by Staff Reporter | Mar 25, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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 Ethan Faverino | Nov 16, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
U.S. Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a federal investigation into allegations of bribery and prosecutorial misconduct tied to the Democrat Attorneys General Association (DAGA), the States United Democracy Center (SUDC), and multiple state attorneys general offices.
The congressman, a former prosecutor, highlighted the direct impact on his Arizona constituents—grandmothers, business leaders, veterans, seniors, and activists—who he says have been targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights in what appears to be politically motivated prosecutions.
Court filings in State of Arizona v. Kelli Ward et al. uncovered an apparent coordinated scheme where partisan nonprofits allegedly funneled payments to influence criminal cases.
Key allegations outlined in Hamadeh’s letter to AG Bondi include:
Suspicious Financial Timing: Arizona AG Kris Mayes received $200,000 from DAGA. She received $50,000 after hiring SUDC in May 2023, and $150,000 right after announcing indictments in April 2024, raising red flags of potential quid pro quo.
Unprecedented Control by Partisan Group: The Arizona AG’s office claims an attorney-client relationship with SUDC, effectively ceding prosecutorial authority to a politically aligned nonprofit, undermining independence and due process.
Opaque Organizational Ties: Tax records indicate that SUDC shares leadership, addresses, and bank accounts with the Progressive State Leadership Committee, a structure seemingly designed to mask money flow and coordination.
Hamadeh also pointed to SUDC co-founder Marc Elias’s prior sanctions by the Fifth Circuit for “redundant and misleading” conduct and lack of candor, including filing undisclosed duplicate motions, requiring him to complete court-ordered ethics training.
“My constituents, including veterans and seniors who make up a significant portion of AZ-08, deserve confidence that their taxpayer dollars ensure law enforcement decisions affecting their rights are made impartially, and are not going to partisan Democrat-affiliated organizations,” stated Congressman Hamadeh. “The apparently credible allegations rise to a level of seriousness that warrants an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.”
In his letter to AG Pam Bondi, Hamadeh demanded answers within 30 days on:
- The status of any DOJ probe into DAGA-SUDC arrangements.
- Similar financial ties in other states with politically charged cases.
- Protections for defendants’ due process rights.
- Review of tax filings, bank records, and communications.
- Timeline for investigation and public findings.
“The allegations outlined above, if substantiated, represent a fundamental corruption of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law,” concluded Hamadeh. “My constituents and all Americans deserve to know that criminal prosecutions are conducted based on evidence and law, not influenced by financial payments from partisan political organizations.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 19, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a brief in support of Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The intervention comes in Mi Familia Vota v. Warren Petersen, a lawsuit filed by leftist groups against two laws passed by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature in 2022.
The laws require voters registering via the state form to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to participate in state and local elections. The DOJ’s brief backs Senate President Warren Petersen’s defense of the laws following a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated key provisions. The brief argues that Arizona’s birthplace attestation requirement “does not violate the Materiality Provision because it is generally important that an election official would consider important to the process of determining an applicant’s eligibility to vote.”
“We are thankful to again have a White House and Department of Justice committed to the rule of law and fair elections,” Petersen said in a statement. “The DOJ’s brief is appreciated in our fight to uphold a commonsense law and the will of the people. Given the clear precedent handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court, we are confident we will ultimately prevail. With the continued absence of our governor and attorney general, thankfully, the Arizona Legislature is again picking up the slack and is returning to our nation’s high court to defend election integrity.”
The case traces back to challenges by Mi Familia Vota and other groups, including some based outside Arizona, against House Bill 2492. The law bars enhances the legal guardrails of the Arizona voter registration process, ensuring that proof of citizenship is required to ensure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections.
In August 2024, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel vacated an emergency stay previously issued by another panel of the court. That decision permitted Arizona residents to register using the state form without proof of citizenship for federal races, such as U.S. president and Congress.
Petersen then sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed Arizona’s authority to reject incomplete registrations, marking the last binding order in the dispute until the Ninth Circuit’s latest deviation.
Eleven judges dissented from the Ninth Circuit’s most-recent majority opinion, saying, “Republican government serves as the keystone of the Constitution. In such a government, a majority of citizens who lawfully vote determines who represents us in the White House, Congress, and state legislatures. Courts must therefore defend the franchise—both by protecting the right of all citizens to vote, and by ensuring non-citizens do not vote. Arizona passed laws to protect the franchise… Sadly, the panel majority opinion undermines republican government, shreds federalism and the separation of powers, and imperils free and fair elections.”
The case now heads back to the U.S. Supreme Court for potential review, where Arizona will seek to enforce its citizenship verification requirements.
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 21, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A letter from Solicitor General of the United States D. John Sauer to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson has revealed that the Department of Justice is prepared to defend the removal of former Voice of America (VOA) Director Michael Abramowitz from his position. Abramowitz’s removal was ordered by Acting Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Kari Lake.
The letter sets a clear argument that restrictions under 22 U.S.C. 6205(e)(l) against Abramowitz’s termination for cause under 5 U.S.C. § 7543, are rendered unconstitutional by Article II § 2 Clause 2.
Solicitor General Sauer explained the restriction against Abramowitz’s termination writing, “The head of Voice of America, an inferior executive officer, is appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media. See 22 U.S.C. 6205(e)(l). A federal statute provides that the Chief Executive Officer may remove the head of Voice of America only with the approval of the Independent Broadcasting Advisory Board.”
The Solicitor General then laid out the legal position of the administration that the DOJ “will file in defense of the removal of Michael Abramowitz from that office.”
He wrote:
“Under Article II, inferior executive officers must be removable at will by the President or by a department head acting on the President’s behalf. See Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020).
“The Supreme Court has recognized only one narrow exception to that ‘general rule.’ Ibid. That exception extends, at most, to certain domestic inferior officers ‘with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.’ Id. at 218.
“The head of Voice of America falls outside that exception. Among other things, he exercises significant policymaking or administrative authority in supervising Voice of America, and Voice of America’s activities implicate the President’s authority to manage foreign affairs.”
Sauer added that this opinion is supported by the precedent set in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020) in which the Supreme Court ruling penned by Justice Robers is clear: “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead. While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power. The Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.”
In short, it is the Solicitor General’s legal opinion that because of the unique, Congressionally-mandated duty of Voice of America to carry out foreign policy objectives and the significant authority the VOA Director has over them, the President and his appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer, Kari Lake, must have the power to appoint and remove personnel from the agency at will to satisfy the President’s duties under the Constitution as vested by Congress: “the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Abramowitz was informed of his dismissal after he declined reassignment to the agency’s Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station of the International Broadcasting Bureau in Greenville, NC, and that the USAGM maintains “the Chief Executive Officer, acting on the President’s behalf, may lawfully remove the Voice of America Director, an inferior officer.”
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.
