Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Alexander Kolodin

Slimmed-down version of ‘weapons of war’ measure advances

Arizonans who want to possess everything from pipe bombs to hand grenades will have to instead settle for automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin argued Feb. 12 to the House Judiciary Committee that there’s no reason for the state to use its powers to limit the ability of Arizonans to defend themselves. And that, the Scottsdale Republican said, includes not just traditional firearms but even what he called “weapons of war.”

Kolodin said he was under no illusion that if legislators adopted his HCR 2037 and voters approved that Arizonans would suddenly be able to have rockets, Molotov cocktails or improvised explosive devices, all considered felonies under Arizona law. Repealed or not, those would remain illegal under federal law.

Alexander Kolodin
Alexander Kolodin

He said, though, that the state is under no obligation to help the feds enforce those laws by having parallel laws of its own. In fact, Kolodin pointed out, the Arizona Constitution has even broader protections on the right to bear arms than the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But his legislation took a turn when Rep. Quang Nguyen, who chairs the Judiciary Committee through which the bill must pass, stripped out much of what Kolodin sought to make legal, at least under Arizona law. What was left after the action by the Prescott Republican was only the things already allowed by federal law.

Asked to explain his move, Nguyen responded, “Nope.”

And Kolodin went along.

He said it came down to the political reality of what was needed to get his issue through the committee. In the end, however, Kolodin said he would rather have at least a partial victory to let Arizonans finally possess things that federal law already allows – albeit to not just everyone.

Like silencers.

They are regulated – not banned – by the National Firearms Act. Possession requires passing a background check, being legally eligible to purchase a firearm, and paying $200 for a federal tax stamp.

But in Arizona, it’s a crime to have “a device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm. Under HCR 2037, if approved by voters, that prohibition would go away.

Ditto an Arizona law that makes it illegal to have a firearm capable of shooting more than one shot automatically. This, too, is legal under federal law with approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

And also gone would be a state law that outlaws rifles and shotguns with an overall length of 26 inches. something also allowed under federal law for those who can pass the background check and pay the federal tax stamp.

All that is far less comprehensive than Kolodin wants – or said he believes are the rights to which Arizonans are entitled. And he said it comes down to whether the laws on the books here are constitutional.

Including “weapons of war.”

“Our framers (of the Constitution) intended us to have those weapons of war to keep the government, which is our servant, in check,” Kolodin told colleagues on the committee.

“If the right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed,’ how can we have a category of weapons that are prohibited?” he continued. “As a citizen of this state, I find it insulting.”

And Kolodin argued this is even bigger than constitutional guarantees, saying he wants to “reclaim the liberty that God has really given us because that’s where our rights come from.”

His arguments about citizens having the same weapons as the government took on religious overtones, saying the issue is “very personal” for him as a Jew.

“Historically, a lot of people haven’t cared for us Jews and, in fact, tried to kill us,” Kolodin said.

“Right now our government … is putting a restriction on my ability to defend myself and my family,” he continued. “And they’re not putting a cop outside of my door at night.”

More to the point, he said that’s not the duty of the government. Instead, said Kolodin, people have a duty to defend themselves.

That ability, he said, is what made life better for his family than for Jews who stayed in Europe in the 20th century who “had an awful time.”

“It’s time for the state to get out of the way,” said Kolodin.

What Kolodin was able to get through the committee after his bill was amended by Nguyen, however, was just part of what he wanted. Still, he said removing the prohibitions that now exist in Arizona law against possession of what is permitted by federal law is a victory.

“I will take my fully automatic rifles and my suppressors, thank you very much,” Kolodin said. “That’s a lot of what I wanted,” he said. “A step at a time.”

Only Anne Thompson, a volunteer from Moms Demand Action which lobbies for gun regulation, testified against the bill. But most of her comments were against the original bill to legalize weapons not permitted under federal law.

Even in stripped-down form, the measure was approved by the committee on a 6-3 vote, with all three Democrats on the panel opposed.

The amended measure now needs approval by the full Senate.

 

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission faces bumpy road to renewal

Lawmakers are divided over whether to renew the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission before it expires this year, with some Republicans throwing out accusations of espionage and misconduct. 

At a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, lawmakers advanced a bill that would terminate the ACJC at the end of this year. However, a bill in the Senate sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers would extend ACJC for eight years. 

House Bill 2702, introduced by Reps. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, and Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott, originally contained a lengthy legislative findings section claiming the ACJC is attempting to surveil and collect data on law-abiding citizens.

“The ACJC is too dangerous to exist and must be discontinued,” Kolodin told the committee Thursday.

The ACJC primarily researches, monitors and helps implement criminal justice legislation in Arizona. It administers several grant programs and provides analysis of the state’s justice system to law enforcement agencies, the courts and lawmakers. The commission includes county attorneys and sheriffs from each political party, police chiefs, ex-judges, and various other county supervisors and criminal justice professionals. 

Kolodin and Nguyen argued that the commission has been lobbying the Legislature for years to pass laws that expand the kinds of data the ACJC can collect and analyze. The two also argued that the ACJC’s staff has engaged in improper lobbying practices, like pressuring other organizations to change their positions on bills or mischaracterizing the positions other groups were taking on bills.

Nguyen, who is chair of House Judiciary, also took issue with how ACJC and its executive director, Andrew LeFevre, have communicated with lawmakers. He said it has been difficult to get in contact with the commission in past sessions and also noted that LeFevre had not reached out to set up a meeting to discuss the issues surrounding ACJC’s continuation.

LeFevre defended ACJC and denied the allegations, saying the commission only collects data when statutorily authorized to do so. He apologized for past miscommunications regarding bills.

“If there was a misunderstanding between us, myself and you, I apologize for that, that we were not able to deal with that before now and I ask that we perhaps sit down and talk about that,” LeFevre told Nguyen during his testimony.

Kolodin also questioned LeFevre about ACJC’s Chairman David Byers and his involvement in the Judicial Branch’s Task Force on Disinformation. Byers is the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and worked with the Arizona Supreme Court to create the task force, which examined ways the state’s courts could prevent attacks of disinformation from foreign entities. 

Kolodin called the task force a “mass censorship apparatus” and has argued on multiple occasions it actually spied on and suppressed the speech of Arizonans. The Arizona Capitol Times was unable to find any credible sources to support those claims. 

Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, voted against HB 2702 and at one point during the hearing accused Kolodin of “engaging in personalities” or making personal attacks on Byers.

“I believe that there are a lot of conversations that need to be had between specific individuals … however, that is not what we’re here to debate today,” Hernandez said. “So any personalities or any issues that people have need to be handled and could be directed at those individuals.” 

She said it was wrong to question the director about the activities of the chairman who was elected by the commission. 

A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the Courts noted that Byers was not in attendance at the hearing and “is not aware” of Kolodin’s concerns, but “is willing to talk to him to clarify any misunderstanding about the Task Force’s purpose.”

During his testimony, LeFevre noted that the task force and its duties were completely separate from ACJC’s work and also defended Byers, calling him a “good and honorable man and good public servant.”

LeFevre was supposed to testify Wednesday on the bill in the Senate that would extend ACJC, but that bill was held by the Judiciary and Elections Committee with no explanation. 

The accusations leveled at Wednesday’s House hearing echoed those made when LeFevre first testified before that committee on Jan. 15 as part of the periodic sunset review process that all agencies go through. 

During that hearing, Nguyen and Kolodin questioned LeFevre about the commission’s data collection, its support of a bill they said would create a gun registry and the disinformation task force. A week later, they introduced House Bill 2702, which would terminate the commission on Dec. 31, 2025.

Originally, HB2702 outlined a list of allegations, including attempts to surveil gun owners with concealed weapons permits and creating a database to track them. However, Nguyen sponsored an amendment that passed with the bill on Wednesday that removed the section containing those allegations.

In a letter sent to lawmakers on Jan. 29, ACJC called the statements made by Nguyen and Kolodin “factually inaccurate information and false assertions designed to misrepresent and cast in a negative light the work that the agency has done on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.” 

 

Republicans move to bypass governor’s veto on election legislation

With Gov. Katie Hobbs signaling opposition to a Republican proposal to speed up election results in Arizona, the measure is on a path for voters to decide. 

The House approved an amendment to HCR2013, called the “Arizona Free and Fair Elections Act,” on Tuesday that incorporates language from other election measures Republican legislators have introduced that would model Arizona’s elections after Florida’s. 

Speeding up the state’s election results is a major priority for Republicans in the legislature, but Hobbs views the bills as partisan measures that will make it harder for people to vote. 

“It’s abundantly clear these partisan bills are not about speeding up election results, but rather about disenfranchising voters to advantage one political party over the other,” Hobbs’ spokesman Christian Slater said in a written statement Tuesday. “The bills make it harder to vote by restricting late early drop-off, they effectively end the Active Early Voting List, and they unfairly burden public school districts.”

The two bills Republicans have introduced are HB2703 and SB1011. The mirror bills would stop allowing people to drop off early ballots on Election ay, called “late early” ballots. 

Under the proposal, the deadline to drop off an early ballot at a polling place would move to 7 p.m. the Friday before Election Day. Voters who try to deliver an early ballot on Election Day or the days after Friday would be required to present identification and sign an affidavit. 

Election officials have attributed delays to election results from the time it takes to verify late early signatures.

Schools would also be forced to provide space for use as a voting location for an election if the measure becomes law. 

Slater said Tuesday that Republicans have not tried to work with Hobbs and negotiate on the issue, and he promised a veto from the governor if the bill makes it to her desk “without real compromise.”

“Policies that make it harder to vote, without counter-balancing reforms to increase voter access, are a poison pill,” Slater said. 

With the House concurrent resolution, the measure could still become law if a majority of voters approve it. The resolution will likely make it through the House and Senate with GOP majorities, although the House did not vote on the measure Tuesday afternoon. 

“We don’t want the voters of Arizona to miss out on an opportunity to improve their election system,” said the sponsor of HCR2013, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale.

House Democrats attempted to implement their ideas to speed up election results with an offered amendment to HB2703 from Rep. Brian Garcia, D-Tempe, but Republicans voted against it. . 

Garcia’s amendment would still allow voters to drop off early ballots on Election Day by 7 p.m., but counties would be able to allow voters’ signatures to be corrected during the five business days after an election that includes a federal office and for three business days after any other election. 

“My amendment is voter-centered and responsibly works to speed up election results,” Garcia said.

Other provisions of the amendment include allowing two election workers to remove early ballots on election day to deliver them to a designated receiving site for tabulation and giving schools a choice in being used as a polling place.

“This is exactly what we should be doing. Putting power back into the hands of voters instead of trying to take it away,” said House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen. 

Republicans opposed the amendment and said it counters their attempt to get election results more quickly. 

“(It) would extend the tabulation time; the voting time, and essentially remove all the good functions of the bill,” said House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee Chairman Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman.

HCR2013 also includes other provisions that would require early mail voters to confirm their address with their county recorder’s office before every election cycle if they live in a county with a population of at least 500,000 or every four years if they live in a county with fewer than 500,000 people. County recorders could also provide on-site tabulation of early ballots during the early voting period.

“What the bill also will do is provide a more secure election system, but also a more convenient one,” Kolodin said. 

The resolution would also prohibit election officials from using foreign money services for election administration, but Arizona Association of Counties Executive Director Jen Marson said during a Jan 15 House ad Hoc Committee on Election Integrity and Florida-Style Voting Systems she wasn’t aware of any county that uses foreign money for election administration. 

 

Republicans target state agencies and boards, bring Trump’s ‘DOGE’ to Arizona

After the November 2024 election, legislative Republicans pledged to follow in President Donald Trump’s footsteps and rein in state government. 

They’re attempting to make good on that promise with their own committees modeled after Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and several bills targeting state agencies, boards and commissions. 

Trump’s DOGE was introduced shortly after he was elected to a second term in November and will focus on reducing federal government spending. Republican lawmakers in Arizona praised Trump for the idea and created two committees at the Legislature — House Regulatory Oversight Committee and Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee — aimed at doing the same for state government. 

Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, has taken the DOGE mentality to heart and introduced bills that would repeal several state boards and commissions, give lawmakers and the public the power to challenge agency rules and allow citizens to sue individual government officials for actions taken in their official capacity. Kolodin said he was inspired by the “groundswell of support” he saw for the idea of DOGE after it was introduced by Trump.

“We want to take an axe to the size of government and its interference in the lives of Arizonans,” Kolodin said.

One way he hopes to do that is by eliminating at least nine state boards and commissions that regulate different industries in the state. Those serving on state boards and commissions usually serve without pay, but many do have paid staff or executive directors who assist in day-to-day operations. 

Kolodin is starting with smaller, more obscure boards and commissions like the Citrus Research Council and the Acupuncture Board of Examiners, but said he’d eliminate every state agency, board and commission in existence if he had his way. He also introduced a bill to terminate the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, though other lawmakers want to continue the commission for eight more years. 

Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, is also taking a stab at state agencies, specifically the Arizona Department of Water Resources. He introduced two bills, one that would cut ADWR’s budget in half and another that would move up the agency’s regularly scheduled audit to next year, saying he wants to address “the lack of transparency and regulatory overreach” at the department. 

“Unfortunately, ADWR, under the direction and control of Governor Hobbs, has been sidetracked by extrastatutory activities that lack legislative authorization,” Diaz said in a statement released on Jan. 28. “The agency has been diverting critical time and resources away from its core functions to frivolous policymaking councils and focus groups, driving up housing costs for thousands of Arizonans.”

Diaz highlighted the governor’s Water Policy Council, the designation of the new Willcox Active Management Area, the Alternative Path to Designation of Assured Water Supply rules and proposed ag-to-urban rules as examples of “extrastatutory” activities. A spokesperson for ADWR declined to comment on Diaz’s bills, as did a spokesperson for Gov. Katie Hobbs. 

Another idea from Kolodin involves bringing back Proposition 315, a legislative referral rejected by voters in November that would have required state agencies to receive legislative approval for regulatory rulemakings that would cost the state $500,000 or more over five years. Kolodin’s version would allow the Legislature to use concurrent resolutions to repeal agency rules costing more than $1 million and would allow citizens and businesses to request a review of a rule’s impact on taxpayers.

And Kolodin’s government-shrinking ideas don’t just apply to the executive branch — some target state lawmakers like himself. He sponsored a legislative referral that would prohibit lawmakers from introducing more than 10 bills per session and would stipulate that bills introduced during the second session of a Legislature could only repeal statutes, not amend or create new ones. Kolodin has introduced 99 bills so far this session.  

Kolodin’s reasoning for the resolution can be found in the text, which says “The People of this State find that there are already enough laws.” If the resolution makes it out of the Legislature, voters would have a chance to let lawmakers know whether they agree with that sentiment at the next election. 

Another Republican, Sen. J.D. Mesnard, introduced a legislative referral that would amend Proposition 108, a measure approved by voters in 1992 that requires a two-thirds majority approval in the Legislature for state tax and fee increases. Prop. 108 excluded most state agency fees from the two-thirds rule, allowing them to increase fees for certain programs through the traditional regulatory review process. 

Mesnard said in a press release on Jan. 28 that the exception has led to the approval of far more increases than originally intended and that the Legislature has often used the exception as a loophole to avoid the two-thirds rule.

“The people have entrusted their elected officials with the power to make policies, including assessing any taxes or fees, not delegate that responsibility to unelected government officials,” Mesnard said in a prepared statement. “When Arizona voters approved Prop. 108, their intentions were clear; they wanted to set a higher threshold when imposing a greater financial burden on the people, not make it easier to do so.”

Will Humble, a former director of the the Department of Health Services, said the resolutions from Mesnard and Kolodin would result in a “slow starvation” for agencies. Mesnard’s resolution would impact agencies like the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Water Resources that rely on fees to regulate health care industries and the environment, according to Humble.

He said he agrees that state government could be more efficient, but repealing regulatory boards and cutting resources for agencies isn’t the way to accomplish that.

“It’s not rocket science,” Humble said. “It’s having talented people making the decisions inside these agencies. That’s how you make government more effective.” 

He said lawmakers could also pour more money into the Auditor General’s Office to ensure agencies are being held accountable. The auditor general does periodic reviews of all agencies, boards and commissions, but due to a lack of funding recently allowed some agencies to do self-audits. 

“If you want efficiency, you want oversight and you want accountability, use the Auditor General’s Office to do that and then stop standing in the way of the governor getting talented people into these jobs,” Humble said, referring to the drawn out battle between Hobbs and the Senate over her director nominations. 

Republicans have also taken inspiration from other Trump administration policies when crafting state legislation. Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, introduced a bill aimed at prohibiting state entities from using diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which echoes Trump’s executive order ending DEI programs in the federal government. 

Most, if not all, of the bills aimed at enacting DOGE in Arizona are likely headed for Hobbs’ veto stamp, but a few would bypass her and head straight to voters in 2026. Kolodin said he is optimistic that Arizonans will agree with Republicans that the state government is out of control, but Humble isn’t so sure. 

“I’ve been around long enough to know that the pendulum does swing, especially when there’s a lot of overreach,” Humble said. “The more people are personally affected by these decisions, the more unpopular they are going to become. And I think two years from now, it’s going to be a different policy world.” 

 

Lawmaker proposes executions by firing squad

Calling the current system inhumane and problematic, a state lawmaker wants to give voters the chance to replace the current method of killing convicted murderers with the firing squad.

The proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin follows a preliminary report last year by a special “death penalty commissioner” hired by Gov. Katie Hobbs to look into how the state executes criminals by lethal injection. Retired federal magistrate David Duncan reported there is “no humane way” to do that.

And Duncan said if the state is to continue with executions, the most humane way of doing that is the firing squad.

So now Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican, wants to put a measure on the 2026 ballot asking voters to approve the change.

Kolodin told Capitol Media Services that he believes in the death penalty. But he said the record shows that the current method of execution, one approved by voters in 1992, is filled with problems.

“I don’t know what it is,” he said. “But lethal injection just seems to be incredibly complicated where it always leads to these delays and these hiccups and whatever.”

Kolodin said just preparing for an execution itself creates issues.

The state has had trouble in prior years even in obtaining lethal chemicals.

In 2015, for example, Arizona ordered 1,000 vials of sodium thiopental, a muscle relaxant used in the process, from a supplier in India, after a domestic manufacturer refused to sell it for executions.

That came despite a warning from the federal Food and Drug Administration that such importation would be illegal. And it ended up with Customs and Border Protection seizing the drugs at Sky Harbor International Airport.

The state now uses a different drug. But even that has issues: It not only has to be compounded but has a limited shelf life.

Then there’s the process itself.

Hobbs appointed Duncan after what she said were a series of “botched” executions, including reports by witnesses of both pain and bleeding as state employees had trouble inserting the necessary intravenous line.

In the interim, Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would not seek any warrants of execution until the report was done.

Duncan, in his preliminary report, said the state should consider using a firing squad, saying it results in near instantaneous death. He said it “does overcome the impediments to lethal injection from unavailability of material and skilled personnel.”

The governor subsequently fired Duncan, saying that suggestion was beyond the purview of what he was supposed to study. But Kolodin said it’s time to take that report seriously.

“We actually know what’s always humane and always seems to work properly, which is the firing squad,” he said.

“And this has actually been known for a long time,” Kolodin continued. “I’m surprised that Hobbs fired the guy for saying so because people who have at least a reasonable amount of exposure to criminal law already know this.”

He said that using this method could end some of the litigation about the method of execution that can result in death penalty cases dragging out for years, if not decades.

“We would not have all of these freakin’ legal hang-ups in terms of delivering capital punishment,” Kololdin said.

“And it would be far more humane,” he continued. “So why don’t we just do it that way?”

Hobbs has not discussed her own personal feelings about both the death penalty and the method it is administered in Arizona. In fact, what she thinks is legally irrelevant.

First, the method of execution is spelled out in the Arizona Constitution. And that can be changed only with voter approval, a process that bypasses the governor.

Second, the governor plays no role in the process. Instead, that rests with Mayes who has to be the one to ask the Arizona Supreme Court for a warrant to execute someone.

A spokesman for Mayes said she opposes what Kolodin is proposing.

“The attorney general supports the current protocol,” said press aide Richie Taylor of the use of lethal injection.

He also said that Mayes has reviewed a report by Ryan Thornell, director of the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Release. He said he has reviewed and revamped the execution process.

Based on that, Richie said, his boss is convinced that the agency, going forward, can use lethal injection in a humane fashion to execute inmates.

That first execution could occur on March 18 if the Supreme Court grants Mayes’ request to execute Aaron Gunches. He has been on death row since pleading guilty to the 2022 murder and kidnapping of Ted Price, his girlfriend’s ex-husband.

Arizona initially executed inmates by hanging. That was changed to use of lethal gas in 1934.

But voters approved changing to lethal injection in 1992 after Donald Eugene Harding took more than 10 minutes to die after cyanide pellets were dropped into sulfuric acid in a bowl beneath his chair. Witnesses said that Harding gasped, shuddered and tried to make obscene gestures with both of his hands strapped  down.

There was one execution by gas after that: Walter LaGrand in 1999. Having been sentenced before the 1992 change, he had the option of choosing lethal gas, which he did in a protest against the death penalty.

What Kolodin is proposing is further amending that provision to make the firing squad the only legal method.

Several states authorize firing squads, including  Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Idaho became the latest state added to the list in 2023, though the law says that is authorized only if the state cannot obtain the drugs needed for lethal injection.

Kolodin’s proposal, based on his assessment of what is humane, contains no such condition.

 

 

GOP lawmaker seems to agree with Dems about top billing on ballots

A Scottsdale Republican lawmaker has concluded that Democrats were right all along – it’s not fair to have ballot order determined by who won the last governor’s race.

But Rep. Alexander Kolodin said the fact that there’s now a Democrat in the top office – and that prior GOP advantage has disappeared – has at least something to do with his legislation to alter the system.

His HB2045 would require that the order of candidates for each race on the general election ballot be rotated among voting precincts in each county so that each party gets an equal chance of being in that first position.

The current system – the one based on who won the last governor’s race – meant that in the 2022 election Republicans were listed ahead of Democrats in all races in 11 of the state’s 15 counties where Doug Ducey outpolled Democrat David Garcia. That included Maricopa County, which has more voters than the other 14 counties combined.

The Democratic National Committee and its allies thought that system is so unfair that they filed suit in 2019 asking a federal judge to rule the system illegal.

To back their arguments, they cited research from a political science professor who estimated that first-listed candidates get an average advantage of 2.2 percentage points. And the margin, according to Jonathan Rodden, can reach 5.6 percentage points.

All that, argued attorney Sarah Gonski, explains why Arizona law requires rotation of names on primary election ballots. And she urged U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa to extend that rotation to general elections.

The judge refused. And the Democrats had no better luck going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, however, Kolodin says they have a point.

“It provides a statistical advantage to the group of candidates listed first,” he said – exactly what the Democrats were arguing in court.

So what’s changed?

One thing is that Democrat Katie Hobbs beat Republican Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial race. And that meant Democrats got top billing in the just-completed election in five counties, including Maricopa and Pima, where three out of every four registered voters reside.

That would be repealed if the Republican-controlled Legislature approves his plan and the governor signs it, replaced by the system of random rotation.

But Kolodin also conceded there is some politics behind his move to have the Legislature revamp the law versus having it decided by a federal judge.

“The Democrats were suing to try to change the law to suit their purposes,” he said. But Kolodin said Humetewa was right in concluding it was not the role of the courts to make such decisions.

Instead, he said, that’s the role of the Legislature which then – and now – has been controlled by Republicans.

“The Legislature saw fit to, fairly in my view, provide that advantage to the party that had won the Governor’s Office,” he said of the law in place when Ducey had won his races for governor.

Put another way, Kolodin said, Republican lawmakers had every right to set up a system that was designed to benefit their candidates.

“It’s not fair to take that advantage away from a political party in the middle of a gubernatorial term,” he said, saying the GOP, having won 11 counties in 2018, including Maricopa, was entitled to “get the prize” of first position in future elections.

“And you get to keep that prize for the four years,” Kolodin said.

Anyway, he said, it’s not like he’s trying to take away the current Democratic advantage – at least not right away.

“It doesn’t take effect until 2027,” Kolodin he said.

What that means, he said, is that even if his measure becomes law the Democratic candidates still will be listed first in the five affected counties for the upcoming election. That’s the one in which Hobbs herself will seek a new term.

But it will make irrelevant beyond that, at least for ballot order, whether she wins or loses.

 

Federal judge rejects purge of 1.2 Million voters but grants access to voter records

A federal judge late Friday ordered Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to turn over records he is required by law to have about his obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls.

But U.S. District Court Judge Steven Logan, originally appointed by then-President Barack Obama, refused to order Fontes to immediately strip 1.2 million voters from the registration list as requested by Citizen AG which calls itself a voter education group. The judge said even if he had that right to alter voter registration rolls – and he said he doesn’t – the organization’s claim that many people who are on the list who shouldn’t be allowed to cast a ballot is, at this point “wholly speculative.”

Attorney Alexander Kolodin, who represents Citizen AG, said the ruling is still a victory.

He said once the records are produced – the judge gave Fontes until Dec. 2 to comply – that will give his client a chance to prove the merits of its assertion of poorly maintained voter rolls. And that, said Kolodin, could provide the basis for a future challenge to the rolls, even if that can’t occur until after next week’s election.

“We are pleased that the court ordered the records the secretary has been unlawfully withholding released so that Citizen AG will have the documents it needs to ensure that Arizona’s voter rolls are cleaned up,” he told Capitol Media Services.

But Kolodin, a Republican state representative from Scottsdale, also took a political swat at Fontes, a Democrat.

“It is obviously difficult to prove a claim when the secretary has been withholding just those records which reveal the depths of his incompetence and malfeasance,” he said.

A spokesman for Fontes would not comment on the ruling but said that the office would comply.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that there are ineligible people on the rolls.

Karen Hartman-Tellez, an assistant attorney general representing Fontes, told the judge at Friday’s hearing there is no evidence to back up the allegation. Still, she acknowledged that she cannot say for sure how many people who either no longer live in Arizona or have died may be registered to vote.

Whatever is the answer could turn on what is in those records.

Both state and federal law require election officials to send out notices when there is evidence that a registered voter has moved. At that point that person is placed on the “inactive” list.

The individual can reactivate simply by showing up at a polling place with proof of identification and address. But if that person does not vote in two subsequent elections, he or she is removed entirely from the voter rolls.

Citizen AG contends that based on data it has, there are 1.2 million Arizonans who were placed on the inactive list after the 2022 election but have not been permanently removed. It argued that failure to do so diluted the votes of those legally entitled to cast ballots.

Logan said that claim is based on “uncertain intervening events” that ineligible voters are on the rolls, that they are afforded an opportunity to vote, that they did vote, and that nothing would be done to prevent it.

“The court finds this claim of possibilities to speculate to establish a concrete injury,” he wrote, something necessary for standing to file suit in federal court.

And the judge was not about to order Fontes to remove 1.2 million names from the inactive voter list.

He said that claim is based on numbers in other reports the state furnishes to the federal Elections Assistance Commission. But that, said Logan, is not enough.

“Plaintiffs do not have any independent data to support the claim that over 1.2 million inactive and ineligible voters remain on the Arizona voter rolls,” the judge wrote. What they have at this point, is “wholly speculative.”

Anyway, he pointed out that the NVRA itself forbids the wholesale removal of individuals from voter rolls within 90 days of an election.

The records Citizen AG wants, however, are another matter.

At Friday’s hearing, Hartman-Tellez complained about the timing of all this. She told the judge Citizen AG could have sought the documents after the 2022 election but didn’t file a public records request until Oct. 4 – and didn’t go to court until this past Wednesday, less than a week before the election, after Fontes said he didn’t have what the organization wanted.

That didn’t impress Logan, who said there is a “clear statutory right to inspect certain records.” Nor was he swayed by arguments that it would be too much of a burden to force Fontes to produce them.

“That difficult has no bearing on Citizen AG’s right to receive the records, whether they had made such a request two years ago (on Nov. 9, 2022, when plaintiffs contend the state of Arizona should have cleaned up its voter rolls) or six days before the election,” he said. “The law is the law, even on the even of an election.”

The judge, however, agreed to give Fontes until Dec. 2 to comply.

1.2 Million Arizona voter registrations challenged by Florida group in new lawsuit

A Florida-based organization contends there are 1.2 million ineligible people on Arizona voter registration rolls.

In a new lawsuit, attorneys for Citizen AG say their calculations show that more than 1.6 million registered voters did not vote in the last two elections and also did not respond to notices that election officials are legally required to send to them to find out if they are still eligible. That, the lawsuit claims, means that they are dead or have moved.

Attorneys for the organization do acknowledge that 432,498 voters were removed following the 2022 midterm election.

That, however, still leaves them with the question of those remaining 1.2 million.

Strictly speaking, Citizen AG is asking U.S. District Court Judge Steven Logan, originally appointed by then-President Barack Obama, to force Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to respond to its demand for public records about what has been done to maintain the voter registration rolls.

That information, the organization’s lawyers say, is required to be made available under the National Voter Registration Act. But they told Logan that the only response they got from Fontes’ office is it has no records that were responsive to the group’s request.

But Citizen AG wants the judge to do more than order Fontes to provide the documents.

It wants Logan to order Fontes to immediate remove – or direct county election officials to remove – from the voter rolls anyone who did not respond to a confirmation notice and did not vote in either of the last two elections.

And if that’s not possible, they want those on the list to be allowed to vote only a “provisional ballot,” one that is set aside and subject to further legal challenge.

Logan has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Friday morning.

There was no immediate response from Fontes.

But it is likely that his attorneys would ask the judge to reject any request for immediate relief, if for no other reason than it comes at the last minute – and that Citizen AG could have raised these issues months ago.

And there’s another complicating factor.

The most recent figures show that more than two million Arizonans already have cast early ballots. And if they have been accepted – meaning that election officials have determined the signatures on the envelopes are valid – then the ballots themselves have been separated and there is no way to determine who cast any individual one of them.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the National Voter Registration Act.

“Arizona is required to maintain accurate and current voter registration lists by removing ineligible voters based on change-of-residence grounds,” the lawsuit states.

One way it does that is by sending notices, by forward-able mail, to those for whom there is some record of a change of address. If there is no response, a voter is placed on the “inactive” list.

These people can cast a ballot if they show up with proof of their residence and that the notice was a mistake.

But the law says if there is no response and that person does not cast a ballot in the next two election cycles, the names have to be removed entirely from the voter rolls.

Citizen AG made a request on Oct. 4 seeking voter history and information about the number of inactive voters to reactivate the registration by casting a vote in either the 2020 or 2022 elections after providing residency proof.

“As of the date of this filing, defendant has not produced any records responsive to Citizen AG’s request,” the lawsuit states. Instead, it got a response that the office “does not have any records responsive to your request.”

“The NVRA requires defendant to retain and make available for public inspections, for at least two years all records concerning voter list maintenance activities, such as removals, confirmations of voter eligibility, and updates to voter registration lists, as well as any records regarding the implementation of programs and activities conducted to ensure the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,” the lawsuit states.

The attorneys concede it is possible that Fontes’ office is doing what federal law requires and is maintaining accurate voter registration lists. But they said the failure of Fontes to respond to the records request makes it impossible to know.

Little is known about Citizen AG.

No one from the organization returned messages seeking comment. And state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who is serving as a local attorney for the Florida-based organization, said he could not comment on the litigation.

Its website says it launched “a citizen-led initiative where registered voters submit challenges to their respective county voter rolls.”

Citizen AG also has been involved in litigation in Georgia to remove voters from the rolls before this year’s election.

The website also says that Mike Yoder, its executive director, created the nonprofit “aimed at empowering citizens and safeguarding their freedoms against unlawful government overreach.” It also says that Yoder has a history of filing federal lawsuits to protect Americans “from losing their jobs due to vaccine mandates that conflicted with their religious beliefs.”

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.