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.
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.
Arizonans’ private voter registration information is not up for grabs. Both state and federal law prohibit the unrestricted release of Arizona’s complete voter registration database to the DOJ. https://t.co/PB7Wr4XXOo
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) January 7, 2026
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.
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.
Arizona had a MAJOR WIN for election integrity, thanks to the Arizona Legislature’s lawsuit.
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.
Last week, Arizona’s Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes issued an opinion stating that roughly 200,000 voters mistakenly listed in state election records as having provided proof of U.S. citizenship should remain on the rolls, despite questions about their citizenship status and potential conflicts with Arizona law.
As reported by AZ Free News in November of last year, 218,000 voters were confirmed by Senate President Warren Petersen to have obtained their driver’s licenses prior to the 1996 requirement to apply with proof of citizenship, went on to get a duplicate license, and then registered to vote for the first time or re-registered to vote after 2004.
For over 20 years, they were caught up in a compatibility issue between the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the state’s voter registration system.
JUST IN: Attorney General issues opinion on how AZ should treat 200K voters caught up in state error tracking voter citizenship. They should remain FULLY ELIGIBLE to vote, Mayes writes, because recorders don't have authority to remove them from rolls/make federal-only. STORY IN🧵 pic.twitter.com/ww8qtN4zFt
According to VoteBeat’s Jen Fifield, AG Mayes’ opinion marks a notable departure from how election officials have been working to remedy the problem with counties issuing notices to voters in an attempt to collect the information.
“If an Affected Voter responds by providing such evidence, that should dispel doubt,” Mayes wrote. “But if an Affected Voter does not respond, the mere lack of response does not, under current law, authorize the county recorder to cancel the voter’s registration, in whole or in part.”
Fifield, citing the Arizona Attorney General’s manual, noted that it is unclear whether or not the county election officials will conform to Mayes’ formal opinion, which is advisory in nature and does not carry the force of law.
“County recorders may take steps to inquire whether the affected voters are U.S. citizens, including by asking them to provide satisfactory evidence of citizenship,’’ Mayes wrote.
Mayes’ opinion came in response to a request made in May by fellow Democrat Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. In a statement, Fontes said he has appreciated Mayes’ guidance, writing, “The opinion stands for the notion that these folks have a right to vote,’’ he told the AZ Capitol Times.
“And it falls to the government to prove otherwise–which is the way every other accusation, every other denial of rights exists,” Fontes said. “So the burden has shifted back to where it belongs.’’
In a statement, Fontes wrote, “The consistent treatment of voters caught up in this situation between counties is most important to ensure everyone’s voting rights are protected. I am glad we now have a clear path forward.”
Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Gina Swoboda agreed with Mayes’ opinion, in particular her assessment of the county recorder’s limited authority to cancel registrations.
“If the recorders have affirmative proof that one of the voters is a non-citizen, they may initiate a notice and cancellation process,” Swoboda told the AZ Capitol Times. “But they may not otherwise do so because of this error.”
Coconino County Recorder Aubrey Sonderegger told the Arizona Republic that the news was welcome. “It’s exactly what Coconino County has been doing all along,” she said. “We have more than cut our list in half.”
She added that “These people weren’t doing anything nefariously” but were merely caught up in the timing of the voter registration standard changing. “I’m very relieved to hear the AG opinion,” she said. “It just means we can keep doing what we’ve been doing.”
According to the Secretary of State’s office, the current number of affected voters stands at 202,760. Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap issued a notification on June 26, 2025, to the 83,000 county voters on the list, informing them that they must submit proof of citizenship within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in reclassification as federal-only voters, and they will not be issued state and local ballots.
Arizona Republicans scored a significant victory in court over the state’s top elections official.
On Thursday, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma championed a recent court ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney over contested provisions within the 2023 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). According to a release issued by the Arizona House of Representatives, “the court sided with Speaker [Ben] Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen in their legal challenge, declaring that the Secretary overstepped his authority and infringed on the Legislature’s exclusive lawmaking powers.”
🚨Arizona House Speaker @RepBenToma Hails Court Victory as Major Win for the Rule of Law and Election Integrity:
“This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and… pic.twitter.com/bYC7IIRDZK
Speaker Toma released a statement in reaction to the decision, saying, “This is a clear victory for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the integrity of our elections. The Legislature is the lawmaking body of this state, and today’s decision reaffirms that foundational principle. Secretary Fontes attempted to overstep his authority, but the court recognized these actions for what they were – unlawful and unenforceable. I am proud to have led this fight to protect the constitutional role of the Legislature and to ensure that Arizona’s election laws are upheld as written. It’s a win for all Arizonans who value fair, transparent, and accountable election policies.”
President Petersen said, “A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.”
A win today on our lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Judge said the SOS exceeded his lawful authority at least 4 times in his drafting of the elections procedure manual. The voter rolls must be cleaned up.
In a comment to AZ Free News, Petersen added, “We’re disappointed that the judge delayed the effective date of the AEVL provision but everything else was a big win. We will continue to do all we can to secure our elections and boost voter confidence.”
Arizona House Republicans shared that the court ruling “invalidated multiple provisions in the EPM, including:
A rule altering how voter registrations are managed for non-residents, in violation of Arizona statutes.
A rule excusing errors in circulator registrations, undermining strict compliance requirements for initiatives and referendums.
A rule limiting the role of county Boards of Supervisors during the canvassing process and improperly allowing the Secretary to exclude county results from the statewide canvass.”
While this past election cycle has come and gone, Fontes will have one more opportunity to fashion an EPM before the next one, and he has Democrat allies in Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes to potentially rubberstamp his schemes yet again. Arizona legislative Republicans are awaiting the next installment of the EPM to ensure that any out-of-order provisions will be quickly discovered and challenged in court to protect the integrity of Arizona elections.
Fontes dropped the current EPM just before the statute-mandated deadline of December 31, 2023, after securing approvals from Hobbs and Mayes. For the first time since 1978-1979, Democrats controlled the top three statewide offices in Arizona (Governor: Bruce Babbitt, Attorney General: John LaSota, Secretary of State: Rose Mofford). One of the most significant consequences of securing this power trifecta is the ability to negotiate, craft, and green light the state’s Elections Procedures Manual without initial interference from opposing political voices, as required by law every two years.
At the end of January, Petersen and Toma filed a challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court over Fontes’ EPM, which has been ongoing up until (and through) this week’s decision.
When the EPM was published at the end of last year, Governor Katie Hobbs, who preceded Fontes, said, “Partisan politics should have no role in how we run our elections. This EPM builds on the 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM from my tenure as Secretary of State and will ensure dedicated public servants from across the state will have the guidelines they need to administer free and fair elections. Together, we can protect our democracy and make sure every Arizonan has the opportunity to have their voice heard.”
As Secretary of State, Hobbs was required to finalize the EPM in 2021, but a divided government shared with Republican Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich stymied the quest to secure a green light for the manual. Hobbs and Brnovich were also mired in an ongoing political feud, which resulted in legal bar charges that the Secretary of State brought against the state’s top prosecutor and several of his attorneys. After receiving Hobbs’ updated manual, Brnovich sued the SOS “to compel her production of a lawful EPM.” Brnovich alleged that “the SOS failed to provide the Governor and Attorney General with a lawful manual by October 1, 2021, as required, and instead included nearly one-hundred pages of provisions not permitted under the EPM statute.” The challenge from the former Attorney General was rendered unsuccessful, and the state was forced to revert to the previous cycle’s EPM (2019) to govern the 2022 races.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A new investigative film by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity, has revealed the group’s findings following its inspection of hundreds of commercial addresses listed on Arizona voter registrations as residences. The group found gas stations, liquor stores, abortion clinics, vacant lots, a strip club, an Arizona Cardinals training facility, and more all listed as voters’ residences.
Under Arizona law (A.R.S. 16-152), voters are required to register to vote where they reside, and the form even specifically forbids the use of business addresses or P.O. Boxes. Under the text of the law, voters must provide, “The complete address of the registrant’s actual place of residence, including street name and number, apartment or space number, city or town and zip code, or such description of the location of the residence that it can be readily ascertained or identified.”
PILF began the full film with a simple statement indicating that this issue was brought to the awareness of Arizona officials years ago. In on screen text, they wrote, “After years of failing to identify and remove commercial addresses from the voter roll, PILF is documenting this widespread problem to force Arizona election officials to investigate these addresses.”
PILF President J. Christian Adams said in a press release,
“We have been warning Arizona election officials about people registered to vote from commercial addresses since before the 2020 election. I hope this film will embarrass election officials into investigating the hundreds of commercial addresses on the voter roll. Arizona always comes down to a handful of votes which is why it’s so important this problem is fixed and why Arizonians need to go out and vote early this year.”
The foundation observed that that the illegal use of commercial addresses for voter registration is hardly the only issue with the Arizona voter rolls in 2024, noting several issues that AZ Free News has reported on in the past. These issues include the “glitch” that incorrectly marked 98,000 registrants as having provided proof of citizenship, the 2022 controversy over ballot printing errors at 70 Maricopa County voting centers that caused extensive delays and eroded voter confidence, and the Attorney General investigation of the 2020 election that showed as many as 200,000 ballots were transported illegally without the proper chain of custody.
The investigation by PILF closely resembles a similar undertaking by the investigative team of Louder with Crowder in 2021 following the controversial 2020 Presidential Election in which reporters for the show exposed voters registered under “addresses that do not exist,” including empty lots, highway overpasses and yes, commercial locations numbering in the thousands.
