolous voter challenges”; and electioneering that is “audible” inside a voting location.
Critics argue these standards lack clarity and invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement under the pretext of preserving order at polling places.
“The Arizona EPM encourages arbitrary enforcement that results in politically motivated disenfranchisement, stated Oversight Project Director of State Litigation Neal Cornett. “The Oversight Project is always ready to help conservative leaders like Chairwoman Winn challenge government weaponization, especially when it involves such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and voting. The Secretary of State and Attorney General should disavow the challenged provisions and work with Arizona leaders to draft a fair manual that follows Arizona law.”
This is not the first time Arizona officials have faced legal pushback. The Secretary of State and Attorney General were previously enjoined from enforcing similar provisions in the 2023 Manual.
Pima County Republican Party Chairwoman Kathleen Winn emphasized the importance of clear rules for all voters: “Every Arizona voter deserves clear, consistent rules at the polling place that protect their right to vote free from arbitrary enforcement. Vague standards invite abuse, and when election workers are given unchecked discretion to remove voters or call law enforcement based on unclear or unspecified conduct, no voter or vote is truly safe. This lawsuit is about ensuring that the rules governing our elections are written plainly, applied fairly, and consistent with Arizona law, regardless of party.”
The lawsuit contends that the EPM’s vague language unconstitutionally threatens voting rights and free speech by empowering subjective decision-making that could disenfranchise eligible voters.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
