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 | Oct 16, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
President Trump’s historic Gaza ceasefire deal, signed Monday with Palestinian leaders and Israel, has sparked rare bipartisan praise from Arizona’s elected officials.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ05) wrote from the gubernatorial campaign trail, “This incredible day is happening because of President Trump’s strength and determination to bring peace to the region.”
However, he has also raised the alarm regarding post-deal barbarism from Hamas, with reports of public executions in Gaza streets just hours after inking the treaty. “Hamas is carrying out barbaric executions… They must do so expeditiously or face consequences for violating the ceasefire,” he posted on X.
Kudos have poured in from Democrats as well, with Sen. Mark Kelly offering Trump a rare bipartisan praise. “I think he should get a lot of credit. I mean, this was his deal. He worked this out. He sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner over to negotiate this, and it so far has gone well,” Kelly told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
Kelly hailed the hostage returns and the flood of aid trucks that “should have been happening over the last two years.” Kelly, however, cautioned, “I am concerned that they may change their minds here.”
Kelly posted on X: “After two years, this is a real opening for peace that will release the hostages and get desperately needed aid to civilians in Gaza. There’s a lot more work to see this through, but I appreciate the work of President Trump, the administration, and our international partners to reach this point.”
Senator Ruben Gallego notably avoided lauding the Trump administration in his statement on Monday, merely calling the peace “profoundly overdue.” He wrote, “After two long years, the final Israeli hostages have returned home. This day is profoundly overdue, and my heart is with the families whose unwavering hope and perseverance made it possible. Their return marks an important step toward peace. I remain steadfast in the belief that the United States must continue its efforts to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians and that Gaza is rebuilt.”
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08), who has been instrumental in the administration’s Middle East diplomacy, wrote a lengthy statement, saying in part: “In a day some thought would never come, the remaining Israeli hostages have been freed and returned to their families.”
Hamadeh added, “It was a day 737 days in the making and one that wouldn’t have been possible without the bold leadership of President Trump and the hard diplomatic work of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and the entire Trump Administration.”
Hamadeh asked God for blessings for the returning hostages, their families and the families of those whose remains were returned adding, “It is my fervent hope that the bodies of those who haven’t been returned are located and returned soon.” He concluded: “Blessed are the peacemakers who fought so hard on behalf of these families amidst overwhelming odds and overwhelming uncertainty.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) offered very direct praise from the State House, naming the President simply “the peacemaker.” He wrote, “Peace in the Middle East. Thank you, @realDonaldTrump, the peacemaker.”
State Rep. Alma Hernandez (D-LD 10) provided a particularly raw and emotional take as well from the Democrat side of the aisle, posting about her openly sobbing over reunion videos only to wake in fresh grief for the families learning their loved ones wouldn’t return.
Though she didn’t directly credit the administration, she wrote, “While we are all overjoyed and celebrating the return of the 20 hostages, let’s not forget those families who anxiously waited for over two years to find out this morning that their loved one was not returning alive… I can’t imagine the feeling of great heartbreak & sorrow those families are feeling right now. They held on to every ounce of hope… my heart goes out to them, and I pray that they will overcome this tragedy.”
Notably, as of this report, no statements from Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, or Secretary of State Adrian Fontes praising the administration were publicly available, despite all three being vocal on the topic of the Hamas-Israel conflict.
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 Jonathan Eberle | Oct 15, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen hailed a “victory for Arizona” on Monday after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Valenzuela dismissed all challenges to the Secure the Border Act — a voter-approved initiative known as Proposition 314.
The ruling, issued October 10 and electronically filed October 13, upheld the will of voters who passed the measure in November 2024. In a statement on X , Petersen said the decision upheld “the will of voters who passed Prop 314 to protect our communities from illegal crossings and fentanyl,” calling border security “non-negotiable.”
“President Donald Trump truly delivered the most secure border in U.S. history,” Petersen wrote. “If our nation ever sees a repeat of lawlessness from an administration like we witnessed with Biden-Harris, Arizona will be ready to uphold the rule of law.”
The lawsuit, Living United for Change in Arizona et al. v. State of Arizona, challenged several provisions of Proposition 314, arguing the law violated Arizona’s constitution. Plaintiffs included Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), the Arizona Center for Empowerment, and two individual plaintiffs.
According to court documents, the Secure the Border Act — approved by voters and enacted in November 2024 — created new state laws addressing immigration enforcement and public benefits eligibility.
Judge Valenzuela’s 10-page ruling rejected all three counts brought by the plaintiffs, determining that counts 1 and 2 were not “ripe” for review, as the challenged provisions are not currently enforceable; plaintiffs lacked standing to bring certain claims, particularly regarding separation of powers and legislative delegation arguments; and the SAVE Provision did not violate Arizona’s Revenue Source Rule, because participation in the federal verification program does not impose costs on state or local agencies.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted” and dismissed it with prejudice, making the decision final under Arizona civil procedure rules.
The ruling allows Proposition 314 to stand as enacted by voters, although parts of the law will remain unenforceable until triggered by developments in Texas or another state with similar legislation. The decision represents a significant victory for Arizona lawmakers who championed the measure, including Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro, both of whom intervened in defense of the law.
Supporters say the ruling reinforces Arizona’s right to protect its borders and uphold voter-approved laws. For now, however, the court’s dismissal marks a legal and political win for backers of Proposition 314 — and for state leaders pushing for stricter border enforcement at the state level.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Oct 14, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen has publicly criticized Attorney General Kris Mayes and Arizona Democratic leadership for their silence regarding inflammatory statements made by Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for Virginia Attorney General.
Jones recently came under fire for text messages in which he fantasized about the murder of the Republican Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates and expressed a desire for the Speaker’s children to die. “If those guys die before me, I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves,” said Jones in a text message to Carrie Coyner, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. “Three people, two bullets… Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”
Instead of taking responsibility for his remarks, Jones has deflected blame on Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares for the release of the messages.
In an era marked by escalating political violence, including recent high-profile incidents that have shaken the nation, Petersen emphasized the critical need for elected officials to unequivocally condemn such rhetoric.
Petersen condemned Jones’ comments and subsequent refusal to accept accountability, calling them unfit for a candidate seeking a leadership role.
“Our nation has been suffering from an unprecedented amount of political violence,” said Petersen. “Now more than ever, we need leaders to condemn such evil behavior. Mayes’ and Arizona Democrats’ silence is disturbing and unbecoming of their respective offices.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Warren Petersen | Oct 13, 2025 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility recommended the most drastic punishment—disbarment—for former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark over his private strategic counsel in the aftermath of the 2020 election. This complaint was pushed by liberal activists, showing the lengths they will go to punish individuals by going after their livelihoods despite the clear lack of criminal, unlawful, or unethical behavior.
Even past Attorneys General – William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey – filed an amicus brief to push back against this “dangerous precedent,” writing, “Disciplining Mr. Clark would open the door to charging federal lawyers with ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ for statements made during oral arguments, theories in briefs, legal advice provided in memoranda, or even (as here) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and discussions. Such acts of political retribution would severely discourage lawyers from serving in the federal government and invite extraordinary dysfunction as federal lawyers constrain the advice they provide for fear of political retaliation by the Bar.”
Over the past decade, radical politicians and interest groups have weaponized the key to attorneys’ livelihoods over partisan disputes, as in Clark’s matter before the DC Appeals Board. These parties seek to bring their vengeance on conservative attorneys’ bar licenses, which allow them to do their jobs and provide for themselves and their families. The obvious intent of these attacks—which echo other attacks from the left such as debanking conservatives, voting against company directors, and threatening doctors’ licenses—is to terrorize and chill any conservative voices.
Attorneys are one of the most important groups to protect from these attacks because their entire job is to open the courthouse doors for their clients; if they are chilled by the left from representing certain groups, those groups will lose their constitutional rights to access the courts and have their causes zealously argued or even to receive legal advice in the first place. Simply put, if our nation is to exist in a society where attorneys feel free to perform the services their clients expect and deserve, we must enhance the protections for their licenses – especially from outside agitators who have no business engaging in this interference.
Perhaps no greater example can be found of this abuse of our judicial system than after the 2020 election in Arizona, when two respected attorneys found themselves facing legal complaints for their work to represent the Arizona Republican Party, as political officials across the country worked to hash out challenges to the hotly contested General Election. The most insidious part of the claims against these men wasn’t simply about the filings, but that a New Jersey Congressman, U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell, led the official accusations.
Most people, regardless of their understanding of our legal system, can apply good-old-fashioned common sense to conclude that lawsuits must be waged between two sides with a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct. Yet, Pascrell had no connection to the case. He filed a complaint against the Arizona-based attorneys, which was ultimately dismissed. However, the damage was done to these attorneys’ reputations because of their fight to beat the frivolous charges from an unconnected, unhinged, partisan Democrat thousands of miles away.
Whether you agree or disagree with the efforts to extend litigation in the courts in the aftermath of the 2020 election, it is uncontestable that the left and their allies grossly abused their powers to assault, undermine, and intimidate attorneys who were attempting to do their jobs within a legal system enshrined by the American Constitution and laws. These tactics were experienced across the country, as President Trump and Republican-affiliated attorneys – like Jeff Clark – found themselves not only defending their clients but their livelihoods against increasingly personal and vicious attacks – from parties that, again, had no direct interest or tie to the case.
This reality was also seen more recently in the State of Montana, where dozens of charges were leveled against the Attorney General, the honorable and respected Austin Knudsen. The allegations were, in part, brought against Montana’s Attorney General for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize justices on the state’s Supreme Court as he worked to execute his constitutionally appropriated responsibilities to the people and legislature. Again, what was most egregious about this case was that one of the earliest steps was an ethical complaint being lodged by a California-based attorney – hundreds of miles away from the action. Because of this complaint, Attorney General Knudsen is now fighting a serious suspension that could complicate his abilities to represent Montanans.
These cases, and plenty more, are why I have been working on legislation in Arizona to protect well-meaning, law-abiding, and ethical attorneys from fear of reprisal from outside radical left agitators. If eventually passed and signed into law, the bill would mandate [is it now law now? – no] that the State Bar of Arizona and the Supreme Court immediately dismiss all complaints against attorneys, where the complainant does not have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney or another substantial nexus to the attorney’s alleged violation or conduct, and where it is clear that the complaint is simply a difference of political opinion. In addition, I collaborated with the Arizona Supreme Court to change its rule that had allowed this persecution to take place. This reform is necessary for many good conservatives who deserve to work their profession without fear of political persecution. I’m grateful that the court made the right decision to strike the balance of protecting the public from bad attorneys while defending good attorneys from frivolous complaints.
If the events of the past decade, as our nation becomes more politically polarized, have taught us anything, it is that we must guard the legal profession to ensure that bad actors are not permitted to chase away good attorneys who are committed to doing their jobs. Not everyone will agree with the cases those attorneys assume — and that’s okay. Our nation’s judicial system, which allows parties to peacefully work out their disagreements, is part of what makes our nation the envy of the entire world. We should resolve to defend this proud institution from nefarious agitators who must not be allowed to interfere with or manipulate our hallowed judicial system.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14.
