by Staff Reporter | May 2, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
by Staff Reporter | Apr 10, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
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.
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.
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].”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
