Arizona’s top Democrats from Congress on down are coordinating to pass a ballot measure that would enshrine relaxed voter ID laws in the Arizona Constitution.
A coalition of top Democrats joined on a livestream earlier this week for a launch of the Protect the Vote Arizona Act political action committee: Reps. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04), Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ-03), and Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ-07); Secretary of State Adrian Fontes; Attorney General Kris Mayes; and the minority leaders for the Arizona House and Senate, Rep. Oscar De Los Santos (D-LD-11) and Sen. Priya Sundareshan (D-LD-18).
The Democrats styled the ballot measure in their public comments as focused primarily on keeping mail-in voting as an option in Arizona. However, most of the ballot measure focuses on undoing the strictness of voter ID laws and ensuring that stricter voting requirements may not come to pass.
The Protect the Vote Arizona Act would require the acceptance of any IDs with the photograph, name, and address of an individual — not just limited to any government-issued form of identification.
The act also prohibits limiting allowable forms of identification to photo IDs, and requires acceptance of IDs so long as election workers can’t determine “on its face” that the identification provided had expired.
The act would also require the acceptance of “any two forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.” The non-exhaustive examples of valid voter ID included utility bills or bank or credit union statements dated within ninety days of the election, or any mailing labeled “official election material.”
Even if an individual doesn’t provide valid identification, the law would require that individual be allowed to cast a provisional ballot regardless. According to the ballot measure, that provisional ballot wouldn’t count unless the elector provides any of the myriad forms of ID to their county elections officer within a certain time frame.
Beyond identification laws, the act would prohibit any policies or laws that would “burden” voting, not just those that restrict or curtail voting. One of those measures would concern mail-in ballots. The act proposes to enshrine mail-in ballots within the Arizona Constitution.
Help us protect early voting and mail-in voting in Arizona! Join me for a ‘Protect the Vote’ livestream this evening to learn more about this key Arizona ballot initiative. We must count and protect every single vote 🗳️📩 pic.twitter.com/uqkqmfYOue
Ansari said in the livestream that Democrats need to gather 500,000 signatures by July 2 to get their constitutional measure on the ballot this November. The Protect the Vote Arizona website said a lower number will be needed: about 384,000 signatures.
Ansari estimated that they’ve already collected about 50,000 signatures in recent weeks.
During conversations on the ballot measure, Grijalva agreed with a claim that the SAVE Act and similar efforts to require voter ID were rooted in racist efforts to prevent non-whites from voting.
“We have to give people hope that there is a way out of this,” said Grijalva. “We know that our message is resonating with people.”
Other top Democrats on the livestream included Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Greg Casar (TX), Jasmine Crockett (TX), Maxwell Frost (FL), and Robert Garcia (CA).
The political action committee behind the ballot measure, Protect the Vote Arizona, claimed to have had no funding or expenditures since its launch in January through the end of March.
Key members behind the ballot measure are Maritza Miranda Saenz, a lobbyist with Lumen Strategies, and Dacey Montoya, Gov. Katie Hobbs’ treasurer and a leading dark money handler for Arizona Democrats (see: “The Money Wheel”).
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over his refusal to turn over voter registration records.
The Arizona District Court ruled in United States v. Fontes on Tuesday that the federal government didn’t have justification under federal law to force Fontes to turn over the records.
The court dismissed the claim with prejudice, calling the federal government’s claim on the law “[an] amendment [that] would be legally futile.”
District Judge Susan Brnovich, widow to former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, found “unconvincing” the DOJ’s argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. § 20702) gave the federal government authority to request state voter records and documents. Brnovich said this interpretation conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
“[T]he Attorney General’s interpretation places § 20702 in conflict with multiple provisions of the NVRA and HAVA,” said Brnovich.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the lawsuit against Fontes in January. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sought Arizona’s entire statewide voter registration list, which would include a registered voter’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and driver’s license number or last four Social Security Number digits.
At the time, Bondi said voter registration database transparency between the states and federal government fulfilled a “basic obligation of transparency.”
— Arizona Secretary of State (@AZSecretary) April 29, 2026
Fontes said the court ruling represented a victory for preserving the security of voter privacy.
“Looks like your personal data is safe yet again because the case against me and the Department of Justice’s illegal requests to grab that voter registration have been dismissed,” said Fontes. “I will continue to protect your personal identifying information from these illegal requests no matter what.”
BREAKING: A federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s case against my office.
Arizonans’ personal identifying information is safe and I will continue doing everything in my power to protect your privacy. pic.twitter.com/sPbqpkGiry
— Arizona Secretary of State (@AZSecretary) April 28, 2026
The DOJ requested records from Fontes twice last summer and once last winter. Fontes denied all requests. He has maintained that state and federal privacy laws preempt him from turning over voter records.
Attorney General Kris Mayes supported Fontes’ refusal from the start.
In a statement released on Wednesday, Mayes said the ruling was a rightful dismissal and a vindication of Fontes’ actions.
“That database contains the sensitive personal information of millions of Arizona voters — home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security and driver’s license numbers. But the Court was clear: Title III of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize this demand,” said Mayes.
Today, Judge Susan Brnovich's dismissed the DOJ's lawsuit demanding our voter registration rolls. @AZSecretary and I will continue to defend the privacy of voters against federal overreach.
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 28, 2026
Five other federal courts in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have rejected this Civil Rights Act argument by the Trump DOJ.
The DOJ has 25 lawsuits on their claim of Civil Rights Act authority pending in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Earlier this month, Arizona Senate leadership referred Fontes to the DOJ for allegedly obstructing justice and tampering with a witness concerning a federal probe into Arizona election records.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine said statements by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes regarding a federal election investigation raise “valid concerns of obstruction of justice and witness tampering” in response to a referral from Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen.
In a letter dated April 14, Courchaine wrote that he had received Petersen’s correspondence and shared the Senate president’s desire “to work together across all levels of government to ensure fair and free elections.” Courchaine added that his office was “carefully reviewing the facts” surrounding communications from Mayes and Fontes regarding the investigation.
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine responds to Arizona State Senator Warren Petersen's recent letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
“I share President Petersen’s desire to work together across all levels of government to ensure fair and free elections. In my experience, working… pic.twitter.com/erJLW1qZpm
Courchaine wrote that statements from the attorney general and secretary of state “undermine the federal grand jury’s constitutionally enshrined right to investigate violations of federal law or ensure no such crime occurred.” He said the federal investigation is aimed at confirming that “only lawful citizens are registered and voting in federal elections” after state election officials disclosed registration errors that predated the 2024 election. Courchaine also wrote that the actions of the two state officials “raise valid concerns of obstruction of justice and witness tampering under Title 18 of the United States Code.”
Petersen first referred Mayes and Fontes to the U.S. Attorney’s Office on April 7, alleging that both officials attempted to interfere with a federal grand jury investigation tied to election records from the Arizona Senate’s 2021 review. Petersen accused the officials of obstruction of justice and witness tampering after they warned county election officials against complying with federal requests for election records.
Today I referred Kris Mayes and Adrian Fontes to the Department of Justice for obstruction of justice and tampering with a witness. It is disturbing to see their resistance to an election integrity investigation.https://t.co/pRJ3mJgsuEpic.twitter.com/MwOS1wQBwB
According to Petersen’s referral letter, the Arizona Senate complied with a federal grand jury subpoena served by the FBI in March seeking records related to the 2020 election. Petersen said the Senate produced the records after obtaining a legal opinion from the law firm Snell & Wilmer, concluding that compliance with the subpoena was required under federal law. The legal opinion stated that refusing to comply with the subpoena could have exposed the Senate and state officials to sanctions and that attempts to interfere with compliance could potentially constitute obstruction of justice.
The Snell & Wilmer opinion cited by Petersen argued that federal grand jury subpoenas carry broad investigative authority and supersede conflicting state privacy laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The opinion also stated that state laws cited by Mayes and Fontes did not excuse noncompliance with a federal subpoena and that federal courts have routinely compelled compliance despite state confidentiality statutes.
Also today in Arizona: the Arizona Attorney General and Secretary of State sent a letters to county recorders, imploring them to notify them immediately if their offices receive federal grand jury subpoenas demanding voter information. “I implore you to fulfill your oath.”… https://t.co/geCkpN56drpic.twitter.com/6gTyVsKUwF
— Yvonne Wingett Sanchez (@yvonnewingett) March 11, 2026
Petersen has argued that a March joint letter sent by Mayes and Fontes to county recorders, warning that compliance with certain federal requests could violate state and federal law, amounted to an attempt to interfere with the federal investigation. In those letters, the attorney general and the secretary of state advised county officials that disclosing certain voter registration records could be illegal under privacy protections in Arizona law.
Mayes previously responded to Petersen’s referral in a written statement, statingthat he “inexplicably remains an election denier six years later.”
Petersen is running in the Republican primary for Arizona Attorney General and, if nominated, would face Mayes in the 2026 General Election.
A Gray House poll of 400 likely Republican voters and 450 likely general election voters found that a majority of those polled for the primary are undecided, with Petersen leading at 15%, but when the sample group was briefed on candidate backgrounds, Petersen becomes the clear leader at 57% compared to single-digits for other GOP contenders.
In the general election, Petersen trails Mayes by just 2 points at 42% to 44%, bringing the race well within the poll’s 4.6% margin of error.
The Arizona Senate’s leader referred two state officials to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be investigated for obstruction.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) announced the referral on Tuesday. Petersen, who is also running for attorney general, accused Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes of obstruction of justice and tampering with a witness concerning the federal probe into Arizona election records.
“The threats of the Attorney General and Secretary of State are incompatible with United States Constitution, which enshrines the grand jury in our constitutional order, and only serve to hinder voters’ confidence in our elections,” stated Petersen in his letter to the DOJ.
Today I referred Kris Mayes and Adrian Fontes to the Department of Justice for obstruction of justice and tampering with a witness. It is disturbing to see their resistance to an election integrity investigation.https://t.co/pRJ3mJgsuEpic.twitter.com/MwOS1wQBwB
The referral emerged in response to Mayes and Fontes requesting information from the state senate concerning its compliance with a recent federal grand jury subpoena of 2020 election records.
In response to Petersen’s referral, Fontes accused the senate president of jeopardizing voters’ safety and security.
“My main concern for ensuring privacy of personal information in voter registration data, as required by law, remains,” said Fontes.
PRESS RELEASE: Secretary Fontes Responds to DOJ Referral and Ongoing Political Theater pic.twitter.com/HN2hP5UKcd
— Arizona Secretary of State (@AZSecretary) April 7, 2026
Last month, the two Democratic officials issued a joint letter ordering county recorders not to comply with the federal subpoena. Contrary to what Petersen claimed in Tuesday’s letter, Mayes and Fontes argued compliance with the federal subpoena would violate both federal and state law.
“It is the states’ authority and responsibility to hold elections — not the federal government,” stated the pair’s letter. “Without direct congressional action, the United States Constitution does not authorize or allow the federal government to insert itself into a state’s election procedures, much less authorize the DOJ to unilaterally build a national voter database.”
Mayes called the subpoena “a weaponization of federal law enforcement in service of crackpots and lies,” and Petersen “an unrepentant election denier” spreading conspiracy theories and false stories of election fraud.
Petersen said the pair’s request from the state senate suggested their intention to interfere with the federal investigation.
Petersen based his referral on a legal analysis from the law firm Snell & Wilmer, which he said defended the state senate’s compliance with the federal subpoena and posited that the request by Mayes and Fontes constituted obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
In Petersen’s letter to Arizona District Attorney Timothy Courchaine, the state senate president accused Mayes and Fontes of ulterior motives linked to election meddling.
“Instead of fighting over these issues, we should all be working together to ensure the election integrity necessary to realize our country’s democratic promise,” said Petersen. “The Attorney General and Secretary’s phobia of fair and secure elections is impossible to explain absent nefarious motives.”
Mayes’ reelection campaign manager, Delaney Corcoran, said in a response that Petersen’s referral was a means to “seek retribution against his political enemies.”
Mayes made a similar claim when news of the federal subpoena emerged last month.
“One of the Republicans hoping to challenge me this fall is reigniting his SHAM ‘Cyber Ninja’ 2020 election audit conspiracies to the disservice of Arizonans,” said Mayes. “It’s a disgusting politicization of government and a waste of time and [money].”
One of the Republicans hoping to challenge me this fall is reigniting his SHAM ‘Cyber Ninja’ 2020 election audit conspiracies to the disservice of Arizonans. It’s a disgusting politicization of government and a waste of time and $. Just know, I’ll never stop protecting your vote.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes lacked the authority to approve a political party’s name change, invalidating the transition of the No Labels Party of Arizona to the Arizona Independent Party (AIP).
In a ruling issued March 25, Judge Greg Como found that Arizona law does not permit a recognized political party to change its name without completing the statutory process required for ballot access under the new name.
“Arizona does not have a procedure for a party, once formally recognized, to use a different name on the ballot,” the ruling states. “There is no other path for a party to appear on the ballot, under any name … To do so, the party must complete the process of obtaining the required number of valid signatures under the name it seeks to use on the ballot.”
The No Labels Party of Arizona originally qualified for ballot access after gathering the required number of signatures in 2023, allowing it to appear on ballots through the 2026 general election.
In October 2025, the party filed a notification with the Secretary of State’s Office to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. Fontes approved the request, and the new name was set to take effect in December 2025.
The Secretary of State’s Office then issued guidance directing county recorders to update voter registrations to reflect the new party name.
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, along with the Arizona Democratic Party and Republican Party, filed a lawsuit challenging the name change, arguing that it could create confusion among voters.
In his ruling, Como determined that while the No Labels Party had met statutory requirements to gain recognition, the Arizona Independent Party had not completed the required process for ballot access under that name.
Como reasoned, “When a person signs a petition on behalf of an aspiring party, it is reasonable to infer that they are largely motivated by how the party describes itself, i.e., the party’s name. Would the same 41,000 people who signed petitions to recognize the No Labels Party have signed to support the ‘Arizona Nazi Party’ or the ’Arizona Anarchists’?”
He stated, “By approving a party’s requested name change, without it obtaining the necessary signatures for party recognition, the Secretary permits a political bait and switch. A party can gather signatures using an innocuous-sounding name and then change it to something completely different. If the Secretary is to have such power, it must be prescribed by the Arizona Constitution or state statutes. It is not.”
The judge also found that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to direct how voters are registered with political parties.
“The Secretary does not have statutory authority to dictate which party a voter belongs to,” the ruling states. “The decision belongs to the voter.”
The ruling voided the name change and restored the party’s prior designation under state law.
“The Republican Party of Arizona is grateful for the judge’s ruling in the matter before him, finding Secretary of State Adrian Fontes exceeded his authority and allowed a fraudulent party to appear on the ballot. The judge noted that even Fontes admitted this issue would cause confusion for the voters, but Fontes disregarded that concern and the obvious truth, and proceeded to allow them to continue the charade,” stated AZGOP Chairman Sergio Arellano.
“Secretary Fontes announced he will not appeal this ruling. That is wise, as he has already cost taxpayers too much money, and his effort to sow confusion with this stunt, allowing the No Labels Party to unilaterally change their name to the Arizona Independent Party, has further eroded trust in our election officials at a time when that trust is already at an all-time low,” continued Arellano. “We are pleased that Secretary Fontes recognizes that the voters are a now a priority for him. They have always been a priority for Republicans, and we welcome all of them into our very big tent to usher conservative candidates into office on every level of government this November.”
AZGOP Chairman Sergio Arellano's statement on Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como's ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. vs. Adrian Fontes pic.twitter.com/qqyQ5dL0XR
According to 12News, former Phoenix Mayor and AIP Chairman Paul Johnson said via text message that he intends to appeal the ruling. Secretary Fontes said on social media that he would not join the appeal.
“I acted in favor of the law as I saw it,” Fontes said. “Considering the fast approach of the election and the challenging job election administrators have before them, we will not participate in an appeal.”
Axios reported that Johnson said he believes that the 11 candidates who qualified for AIP will be permitted to run under the No Labels name pending appeal. However, he told the outlet he suspects Arizona’s Democratic and Republican parties will challenge this, adding, “They hate us existing.”
The case stems from broader disputes over election procedures and ballot access in Arizona, where multiple lawsuits have been filed in recent years over the administration of elections and political party recognition.
