by Matthew Holloway | Sep 22, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Legislative District 10 Republican Committee in East Mesa has unanimously censured Councilwoman Julie Spilsbury for using her non-partisan office to campaign for Democrats in 2024. The censure also condemned her for voting in favor of allowing men to use women-only facilities.
Spilsbury, who is facing a recall challenge this year, became embroiled in a scandal after making public endorsements of Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 Presidential Election, in addition to endorsing Arizona Democrats Congressman Greg Stanton, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Senator Ruben Gallego. The recall campaign, supported by Turning Point Action, submitted the 5,000 required voter signatures in May. Spilsbury is facing a challenge for her seat from conservative Dorean Taylor.
The censure from the LD10 Republicans lays out a case against Spilsbury for her endorsements of Harris, Stanton, Fontes, and Gallego despite her membership in the Republican Party, as well as her vote for “a non-discrimination order that allows men in women’s private spaces, and potentially penalizes business owners, forcing them to disregard or contradict their religious convictions and compromise their religious freedom and rights or be fined due to the ordinance,” according to a statement from the Committee.
The Committee also alleges that Spilsbury, “has benefited from her endorsements and publicly announced the offer of support and assistance in the current recall election, including Democrat Senator Ruben Gallego, the Democrat CD4 Representative, Greg Stanton, and the Democrat Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes.”
Spilsbury told Axios in July that the three Arizona Democrats have reached out to her to offer their support in her recall. She openly acknowledged the likely outcome of her endorsement of Harris in the 2024 Presidential election, telling the outlet, “I did what I did with my eyes wide open. I knew it wasn’t going to be popular.”
In the text of the censure, the committee resolved, “The Republican Committee of Legislative District 10 calls on Republican voters in Mesa to heed this vote of no confidence, cease recognition of Recalled Councilwoman Spilsbury as a Republican in good standing and cease support for Julie Spilsbury in any elected or appointed capacity, or future election for any prospective office.”
Earlier this month, the Arizona Freedom Club PAC officially endorsed Dorean Taylor in the Mesa Recall Election. Scot Mussi, Chair of the Arizona Freedom Club PAC said in a statement posted to X, “Dorean Taylor is exactly the kind of leader Mesa needs—someone who will stand up for taxpayers and put families first. Her vision for safer communities, responsible government, and protecting hard-working families from higher taxes aligns with the values we fight for every day.”
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 | Sep 6, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen is calling on Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to revise the state’s draft of the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), warning that lawmakers may pursue legal action if disputed provisions remain in place.
The Elections Procedures Manual, which outlines how elections are conducted in all 15 Arizona counties, must comply with state law and receive approval from both the governor and attorney general before taking effect. Petersen contends the current draft includes measures that exceed the secretary of state’s legal authority.
“The Elections Procedures Manual cannot be used as a vehicle to rewrite Arizona law,” Petersen said in a statement released Monday. “If these provisions are not corrected before submission, litigation will follow.”
Among the concerns identified by Petersen and Republican legislators are provisions they say weaken election safeguards. These include extending the time for non-citizens to “cure” invalid registrations, bypassing voter ID requirements on registration forms, limiting ballot challenges, and reducing oversight on ballot chain-of-custody procedures.
Lawmakers also raised objections to proposed rules that they argue diminish political parties’ role in selecting poll workers, relax standards for petition circulators, and require election officers to adhere to policies they believe infringe on constitutional rights.
Petersen said the secretary of state has a “pattern” of resisting statutory requirements, adding that changes to election rules should be made through the legislative process rather than administrative directives.
“Our election laws are passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — not invented by one officeholder,” Petersen said.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
