by Matthew Holloway | Dec 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party is calling a recent court ruling a major victory for election integrity, but how much the decision will actually change voter roll maintenance remains an open question.
In a statement released this week, Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda announced that the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Petersen, et al. v. Fontes, upheld an Arizona law that requires counties to begin the cancellation process when a voter swears on a jury questionnaire that they no longer live in the county. Swoboda described the ruling as a necessary correction that will help ensure clean voter rolls ahead of future elections.
“This ruling is a major victory for our state and for every Arizona voter,” Swoboda said in the update, framing the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the state’s elections.
“Cleaner rolls protect voters. That’s the bottom line. No more dodging the law, no more loopholes, and no more games with Arizona’s voter rolls. Republicans in Arizona are fighting to ensure our elections are secure and stopping extreme leftist policies that would have thrown our elections into chaos. This is a huge step forward, but our work continues. We’ll keep working to restore trust, enforce the law, and deliver an election system every Arizonan can count on.”
In the AZGOP statement, the party referred to the ruling as “a significant defeat for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes,” noting that the state’s second-highest-ranking Democrat was “forced to abandon his extreme rule that would have allowed counties to toss out every vote cast if a canvass was submitted late,” describing the policy as “reckless,” and saying it “jeopardized lawful ballots and undermined public confidence.”
Republicans are celebrating the decision as a significant victory for structural reform; however, the ruling itself paints a more nuanced legal picture.
On the jury-questionnaire issue, the court held that federal law does not preempt Arizona’s statute, A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(9)(b), which directs county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the voter fails to respond to a mailed notice after telling a jury commissioner they no longer reside in the county. The opinion explains that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows removal when a voter “confirms in writing” that they have changed residence and does not require that confirmation go directly to the county recorder. Instead, the court found that a signed juror questionnaire can qualify as that written confirmation:
“Because the Seventh Circuit precedent does not conflict with A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9, the NVRA does not preempt that Arizona statute. … Here, the county recorder sends the notice only when a person signs (under penalty of perjury) a written juror questionnaire saying the person no longer resides in the county. A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9(b). That notice satisfies the NVRA.”
Under the statute, the juror form does not lead to automatic cancellation. Instead, it triggers a process: the recorder must send a notice by forwardable mail warning that, if the voter does not respond within 35 days, “the county recorder shall cancel the person’s registration.” The 2023 Elections Procedures Manual had directed counties to move such voters to an inactive list instead of canceling their registrations, but the court concluded that approach conflicted with the statute and therefore exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
Swoboda and other GOP leaders also highlighted language in the 2023 manual that would have instructed the Secretary of State to proceed with a statewide canvass without counting any county whose official canvass arrived late. The appeals court, however, declined to rule on that provision, finding the challenge moot because Fontes had already replaced it in the draft of the 2025 manual with language committing to use “all available legal remedies” to compel a county board of supervisors to complete its canvass and “protect voters’ right to have their votes counted.”
While the ruling clearly reinforces that the Secretary of State’s election manual authority is bounded by statute, the judges also sided with Fontes on a key question involving the active early voting list. Upholding the superior court, the panel agreed that a separate statute governing removal notices for the active early voting list, A.R.S. § 16-544(H)(4), is not retroactive and applies starting with the 2024 election cycle:
“The 2023 Manual thus has the removal notice statute process start with the 2024 election cycle. The 2024 election cycle started on January 1, 2023. The superior court agreed with the Secretary. We thus affirm.”
Arizona counties regularly maintain their voter rolls using multiple data sources, including death records, address changes, and federal databases. Several prominent Republicans have argued that those procedures remain insufficient. The jury-form issue addressed in this case represents a narrow slice of that broader process. The practical number of registrations affected by the ruling is not yet known.
Arizona GOP leaders, including Swoboda, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate President Warren Petersen, and former Speaker Ben Toma, have pursued multiple legal challenges over election procedures and voter-roll maintenance in recent years. Some of those efforts have succeeded in forcing procedural changes, while others have been dismissed on standing or jurisdictional grounds.
That track record makes this latest ruling politically significant even if its technical impact proves limited. For election integrity activists, it represents steady, gradual progress toward tightening controls. Critics, meanwhile, characterize them as partisan attempts to re-litigate election processes long after votes have been cast.
Swoboda’s update also criticized past election-related deadlines and procedures that Republicans argue undermined public trust, particularly citing disputes over ballot processing timelines and late canvassing.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores a basic principle: if a voter swears they’ve left a county, that sworn statement can be used, under existing law, to start the notice-and-cancellation process so the registration does not remain active indefinitely, akin to voters trying to leave “the Hotel California,” as Swoboda quipped in a video posted to X. Opponents counter that aggressive roll maintenance must be handled carefully to avoid mistakenly removing eligible voters.
For now, the ruling directs how counties must treat sworn jury-form declarations moving forward, reaffirming the statutory process: notice, a waiting period, and eventual cancellation if there is no response. Whether that translates into large-scale voter-roll changes or simply a modest administrative correction will depend on how often such declarations occur and how county recorders opt to implement the ruling.
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 Ethan Faverino | Oct 28, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ-02) led a bicameral coalition of lawmakers in submitting a formal comment letter to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in strong support of a petition by the America First Legal Foundation.
The petition calls for amending federal regulations and the National Mail Voter Registration Form to mandate documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (DPOC) for registering to vote in Federal Elections.
The current federal form relies exclusively on self-attestation, allowing applicants to check a box affirming citizenship under penalty of perjury, creating what lawmakers describe as an “honor system” with no meaningful safeguards against ineligible registrations.
The proposed reform would require verifiable proof of citizenship at the point of registration, aligning voter enrollment with common identification requirements.
“Requiring documentary proof of citizenship is a simple, common-sense reform,” wrote the lawmakers in the formal comment letter. “Just as Americans are asked to show identification for far less consequential activities—boarding an airplane, opening a bank account, or even attending certain events—it is entirely reasonable to require proof of citizenship to participate in our elections. This step would not burden eligible voters but would provide an essential check to ensure that only citizens are added to the voter rolls.”
The lawmakers cited recent incidents as evidence of systemic vulnerabilities:
- In Iowa, officials identified 277 noncitizens on voter rolls, with at least 35 confirmed to have cast ballots in the 2024 election.
- All 15 counties in Arizona are actively working to identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls.
- In Texas, election integrity units have documented multiple cases of noncitizen voting and registration fraud, including a conviction in Starr County for illegal voting, prosecutions in Hidalgo County for falsifying applications with fictitious addresses, and instances in Tarrant County where noncitizens registered using the federal form without proof of citizenship.
Under the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(1)–(2)), the EAC has both the authority and duty to develop the National Mail Voter Registration Form and prescribe necessary regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process and maintain accurate voter rolls.
“I’m proud to support this effort to strengthen our election system. In our constitutional republic, only American citizens should be able to vote, and requiring proof of citizenship at registration is a commonsense safeguard,” said Representative Crane. “Considering we already show ID to drive, fly, or open a bank account, this is not a novel concept. It’s simply a necessary step to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
Along with Senator Cruz and Representative Crane were cosigners:
Senators: Jim Banks (R-IN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Bernie Moreno (R-OH).
Representatives: Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Byron Donalds (R-FL), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Andy Harris (R-MD), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Mary Miller (R-IL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Riley Moore (R-WV), Derek Schmidt (R-KS), and Greg Steube (R-FL).
The lawmakers concluded with, “Requiring documentary proof of citizenship will strengthen the integrity of our elections, safeguard the voices of American citizens, and ensure that every lawful vote is protected from being diluted by unlawful ballots.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Jul 25, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Republican Party of Arizona, led by Chairwoman Gina Swoboda, has filed an amicus brief in federal court defending the requirement for proof of citizenship in voter registration. The brief, submitted alongside the Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections PAC (RITE PAC), aims to bolster efforts to preserve what party leaders describe as “the integrity of American elections.”
The filing was made in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, where legal challenges have arisen over whether federal voter registration forms can mandate documentary proof of citizenship.
Citing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Arizona GOP and its allies argue that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has the legal authority to require applicants to provide citizenship documentation. The brief claims this interpretation aligns with Arizona’s longstanding election laws, which include similar provisions at the state level.
“Protecting election integrity is essential to preserving trust in our democratic process,” said Swoboda in a statement. “Arizona Republicans have long advocated for sensible measures that ensure accuracy in voter registration and protect our elections from fraud. This brief underscores our continued commitment to transparent, fair, and secure elections.”
The brief also defends a Trump-era executive order that directed public assistance agencies to ask applicants about their citizenship status before offering a voter registration form. According to the filing, this directive is not only legal but necessary to uphold the original intent of Congress in limiting voter registration to U.S. citizens.
Supporters of the measure argue that such rules are a common-sense way to protect elections from outside interference or administrative error. While the court has not yet ruled on the underlying case, the Arizona GOP’s legal intervention signals a broader Republican strategy to champion election security measures heading into the 2026 midterms.
The Republican Party of Arizona has remained vocal in national conversations around election reform, frequently advocating for voter ID laws, voter roll maintenance, and what they consider safeguards against fraud. With this latest legal move, the party is reaffirming its position at the forefront of what it views as a critical issue.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Kerri Toloczko | Sep 10, 2024 | Opinion
By Kerri Toloczko |
Tonight, the presidential candidates will have their first debate. But there is one critical election issue the American people are not debating at all. They agree that non-U.S. citizens should not vote in U.S. elections.
This is a convenient opinion for Americans to hold as it is also the law.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and other federal codes and state constitutions require that only citizens vote in our elections. This is unequivocal. It is in writing. It is common sense.
The problem with laws is that people break them — including noncitizens who commit one federal crime by registering to vote and then another by actually voting. But because federal statutes are silent on requiring documentary proof of citizenship for either step, states have not demanded citizenship proof for voter registration on federal forms.
These registration forms are provided to people applying for a driver’s license or state ID with no consideration to whether that person is a citizen or not. And the entire citizen “confirmation” process is an innocuous checkbox on the federal form that many registrants fill in just because it’s there.
For noncitizen newcomers not proficient in English, all they know is that a government official handed them a form to fill out with a box to check — or that a liberal activist group told them to check it.
Election at Risk
Earlier this year, Tea Party Patriots commissioned a poll of citizens who vote regularly and found that 86 percent believe “proof of U.S. citizenship should be required to register to vote in American elections” and “only U.S. citizens should vote in elections in America.”
Who is the clueless other 13 percent? Leftwing political elites, their friends in the deceitful media, and the current occupants of the White House and vice president’s mansion, that’s who.
How do we know this? By following the SAVE Act and seeing who opposes it.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July, hung out for a while in the do-nothing Senate, and may now bounce back to the House as an add-on to a must-pass bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans acknowledge that noncitizens are registering to vote in numbers not seen before — and those illegal votes, cast in specific cities or counties, could sway the entire federal election.
The SAVE Act closes federal loopholes that allow noncitizens to register to vote by requiring election officials to ask about citizenship during registration, and potential registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship. It gives states unfettered access to existing federal databases to check citizenship status against voter rolls.
It is a “must pass” all by itself — to protect our constitutional republic where the people’s will should matter most.
SAVE the Vote
Noncitizens aren’t the only ones paying consequences for unlawful registration and voting. Punishments include jail, fines, and immediate removal procedures. Naturalization is also permanently denied for applicants who show up on voter rolls, and they are subject to deportation.
Then there’s the American voter. Every time a noncitizen illegally votes — intentionally or unknowingly — a citizen’s ballot is removed from the count. Americans have clearly signaled they know this is happening, they don’t like it, and they do not want to pay that price.
But there is nothing in law allowing action against election officials who fail to uphold laws on citizenship requirements, or DMV bureaucrats who knowingly hand voter registration forms to noncitizens. The SAVE Act will empower citizens to bring civil suits in these cases and includes penalties for those enabling or encouraging noncitizens to register and to vote.
Progressive politocrats and their media friends offer two deceptive talking points about noncitizen voting.
One is “It’s against the law anyway.” It is also against the law to steal a car, commit murder, and jaywalk. But perhaps worse is their casual quip, dripping with moral relativism, that illegal immigrants voting “is not widespread.”
Both these ridiculous notions can be easily repudiated.
Proof
The federal government recently indicted a group of noncitizens from 15 countries on federal voting charges. Virginia recently purged 6,500 noncitizens from its voter rolls. Texas removed 6,300 people — 30% of whom had voting records. A 2014 academic journal reported that 6.4% of noncitizens voted in 2008.
There are about 24 million noncitizens currently in the U.S. If they voted only at the same rate of 6.4% this year as they did in 2008, they would account for 1.5 million votes.
Within 39 months of the Biden/Harris administration (including our “border czar”) coming into office, the foreign-born population of our nation increased by 6.6 million; at least 4.6 million of those are illegal immigrants.
Flyers have been found being widely distributed on the Mexican side of the U.S.\Mexican border encouraging illegal immigrants to vote for Biden in 2024. Biden issued Executive Order 14019 in March 2021, demanding anyone approaching the federal government for services (with no citizenship caveats) be provided a voter registration form. The Biden/Harris administration officially opposes the SAVE Act. Is all of that coincidence? And what could possibly go wrong?
If we learned nothing else from the presidential election of 2020, we know Americans of both political parties are profoundly disturbed by foreign interference of any kind in our elections.
Noncitizen voting is foreign influence.
We live in a representative republic. It’s beyond time our representatives listen to what we are telling them about the sanctity of our elections. Let’s get on with ensuring that only Americans vote in American elections.
Originally published by The Stream.
Kerri Toloczko is the executive director of Election Integrity Network and senior advisor to the Only Citizens Vote Coalition. Both of these nonprofit organizations are dedicated to protecting all ballots and ensuring that elections follow the law. They are also leading organizers of the 2024 Only Citizens Vote Week, which runs from September 15 to September 21.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 26, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
The surge of border crossings continues. There is an election in just over 3 months. Many voters want to know—can illegals vote?
Obviously, it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote. The real question is whether voters must prove their citizenship prior to voting. This discussion has culminated in the U.S. House passing the SAVE Act earlier this month. But with near unanimous Democrat opposition, a federal proof of citizenship requirement has stalled in Congress.
As both a border and swing state, Arizona is center stage in this national discussion. Even Elon Musk chimed in by sharing an image of our voter registration form that clearly states “proof of citizenship” is not required to vote.
However, Arizona has done far more than any other state to tackle the issue of illegals voting.
In Arizona, if someone registers without proof of citizenship, they are registered as a “Federal Only Voter” and they receive a different ballot with only federal races. This means that: 1) we know exactly who and how many have registered without proof; and 2) they don’t get to influence any of our state or local elections.
In all 49 other states, proof of citizenship is not only not required, but they are all blended onto one list, and they get to vote in every election. So those states have no idea who or how many there even are! Their problem could be far bigger, and they would never know it.
Now with the decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit last week, Arizona will stop even more illegals from voting, thanks to a bill the Arizona Free Enterprise Club authored in 2022…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
