by Matthew Holloway | Aug 28, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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.
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.
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 | Aug 13, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) has become the center of controversies in Arizona in the past few days, involving Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and a raft of reforms to the act proposed by Congressman Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ08).
According to a press release from State Representative John Gillette’s office (R-LD30), “Fontes ordered counties to abandon the secure, state-managed Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballot processing system and instead use a third-party platform controlled solely by his office.”
Gillette condemned Fontes, saying, “UOCAVA exists to ensure that our deployed service members, their families, and Arizona residents living overseas can securely exercise their right to vote. He explained, “It does not give voting rights to foreign nationals, illegal immigrants, or U.S. citizens with no prior Arizona residency. This directive is a reckless expansion of voting access beyond what the law allows.”
The release from Gillette’s office added, “The change undermines the clear intent of federal law, circumvents the Arizona Election Procedures Manual—which requires a public process and legislative oversight before such changes—and risks improper use of federal funds designated for legitimate UOCAVA services. Removing counties from control also weakens ballot verification and tracking safeguards that protect against fraud.”
In a statement released by the Secretary of State’s office, Fontes characterized his change as “the upgrade we’ve been working toward for 20 years.”
On the federal stage, the Proving Residency for Overseas Voter Eligibility (PROVE) Act, introduced by Rep. Hamadeh earlier this month, drew the ire of elections reporter Garrett Archer of ABC 15. The self-proclaimed “data guru” held the reforms to be unnecessary, according to the Arizona Daily Independent. Archer has been in an ongoing social media feud with Hamadeh and his staff regarding UOCAVA voting totals.
Introducing the measure, Hamadeh warned that the UOCAVA allows people who have never resided in the U.S. to vote in state elections, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. “The loophole in UOCAVA allows citizens living overseas, with no current ties to a state, to arbitrarily choose where their vote counts,” he said. “This threatens electoral integrity and is an affront to everyone who believes in fair and free elections. The PROVE Act will close this loophole and go far to restore trust in our elections.”
Hamadeh explained in a post to X:
“The military and overseas citizen voting data reveals some concerning patterns: Volume Stats:
• Total UOCAVA ballots transmitted: 1,327,324
• Here’s the kicker: 70% went to overseas citizens, not military voters
• That’s the largest gap between overseas civilians and uniformed services since 2014.”
Archer accused the congressman of “still lying. Just with numbers this time.” He argued, “The four states with a concentration of UOCAVA voters are Virginia, Florida, Washington, and California. The UOCAVA voters in the first three are all majority military. Virginia is near the seat of government, Washington and California both have aerospace and tech industries. Abe is implying its suspicious that a random county in Oklahoma or Nebraska DO NOT have over 100 UOCAVA voters. Quite the opposite in fact. If a random county in Oklahoma or Nebraska had over 100 UOCAVA voters, that would be suspicious.”
In response to another post from Archer, who shared his breakdown of UOCAVA registrations in 2024 by Arizona counties, Hamadeh asked, “Why aren’t you using the military numbers? Is it because it completely invalidates your rebuttal? This bill ensures that military voters are protected and loopholes are closed.”
Hamadeh then cited Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies: “‘The typical civilian Congress was looking at [when UOCAVA was created] was, for example, a State Department foreign service officer in Europe for a several-year assignment who would return to his or her home in Maryland or Virginia or another state when that assignment ended,’ Spakovsky told The Federalist. Spakovsky explained the legislation was surely not intended to permit expatriates, or other individuals who left the country and have no intention of ever returning, to continue voting.”
Answering the efforts of Adrian Fontes to interfere, and blasting the Democrat in a post to X, Hamadeh wrote, “Overstepping his authority & again demonstrating his flagrant disregard for the integrity of our elections, @Adrian_Fontes is exploiting voting in the name of the very servicemembers who protect that freedom. Congressman Hamadeh’s PROVE Act fixes this.”
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 Jonathan Eberle | Aug 7, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Arizona Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on August 19 in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the state’s early ballot signature verification process—one that could reshape how election officials authenticate mail-in ballots. The case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, will be heard by Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which lifted a prior stay in the case following a joint request by all parties to move forward on the merits.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has unlawfully expanded the scope of documents used to verify a voter’s signature on early ballot envelopes. The plaintiffs—Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and Yavapai County voter Dwight Kadar—argue that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Governor Katie Hobbs, enforced EPM guidance that violates state law.
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 16-550(A), election officials are required to compare a voter’s early ballot envelope signature to the one in their “registration record.” However, the current EPM—originally authored by Hobbs in 2019 and maintained under Fontes—permits election officials to validate signatures by comparing them to any election-related document on file, such as early ballot requests, provisional ballot envelopes, or Active Early Voting List notices.
“The current election procedures manual adopted by the Secretary of State has rewritten state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi. “The result is a process that invites questionable methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process. It’s time for the courts to bring this illegal EPM practice to a halt.”
The case has had a turbulent procedural history. In 2023, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper initially ruled that the EPM violated state law, stating that the definition of “registration record” is neither vague nor ambiguous. Napper rejected the Secretary of State’s argument that the term could include any number of election-related documents. However, in a surprising reversal later in the proceedings, Napper ruled in favor of the state—prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
The outcome of this case could have major consequences for how Arizona handles the verification of early ballots in future elections. Arizona is a state with widespread early and mail-in voting, and signature matching is often the sole method for confirming voter identity on ballots returned by mail. Early ballot voters are not required to provide other identifying information, such as a driver’s license number, date of birth, or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
After months of delays—including a stay prompted by a separate ruling that invalidated the 2023 EPM for procedural reasons—the Court of Appeals has agreed to resume the case. All parties have urged the court to issue a ruling on the merits, regardless of the Arizona Supreme Court’s handling of a related challenge filed by the Republican National Committee.
The court’s decision will help clarify the balance of power between Arizona’s elected officials and its election laws, especially in the increasingly scrutinized area of early voting.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 4, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes fueled a new wave of condemnation during a Wednesday War Room segment of ‘Outspoken with Bruce and Gaydos’ on KTAR with Republican Arizona Senator John Kavanaugh. During the segment, Fontes brazenly described law enforcement as “hooded thugs.” Fontes then went on to deny his words minutes later when called Kavanaugh, a former police officer, called him out for it.
Saguaro Group and Arizona Capitol Oversight founder Brian Anderson drew attention to the moment in a post to X writing, “Democrat @Adrian_Fontes just went on the radio and smeared Arizona law enforcement officers as “HOODED THUGS” for enforcing border laws … and then nervously claimed “I didn’t say the word thug” after Senator @JohnKavanagh_AZ called him out for it[.]”
Republican Congressman and gubernatorial candidate Andy Biggs also called out Fontes on X, saying, “Arizona is less safe today because Democrats like Katie Hobbs and Adrian Fontes think our law enforcement agents are ‘thugs.’ Our safety is at risk. We cannot afford four more years of them in charge.”
In full context, Fontes began the exchange by responding to a question from co-host Bruce St. James, who asked how illegal immigrants are being selected for arrest and deportation. St. James asked, “How are these people [illegal immigrants] then being chosen picking picked out of a group then? What are the parameters people are using?”
Fontes answered, “Uh, whatever they are, they are un-Christian. I can’t see how anybody can say they’re a Christian and treat someone from another land in their own land this way. It’s mean is what it is. It’s mean-spirited. Uh, a lot of these folks are being picked up by, you know, hooded thugs in the street in the most un-American way. So, I just think the spirit behind this, whether or not the poll numbers are up or down, I mean, that’s kind of the window dressing here. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is uh scaring the hell out of people on purpose because we don’t like them. And it’s an un-Christian-based way of not liking people because just cuz they’re from somewhere else.”
Defending the use of masks to protect officers from the dangerous leftist tactic of ‘doxxing’ law enforcement officers and their families, making them vulnerable to targeted violence, Kavanaugh called out the Democrat Secretary of State for his comment: “I’m proud to have been a cop for 20 years. I’m proud to have helped immigration when I was a cop.” Kavanaugh said.
To which Fontes replied, “I appreciate what law enforcement agents do when they do it to protect or to…”
But Kavanaugh, having none of it, cut him off, “But you call them thugs!”
Fontes immediately denied the words he had spoken just over four minutes before, claiming, “I didn’t say the word thug. Now you’re lying.”
Kavanaugh then challenged him, “Play the tape. What? What? Mask thugs, or did you use a similar derogatory term? You didn’t say law enforcement officers.”
Fontes avoided the question and continued to attack the enforcement of immigration laws, saying, “You remove humanity, dignity, mercy, and decency from governance. What you’re doing is saying the most powerful will rule over the least without mercy.”
However, Kavanaugh wouldn’t let the comment pass unanswered, “So when I was a cop and I locked up somebody who committed a crime, I was a thug? I was not being humane because I enforced the law?”
Fontes answered conditionally, “When the law is amnesty, and people are fleeing places where they might get killed if they stay there?” He continued, claiming, “This home of freedom is now turning into a place of fear because of these ridiculous policies.”
Kavanaugh replied tersely, “People being removed do not have claims of asylum. If they did, they’d be on hold.”
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 Jonathan Eberle | Jul 23, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
In a tense and disorganized special meeting last week, the Arizona Democratic Party voted to remove Chair Robert Branscomb after just six months in office. The ouster followed months of infighting, public disputes with elected officials, union clashes, and growing concerns over the party’s financial health heading into the 2026 election cycle.
Branscomb, who was elected chair in January after unseating incumbent Yolanda Bejarano, faced mounting criticism from party leaders and lawmakers. Arizona’s top Democratic elected officials—including U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes—issued a rare public rebuke earlier this year, expressing a loss of confidence in his leadership.
Despite technical problems that plagued the meeting, 476 party committee members voted to remove Branscomb through the party’s preferred voting method, surpassing the two-thirds threshold required by Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) bylaws. Some members cast votes by email due to glitches in the party’s online voting system, though the total vote count remains unclear.
“Today’s recall effort is rooted in misrepresentation, divisive tactics and does not reflect our democratic values,” Branscomb said during the meeting. He argued that his removal was not about party unity but about “distraction and dividing us at a time when unity is more important than ever.”
Several lawmakers and party officials cited concerns over Branscomb’s ability to lead Democrats to victory in the next election. “Donors have told me directly they’re sitting out until the party gets its act together,” said State Representative Aaron Márquez.
The July 16 meeting stretched on for hours as frustrations mounted over procedural confusion and technical failures. Several members said they did not receive links to vote on the quorum, raising fears that they would be disenfranchised. Over two and a half hours were spent troubleshooting the party’s online voting platform.
Much of the confusion appeared to stem from tensions between party officers and ADP Executive Director Michael Ruff, who was tasked with managing the voting system. Some staff members claimed in Zoom chat messages that they had offered to help with the process but received no response.
ADP Vice Chair Melissa Galarza criticized the disorganization, saying, “I just feel like this was not well planned, the staff was not prepared for it, Michael Ruff did not prepare us, we had a lack of conversation about this meeting.”
A new election to select the party’s next chair is scheduled for September. Branscomb has the option to challenge his removal in that meeting. Until then, ADP Vice Chair Kim Khoury will serve as interim chair.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
