by Staff Reporter | Jan 8, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Arizona for refusing to turn over voter registration records.
Arizona joins 22 other states and the District of Columbia facing legal action from the DOJ for withholding access to the voter rolls.
A press release issued on Tuesday from the DOJ also named Connecticut as the latest to be sued.
“Accurate voter rolls are the foundation of election integrity, and any state that fails to meet this basic obligation of transparency can expect to see us in court,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The requested records would include each voter’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number, last four digits of their Social Security number, or HAVA unique identifier.
The DOJ’s lawsuit asserts the agency maintains legal authority under the Civil Rights Act (CRA) to access any election records it desires.
“If the custodian to whom the written demand is made refuses to comply, the CRA requires ‘a special statutory proceeding in which the courts play a limited, albeit vital, role’ in assisting the Attorney General’s investigative powers,” stated the lawsuit.
The DOJ requested the records from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes last July, and again in August. Both times Fontes responded with refusals, claiming that state and federal privacy laws prevent him from turning over the requested records.
Fontes rejected another follow-up request by the DOJ last month. The secretary of state claimed that voter rights to privacy trumped the federal government’s chief authority over elections.
“Arizona voters also have important privacy rights that cannot be infringed because they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected voting rights,” said Fontes.
Fontes said in a statement to Democracy Docket that he would rather be imprisoned than cooperate with the Trump administration.
“They’re going to have to put me in jail if they want this information,” said Fontes.
In a video statement on X, Fontes again declared compliance would break state and federal law.
“Pound sand,” said Fontes.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes backed Fontes’ take on privacy laws negating the authority of election oversight laws.
“Both state and federal law prohibit the unrestricted release of Arizona’s complete voter registration database to the DOJ,” said Mayes.
Fontes also published a blog post on Tuesday commemorating the fifth year to pass since the January 6 invasion of the Capitol. The secretary of state claimed that the government remains under active threat, and compared the political climate to the Civil War era.
“Today’s challenges — polarization, misinformation from the top down, foreign interference — are real and daunting. But they pale in comparison to the existential crisis of 1864, when the nation itself was at risk of dissolution. If democracy could survive that, it can survive now — provided we do our part,” said Fontes. “Confidence in our electoral system is not naïve; it is necessary. Election officials across the country are working tirelessly to secure voting infrastructure, expand access, and ensure transparency. These efforts deserve not only our trust but our active participation. Cynicism is easy. Engagement is harder — but it is the only way forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party is calling a recent court ruling a major victory for election integrity, but how much the decision will actually change voter roll maintenance remains an open question.
In a statement released this week, Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda announced that the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Petersen, et al. v. Fontes, upheld an Arizona law that requires counties to begin the cancellation process when a voter swears on a jury questionnaire that they no longer live in the county. Swoboda described the ruling as a necessary correction that will help ensure clean voter rolls ahead of future elections.
“This ruling is a major victory for our state and for every Arizona voter,” Swoboda said in the update, framing the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the state’s elections.
“Cleaner rolls protect voters. That’s the bottom line. No more dodging the law, no more loopholes, and no more games with Arizona’s voter rolls. Republicans in Arizona are fighting to ensure our elections are secure and stopping extreme leftist policies that would have thrown our elections into chaos. This is a huge step forward, but our work continues. We’ll keep working to restore trust, enforce the law, and deliver an election system every Arizonan can count on.”
In the AZGOP statement, the party referred to the ruling as “a significant defeat for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes,” noting that the state’s second-highest-ranking Democrat was “forced to abandon his extreme rule that would have allowed counties to toss out every vote cast if a canvass was submitted late,” describing the policy as “reckless,” and saying it “jeopardized lawful ballots and undermined public confidence.”
Republicans are celebrating the decision as a significant victory for structural reform; however, the ruling itself paints a more nuanced legal picture.
On the jury-questionnaire issue, the court held that federal law does not preempt Arizona’s statute, A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(9)(b), which directs county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the voter fails to respond to a mailed notice after telling a jury commissioner they no longer reside in the county. The opinion explains that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows removal when a voter “confirms in writing” that they have changed residence and does not require that confirmation go directly to the county recorder. Instead, the court found that a signed juror questionnaire can qualify as that written confirmation:
“Because the Seventh Circuit precedent does not conflict with A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9, the NVRA does not preempt that Arizona statute. … Here, the county recorder sends the notice only when a person signs (under penalty of perjury) a written juror questionnaire saying the person no longer resides in the county. A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9(b). That notice satisfies the NVRA.”
Under the statute, the juror form does not lead to automatic cancellation. Instead, it triggers a process: the recorder must send a notice by forwardable mail warning that, if the voter does not respond within 35 days, “the county recorder shall cancel the person’s registration.” The 2023 Elections Procedures Manual had directed counties to move such voters to an inactive list instead of canceling their registrations, but the court concluded that approach conflicted with the statute and therefore exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
Swoboda and other GOP leaders also highlighted language in the 2023 manual that would have instructed the Secretary of State to proceed with a statewide canvass without counting any county whose official canvass arrived late. The appeals court, however, declined to rule on that provision, finding the challenge moot because Fontes had already replaced it in the draft of the 2025 manual with language committing to use “all available legal remedies” to compel a county board of supervisors to complete its canvass and “protect voters’ right to have their votes counted.”
While the ruling clearly reinforces that the Secretary of State’s election manual authority is bounded by statute, the judges also sided with Fontes on a key question involving the active early voting list. Upholding the superior court, the panel agreed that a separate statute governing removal notices for the active early voting list, A.R.S. § 16-544(H)(4), is not retroactive and applies starting with the 2024 election cycle:
“The 2023 Manual thus has the removal notice statute process start with the 2024 election cycle. The 2024 election cycle started on January 1, 2023. The superior court agreed with the Secretary. We thus affirm.”
Arizona counties regularly maintain their voter rolls using multiple data sources, including death records, address changes, and federal databases. Several prominent Republicans have argued that those procedures remain insufficient. The jury-form issue addressed in this case represents a narrow slice of that broader process. The practical number of registrations affected by the ruling is not yet known.
Arizona GOP leaders, including Swoboda, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate President Warren Petersen, and former Speaker Ben Toma, have pursued multiple legal challenges over election procedures and voter-roll maintenance in recent years. Some of those efforts have succeeded in forcing procedural changes, while others have been dismissed on standing or jurisdictional grounds.
That track record makes this latest ruling politically significant even if its technical impact proves limited. For election integrity activists, it represents steady, gradual progress toward tightening controls. Critics, meanwhile, characterize them as partisan attempts to re-litigate election processes long after votes have been cast.
Swoboda’s update also criticized past election-related deadlines and procedures that Republicans argue undermined public trust, particularly citing disputes over ballot processing timelines and late canvassing.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores a basic principle: if a voter swears they’ve left a county, that sworn statement can be used, under existing law, to start the notice-and-cancellation process so the registration does not remain active indefinitely, akin to voters trying to leave “the Hotel California,” as Swoboda quipped in a video posted to X. Opponents counter that aggressive roll maintenance must be handled carefully to avoid mistakenly removing eligible voters.
For now, the ruling directs how counties must treat sworn jury-form declarations moving forward, reaffirming the statutory process: notice, a waiting period, and eventual cancellation if there is no response. Whether that translates into large-scale voter-roll changes or simply a modest administrative correction will depend on how often such declarations occur and how county recorders opt to implement the ruling.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 16, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
President Trump’s historic Gaza ceasefire deal, signed Monday with Palestinian leaders and Israel, has sparked rare bipartisan praise from Arizona’s elected officials.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ05) wrote from the gubernatorial campaign trail, “This incredible day is happening because of President Trump’s strength and determination to bring peace to the region.”
However, he has also raised the alarm regarding post-deal barbarism from Hamas, with reports of public executions in Gaza streets just hours after inking the treaty. “Hamas is carrying out barbaric executions… They must do so expeditiously or face consequences for violating the ceasefire,” he posted on X.
Kudos have poured in from Democrats as well, with Sen. Mark Kelly offering Trump a rare bipartisan praise. “I think he should get a lot of credit. I mean, this was his deal. He worked this out. He sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner over to negotiate this, and it so far has gone well,” Kelly told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
Kelly hailed the hostage returns and the flood of aid trucks that “should have been happening over the last two years.” Kelly, however, cautioned, “I am concerned that they may change their minds here.”
Kelly posted on X: “After two years, this is a real opening for peace that will release the hostages and get desperately needed aid to civilians in Gaza. There’s a lot more work to see this through, but I appreciate the work of President Trump, the administration, and our international partners to reach this point.”
Senator Ruben Gallego notably avoided lauding the Trump administration in his statement on Monday, merely calling the peace “profoundly overdue.” He wrote, “After two long years, the final Israeli hostages have returned home. This day is profoundly overdue, and my heart is with the families whose unwavering hope and perseverance made it possible. Their return marks an important step toward peace. I remain steadfast in the belief that the United States must continue its efforts to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians and that Gaza is rebuilt.”
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08), who has been instrumental in the administration’s Middle East diplomacy, wrote a lengthy statement, saying in part: “In a day some thought would never come, the remaining Israeli hostages have been freed and returned to their families.”
Hamadeh added, “It was a day 737 days in the making and one that wouldn’t have been possible without the bold leadership of President Trump and the hard diplomatic work of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and the entire Trump Administration.”
Hamadeh asked God for blessings for the returning hostages, their families and the families of those whose remains were returned adding, “It is my fervent hope that the bodies of those who haven’t been returned are located and returned soon.” He concluded: “Blessed are the peacemakers who fought so hard on behalf of these families amidst overwhelming odds and overwhelming uncertainty.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) offered very direct praise from the State House, naming the President simply “the peacemaker.” He wrote, “Peace in the Middle East. Thank you, @realDonaldTrump, the peacemaker.”
State Rep. Alma Hernandez (D-LD 10) provided a particularly raw and emotional take as well from the Democrat side of the aisle, posting about her openly sobbing over reunion videos only to wake in fresh grief for the families learning their loved ones wouldn’t return.
Though she didn’t directly credit the administration, she wrote, “While we are all overjoyed and celebrating the return of the 20 hostages, let’s not forget those families who anxiously waited for over two years to find out this morning that their loved one was not returning alive… I can’t imagine the feeling of great heartbreak & sorrow those families are feeling right now. They held on to every ounce of hope… my heart goes out to them, and I pray that they will overcome this tragedy.”
Notably, as of this report, no statements from Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, or Secretary of State Adrian Fontes praising the administration were publicly available, despite all three being vocal on the topic of the Hamas-Israel conflict.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Oct 11, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva says her district deserves representation, though she was silent on the absence of her father, the late Raúl Grijalva, from office.
The younger Grijalva has yet to be sworn in. She says Republicans are to blame for their refusal to agree to Democrats’ desired Obamacare continuations to lift the ongoing government shutdown.
“Speaker Johnson continues to make excuses but all the while southern Arizona still does not have a voice in Washington,” said Grijlava.
Senator Ruben Gallego also blamed House Speaker Mike Johnson and the rest of his Republican colleagues for Grijalva not being sworn in, claiming Johnson was telling “lies” to the public.
Contrary to Grijalva’s characterization of the situation, Grijalva can’t be sworn in because the statewide certification has yet to take place.
Grijalva’s desire to secure representation for her district is also a newfound one. She had little to say during the final years of her father’s term.
The late Grijalva missed most votes from last year and this year amid a lung cancer battle that would ultimately claim his life in March at 77 years old. The longtime Democrat had held his seat for 20 years when he announced his lung cancer diagnosis in 2023.
The late Grijalva missed nearly all votes (about 97 percent of votes) this and the last session before his passing. The only vote he took this session was for Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries for House Speaker at the start of session. He defended his absence with the claim his vote wouldn’t have any impact in a Republican-controlled Congress.
“They’re inconsequential because the Republicans are in charge and it’s the worst performing Congress in decades, if not a hundred years,” said Grijalva at the time.
Tucson residents were quick to point out the successor Grijalva’s hypocrisy.
“A lung cancer diagnosis in April 2024 led Grijalva to miss most of his votes in the House of Representatives throughout the year and into 2025,” said one user. “[You] didn’t say a damn word.”
Grijalva couldn’t be sworn in sooner than next Tuesday, anyways, because that’s when the statewide canvass is scheduled.
Arizona Secretary of State and fellow Democrat Adrian Fontes issued a press release on that point. The deadline to file an election contest, also, will not occur until October 20.
Next Tuesday is also the earliest date the Senate will reconvene to possibly agree on a continuing resolution to cease the government shutdown.
Debbie Lesko, Maricopa County Supervisor and former congresswoman, reminded the public that she wasn’t sworn in until the House began its session that year, in 2018.
“[This is] what’s happening with Grijalva,” said Lesko. “The Democrats and media are making a big deal over nothing.”
Congress had its longest shutdown on record from December 2018 to January 2019. The shutdown has lasted for over a week now.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Sep 24, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, alongside Senate President Warren Petersen and House Republicans, announced the filing of an amicus brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in the case Republican National Committee v. Fontes.
The brief urges the Court to require Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to adhere to Arizona’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when drafting the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), a critical set of rules governing the state’s election process.
The APA mandates a transparent public notice and comment period before new rules take effect, ensuring accountability and alignment with Arizona’s election statutes.
The brief, filed in support of the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Arizona, LLC, and the Yavapai County Republican Party, argues that the EPM must comply with the APA’s procedural requirements, as neither the APA nor the authorizing statute (A.R.S. § 16-452) explicitly exempts it.
“The integrity of Arizona’s elections is absolutely vital. House Republicans are committed to the rule of law and to ensuring that Secretary Fontes stays within the limits of his authority,” said Speaker Montenegro. “We already convinced a judge to strike down unlawful provisions in the 2023 EPM in our own lawsuit. We fully support this case, which asks only that Secretary Fontes follow long-standing notice and comment requirements when drafting the manual. Arizonans deserve accountability and transparency from every public officer, especially when it comes to election rules.”
The brief emphasizes that Arizona’s comprehensive election laws, which cover voter registration, early ballots, polling places, and vote tabulation, limit the Secretary of State’s authority to draft an EPM.
The APA’s notice and comment process serves as a check, promoting transparency and preventing deviations from legislative intent.
The brief cites the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Republican National Committee v. Fontes, which affirmed that the EPM is subject to the APA’s requirements due to clear statutory language.
The filing highlights two key benefits of APA compliance. First, it reinforces constitutional and statutory limits on the Secretary’s authority, preventing overreach. Second, the public comment process allows for early identification of legal or practical flaws in the EPM drafts, potentially reducing litigation and supporting public confidence in Arizona’s elections.
The brief also notes issues with the 2023 EPM, where provisions added without public input led to legal challenges.
The ongoing litigation, Petersen v. Fontes, further highlights the importance of APA compliance, as it challenges the 2023 EPM’s deviation from state law. The amicus brief, submitted by Montenegro and Petersen in their official capacities, reflects the Arizona Legislature’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the integrity of the state’s electoral process.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
