Apache County has removed the Spanish language from its print ballots.
Gila and Mohave counties made the same decision ahead of the 2024 general election.
Apache County officials cited printing costs and election wait times as deciding factors for the decision to limit printed ballots to one language. As support for these justifications, Apache County noted that it will continue to offer Spanish ballot translations on their electronic vote machines. Gila County does as well.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) praised the county’s decision as “pure common sense.” Hamadeh said all citizens have a duty to speak the language of their nation.
“In America, we speak English. Naturalized citizens must prove they can read [and] write it to vote, ballots should reflect that too,” said Hamadeh.
In March, Hamadeh introduced legislation to require that only English be provided on federal ballots, the Voting Only Through English Act (VOTE Act). The bill would tie federal funding to compliance, something Hamadeh said was necessary to “end[ing] multilingual madness, [and] put[ting] America first.”
The legislative proposal was in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order designating English as the official language of the U.S. The order revoked former President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 requiring federal agencies to provide materials and services in languages other than English, though it didn’t ban agencies from continuing with the practice.
“To promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement, it is in America’s best interest for the Federal Government to designate one — and only one — official language,” stated the executive order. “Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society.
Another Arizona county just eliminated Spanish ballots ahead of the midterms, pure common sense!
In America, we speak English. Naturalized citizens must prove they can read & write it to vote, ballots should reflect that too.
That’s why Congressman Hamadeh introduced the Voting…
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) July 8, 2026
Not all counties are permitted to simplify their ballots by keeping only the English language. Maricopa, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties are required under federal law to include Spanish translations on their ballots and election materials.
The law requires non-English translations on ballots and election materials for states and political subdivisions with more than 5% of citizens voting age that are limited-English proficient, and political subdivisions with more than 10,000 citizens of voting age that are a single language minority and are limited-English proficient.
Progressive advocates say all counties should cater to non-English speakers who desire to vote.
Senior campaign managers with All Voting is Local (AVL), Natalia Sells and Justa Lopez, have spoken out against these three counties’ decisions.
The two issued an opinion piece with the Arizona Daily Star claiming counties were slowly regressing toward an election system accessible only to white men.
“Whether intentional or not, these changes move us backward to a time when many Americans’ fundamental freedom to vote was limited to only White men,” said the two campaign managers.
Sells later told AZ Family that counties have a duty to be accessible to all voters.
“Counties shouldn’t be making it harder for people to be able to vote just because English isn’t their first and primary language,” said Sells.
Sells, a graduate of Arizona State University (ASU) Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, has worked with AVL since 2024.
Lopez, also a graduate of ASU, has served in managerial positions for several voter advocacy groups prior to joining AVL in March, including the Fair Elections Center, Mi Familia Vota, and Supermajority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the U.S. House of Representatives reauthorized the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) through December 31, 2028, and enacted its largest-ever expansion.
This act broadens eligibility to include new populations, such as Northern Arizona counties and additional uranium workers, while continuing support for those affected by the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
The expanded RECA provides a one-time, lump-sum payment of up to $100,000 to qualifying individuals or their survivors, offering critical restitution for those who developed serious illnesses due to radiation exposure.
Representative Eli Crane (AZ-02) announced that the reauthorized act now covers individuals in Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, Gila, and Mohave counties in Arizona affected between January 1951 and November 1962, as well as uranium workers employed in covered occupations from January 1, 1942, to December 31, 1990.
The program also extends to onsite participants of nuclear tests and those impacted by the Manhattan Project waste.
RECA provides a non-adversarial alternative to litigation, requiring no proof of causation. Claimants qualify by demonstrating a compensable disease and presence in a designated area or occupation during specified periods.
The program, administered by the Department of Justice, is designed to resolve claims efficiently, using existing records to minimize administrative costs for both claimants and the government.
The four qualifying categories are Downwinders, onsite participants, uranium workers, and Manhattan Project waste victims.
Downwinders are individuals who developed certain cancers after radiation exposure from U.S. nuclear tests between 1944 and 1962.
The program now includes several Arizona counties along with eligible areas in Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada.
To qualify, individuals must have lived in one of the areas during a specific time period and have been diagnosed with a compensable disease such as leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, or certain primary cancers.
On-site participants were individuals present at U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests before January 1, 1963, and later developed a compensable disease.
Uranium workers also receive compensation for individuals employed in uranium mining, milling, core drilling, ore transport, or remediation efforts in mines or mills located in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, or Texas between January 1, 1942, and December 31, 1990.
To qualify, uranium workers must have been employed for at least one year during the time period and been diagnosed with a compensable disease such as lung cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis, pneumoconiosis, cor pulmonale related to lung fibrosis, or renal cancers.
Lastly, Manhattan Project waste victims get compensation for individuals exposed to Manhattan Project waste in designated areas of Missouri, Tennessee, Alaska, and Kentucky.
To qualify, individuals must have lived, worked, or attended school for at least two years after January 1, 1949, in designated zip codes and have a compensable disease.
The expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act delivers long-overdue justice, honoring those whose lives were forever changed by radiation exposure.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Last Friday, the AZ Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit in federal court against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) mandate that he maintain accurate and updated voter registration records. Why? The data shows that there are 500,000 unaccounted for registered voters who are not qualified either due to death or moving out of the state, and in total, up to more than a million voters on the rolls who should not be registered.
Clean and accurate voter rolls are the bedrock of elections run with integrity. Ensuring only those eligible to vote may register and are on the rolls means that only eligible voters may vote in an election. It’s a basic principle: garbage in, garbage out. If we begin with bad data – ineligible individuals on the rolls – the system is susceptible to allowing ineligible ballots to be cast.
That’s why in 2022 we championed two landmark pieces of legislation to accomplish just that, and why, unsurprisingly, Marc Elias and the left’s lawfare machine immediately sued to stop these commonsense safeguards from going into effect. HB2492 ensures only eligible citizens who have provided proof of citizenship can register to vote and HB2243 requires regular and routine voter roll maintenance using several databases of information, with regular reports to the legislature of the results.
Both these laws are consistent with the NVRA’s mandate that states maintain accurate voter registration lists. But right now, Adrian Fontes is failing in his obligations under both, and that’s why we have filed a lawsuit in federal court to force him to do his job.
Four Counties Have More Registered Voters Than People
How do we know? According to the most recent census and voter registration data, more than 90% of the voting age population in Arizona is purportedly registered to vote. The national average is 69.1%. Why would Arizonans register to vote at an absurdly higher rate than the rest of the country? The only answer is that the state and counties are failing to adequately remove individuals who are no longer eligible, leading to bloated rolls…
Clean and accurate voter rolls are a cornerstone to safe and secure elections. And they are required by both state and federal law. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) specifically obligates states to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters due to death or change of residence. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed this up in its 2018 decision in the case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
But Arizona’s current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and its former Secretary of State (now Governor) Katie Hobbs have failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance. And right now, 14 Arizona counties are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA…
A Tucson legislator wants to outlaw hydraulic fracturing in Arizona, despite long-standing efforts by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to facilitate energy projects in the state that utilize the practice.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a method of extracting oil, natural gas, CO2, and helium by injecting fluid into subterranean rock formations at high pressure. The pressure dissolve dense underground rocks, creating “fractures” from which the valuable gas can be extracted.
Arizona has about 30 active oil and natural gas wells, nearly all in Apache County in the northeastern part of the state where test-fracking operations have primarily focused on extracting CO2 and helium. Fracking is already governed by a number of federal laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, while state regulations are supervised by ADEQ.
And according to the Arizona Geological Survey, part of the 90-million-year-old Mancos Shale lies under northeastern Arizona, making its 60-billion-barrel formation a valuable future domestic energy source which may be best accessed by fracking methods. But HB2199 as introduced by Rep. Andres Cano (D-LD3) would add a statute outright banning hydraulic fracturing anywhere in the state.
Cano is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water (NREW) to which the bill is currently assigned although it has yet to appear on a committee agenda for further discussion.
Fracking has come under fire in some states over concerns of groundwater contamination and air pollution. However, supporters of the method in Arizona point to the fact Apache County covers more than 11,000 square miles with less than 72,000 residents, making it possible to address environmental and public health concerns through ever improving technologies while creating much needed jobs.
Cano’s bill makes no provision for any test fracking operations in place or for projects in the permitting stage. It would also make it unlawful for a person to collect, store, or treat water that has been used in or is a by-product of fracking. The bill includes no exception in the legislation for storage of residual fracking water for scientific studies or even for collecting the water for transportation.
