Adrian Fontes has proven himself to be good at two things during his tenure as Arizona’s Secretary of State: losing in court and throwing tantrums. It’s really unfortunate. The state’s top election official is not supposed to be taken to court on a regular basis—especially for, you know, his repeated attempts to undermine election integrity. And of course, throwing tantrums should be more characteristic of toddlers, not a government official. But Fontes can’t help himself.
In his latest tirade, Fontes joined Hillary Clinton’s old consigliere Marc Elias on Democracy Docket to whine about President Trump’s recent executive order to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. Toward the end of the discussion, Elias asked Fontes about the multiple lawsuits against his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which he lost to us and Arizona Republican lawmakers. As has become all too common with our Secretary of State, he responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He attacked our organization and degraded our 15,000 activists and donors.
Yes. That’s right. The top election official in our state, who is supposed to remain unbiased and simply do his job to protect election integrity, lashed out against us and told people not to donate to us because we won our lawsuit against him and his illegal EPM.
Ummm…news flash, Mr. Fontes. One of the reasons our donors support our cause is to stop government officials like you from circumventing the law. So, when we win, they feel good because their money was put to effective use.
But we shouldn’t expect someone with such low character as Adrian Fontes to understand that. After all, this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use the power of his office to attack and intimidate organizations like ours that participate in the election process…
American elections should be decided by American voters. That is why the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation that defends that basic principle by requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
In a sane world — especially with an election on the horizon — the SAVE Act would quickly get a vote in the Senate and pass overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, that will not be the case due to Democratic objections to citizenship verification.
On the bright side, as Democrats attempt to normalize the practice of noncitizen voting in local-government elections, many states are not waiting around for Congress to fix the problem. Missouri, North Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kentucky have advanced constitutional amendments to the ballot to let voters decide for themselves whether or not proof of citizenship should be required to vote.
Ohio and Louisiana voters advanced noncitizen voting bans by wide margins this year, bringing the total number of states to implement such a ban up to seven.
Most Americans believe it is common sense to verify that voters are citizens before they get a ballot, according to polling from Honest Elections Project. In fact, only 9% of respondents believe noncitizens should be able to vote in American elections.
However, contrary to popular opinion, progressive attorneys like Marc Elias have convinced like-minded judges to interpret federal law to prevent states from checking an individual’s citizenship during the voter-registration process. As a result, we are forced to rely on nothing more than an unaccountable honor system to police one of the most important aspects of the franchise.
Sometimes illegal registrations are innocent mistakes or the result of noncitizens being misled into believing they can vote. Other times, it happens deliberately. Thanks to our lax laws, it is clearly possible for noncitizens to cast ballots in American elections.
Democrats want to keep it that way.
Washington, D.C., recently enacted a policy to allow noncitizens to vote in 2022. Even the Washington Post editorial board condemned the law, noting that “[s]ome progressives hope that reshaping the electorate will allow them to reshape local politics, prodding the city further to the left on issues such as rent control and spending on social programs.”
The New York City Council passed a similar resolution to allow noncitizen voting in 2022. Thankfully, it was ruled unconstitutional by a state appeals court. Had that not been the case, it would have allowed hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to vote in local elections.
For decades, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, has openly advocated for noncitizen voting.
The fact is noncitizen voting has gone mainstream on the left. Progressives are actively looking for ways to change the composition of the electorate to push American politics to the left, from lowering the voting age to enfranchising felons — and, yes, noncitizens.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal races, they retort. That is true, but merely making something illegal does not stop it, because noncitizens do register and vote.
Democrats are exceedingly out of touch with the median voter on this issue. Perhaps that is why today’s left rejects the idea of the people choosing their government in favor of the government choosing a new people.
The House Democrats’ near unanimous opposition to the SAVE Act and the Democrat-controlled Senate’s likely refusal to consider the bill shows that liberals are not committed to safeguarding American elections from the influence of noncitizens.
The American people deserve to know why liberal politicians in Washington are so keen to put the interests of foreign nationals over the voting rights of American citizens. More state lawmakers must join the effort to secure our elections by nipping this trend in the bud.
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…
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
🚨BREAKING: Federal Court BLOCKS key portions of Arizona voter suppression law requiring strict proof of citizenship to vote. Congratulations to our clients @votolatino and @MiFamiliaVota and the ELG team. Remaining parts go trial trial in November.https://t.co/nsXzORw1iY
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears to be in a tug-of-war with Governor Katie Hobbs to determine who is worse at their job. It’s been well-documented that since she took office, Hobbs has been off to a rough start with high-profile staff exits, breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” and alienating many Democrats by signing the Republican budget. But over the past eight months, Fontes has been working just as hard in the battle to see who’s more incompetent. Not only has he failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance—leaving 14 Arizona counties in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act—but he rushed through a version of the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is filled with unlawful provisions.
Now, Secretary of State Fontes has been dealt another major blow after a superior court judge ruled against him…
