Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: voter registration

Arizona officials fight DOJ demand for voter data, citing privacy concerns

Key Points:
  • Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces lawsuit over voter registration records
  • DOJ demands access to nearly 5 million Arizonans’ voter registration records for “election protection”
  • A California judge recently dismissed a similar DOJ request as “unprecedented and illegal”

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is going to get some legal help in his battle with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi over the state’s voter registration records.

Both the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Common Cause have filed legal papers asking U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich to allow them to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice demanding access to the full and unredacted records of nearly 5 million Arizonans who are signed up to vote.

Fontes has already vowed to fight the demand by the Department of Justice, contending that what it wants is illegal under federal and state privacy laws.

He even told Capitol Media Services he is “willing to go to jail” to protect the information, saying that a top official in Bondi’s office who has been pushing the demand “can pound sand.”

Attorneys for both organizations, in their filing in federal court here, acknowledge what Fontes is doing.

But they also say that they and their members have their own unique and legally protectable interests in preserving the privacy of those records. More to the point, they contend that if Fontes is ordered to surrender the records, the information could be used to try to remove people, including their members, from the voter rolls.

Central to the case — and similar ones filed in nearly two dozen other states — is the argument by the Department of Justice that it needs the information to “protect American elections.”

It also contends that Congress has empowered the attorney general to enforce various federal laws designed to ensure that voter registration lists are accurate and properly maintained.

The lawyers for the two groups that have intervened in the case have a different perspective.

“In 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act which charges states — not the federal government — with the administration of voter registration for elections for federal offices,” wrote Sambo Dul.

She is the lawyer for the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, a group which has aligned itself in the past with Democratic interests. And in her legal papers she said the Department of Justice, which now has sued 24 states, has an ulterior motive.

“It reportedly seeks to use the data to create a national voter database in an attempt to substantiate unfounded accusations that millions of non-citizens have voted illegally in recent elections,” Dul wrote. “In recent public statements, moreover, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon made clear that DOJ also intends to use the information to attempt to compel removal of hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls.”

Victoria Lopez, an attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, which represents Common Cause in its own motion to intervene in the case, has a similar take.

She pointed out that the Department of Justice wants all information on registered voters, including their full name, date of birth, residential address, and either the driver’s license number or the last four digits of the person’s social security number. And Lopez said state law prohibits that information from being publicly released.

“(The) DOJ’s request for private, sensitive voter data appears to be in connection with never-before-seen efforts by the United States to construct a national voter database, and to otherwise use untested forms of database matching to scrutinize voter rolls,” she told the judge. And that, Lopez said, includes comparing it to records of the Department of Homeland Security.

Lopez also pointed out that a federal judge in California dismissed a nearly identical bid by the Department of Justice to access that state’s 23 million voter registration records just last week. U.S. District Court Judge David Carter called the government’s request not only “extraordinary,” but also “unprecedented and illegal.”

“The DOJ’s request for sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used,” he said.

“There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all election power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate,” Carter wrote in his 34-page ruling. “This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders died for.”

And the judge rejected claims by the Department of Justice that various federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act, intended to allow it to have the information it needs.

“Congress’ intent was clear — ensuring that all Americans, regardless of race, are able to vote without fear or distress,” he wrote of those statutes.

“The DOJ cannot go beyond the boundaries provided by Congress and use these legislative tools in a manner that wholly disregards the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution,” Carter said. “Should Congress want to enable the Executive to centralize the private information of all Americans within the Executive Branch, Congress will have to clearly say so.”

Finally, the judge rejected arguments that the National Voter Registration Act preempts California’s own privacy laws. That is significant because Fontes has cited Arizona’s own privacy laws in his refusal to surrender the information sought.

League of Women Voters Arizona chapter continues new citizen voter registration

Key Points:
  • The League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit against a federal policy preventing non-governmental groups from registering new citizens to vote
  • The lawsuit alleges the federal agency did not follow protocol and the change violates the league’s First Amendment rights 
  • Arizona’s chapter won’t join the lawsuit as their local chapters have a good relationship with county recorders offices

Amid a multi-chapter lawsuit challenging a new federal policy on voter registration for naturalized citizens, a non-governmental organization is working tirelessly to promote and protect the voting rights of America’s newest arrivals. 

A policy change from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services dating back to August said only state and local election officials are permitted to provide voter registration services after a naturalization ceremony, according to a news release. 

The national chapter of the League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit against the federal agency. Joining them were chapters in five states: Colorado, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges the federal agency did not follow the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. They also allege the policy change violates the league’s First Amendment rights because it hinders speech promoting the right to vote for new citizens and violates the organization’s freedom of association.

Pinny Sheoran, chair of the Arizona chapter’s advocacy committee, said they won’t join the lawsuit. Arizona’s chapters have a good relationship with their respective counties, she said, including Phoenix and Maricopa County. 

Many league volunteers are deputy registrars and assist with voter registration, she said, and volunteers go through training and working as a deputy registrar is strictly regulated. 

The league is a national nonpartisan voter advocacy group that helps register new voters, provides voter education and advocates for voters’ rights. Celina Stewart, CEO of the national chapter, said league volunteers have been a fixture at naturalization ceremonies across the country for decades. 

“Purposely excluding groups like the league from administrative naturalization ceremonies is a deliberate move by this administration to deny new citizens access to the democratic process and attack the league’s very mission to register and support new voters,” Stewart said in a statement.

Christine L. is a recently naturalized citizen who wanted to vote for the first time in her life. She asked to be identified only by her last initial due to concerns about identity theft. She lives with her husband, Paul, in the Valley. 

Born in Scotland and raised in London, Christine came to the U.S. on a three-week holiday with her friends in 1977. Three weeks became three months in Manhattan, and Christine said she knew she always wanted to stay in the U.S. 

Back then, she entered as a “sixth preference,” which includes performing a job that no American can do. Christine spoke two other languages, French and German. A company sponsored her, and she worked as a multilingual secretary. 

She stayed in Manhattan until 1984 and then moved to Arizona. She earned a degree in accounting from Arizona State University and married Paul in 1997. Recently, Paul received a dementia diagnosis. Christine said she didn’t want to worry about her immigration status or risk being left in a situation where she wouldn’t be able to help him. That was her prime reason for becoming a naturalized citizen. 

“What happens if they say no? I couldn’t really leave the country and get Paul over to England,” she said. “What if something happens to him? What if something happens to me?”

The process for Christine was easy, she said, acknowledging, “I’m white. I’ve paid my taxes. I was a lawful, green card person. I went out of the country a lot. No parking tickets, no drunks, no fines, no jail time, no embezzling, nothing. My record was clean.”

Still, going through the process is terrifying and people are often scared because of the recent deportations, she said. 

Her second reason for naturalization was political. For the first time in her life, she wanted to vote. She did not vote when she lived in London.

“I know it’s not one person who can move a mountain, but a lot of people can,” she said. 

Christine filed for citizenship in May and completed a lengthy immigration questionnaire. Her attorney, Liz Chatham, helped her navigate the process, which typically takes 11 months, but she got notification the citizenship test would take place on Oct. 14. 

Normally, people answer 20 questions from a list of 100 possible questions, and they must answer 12 correctly. Since Christine is over 65, she had to answer 20 questions and get six correct. 

In a room full of families and children, her name was called to take the test. The first question was “Who was the first president of the U.S.?” 

With her nerves sufficiently racked, she answered, “Jefferson.”

“Where did that come from?” she chuckled, recalling how much time she spent studying. It also didn’t take as long as she thought it would. “Here I have been waiting 47 years, and it took 25 minutes.”

With a passing score, the date for the next naturalization ceremony was set for Nov. 14. Being from the U.K., the ceremony seemed a little dull in comparison to the pomp and circumstance that often accompany events and celebrations across the pond, Christine said. She thought they would recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and she learned it before the ceremony, but they did not. 

One of the officials handed everyone their certificates, shook their hand and told them congratulations. A video speech by President Donald Trump was played and the new citizens recited the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. 

The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office had a table set up for voter registration, and Christine was the first to register. 

“I’m so excited about voting and I’ve never voted in my life,” she said. She also helped two other people fill out their forms. “Score! Three people voting. Who knows who they’re going to vote for. It didn’t matter. It really didn’t matter.”

Christine is also looking forward to leaving the country, visiting Mexico again and then returning to the country. 

“It’s just a symbol of freedom that you can leave and come back. That is hugely important to me,” she said.

Bill bans voting centers, Dems say it targets minorities, rural areas

Key Points:

  • Voting centers and early voting locations for primary and general elections would be banned under the bill
  • The bill would also limit an election precinct to a maximum of 1,000 registered voters
  • Democrats and other opponents have said the law would be physically impossible to implement

A bill that would ban voting centers and early voting locations while limiting election precincts to a maximum of 1,000 voters passed the Legislature on April 29.

House Bill 2017 would prohibit a county board of supervisors and county recorders from establishing voting centers and early voting locations during primary and general elections.

An identical measure, House Concurrent Resolution 2002, that would allow voters to decide the issue was also progressing through the Legislature. It was awaiting a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee.

Bill sponsor Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, previously stated that voting centers cause more chaos during elections, slowing the vote-counting process and eroding voters’ faith in the election process. Keshel ran a similar bill last year that failed in the House.

“I think when I started voting many, many years ago, I went to my local church or school in my precinct, I saw my neighbors, I saw my friends, and we all voted together, and we got our election results much faster,” Keshel said during the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee hearing on March 5.

Keshel told the committee that she capped the number of voters at 1,000 per precinct based on feedback she received from election workers.

“Some of us feel that when you have so many ballots coming in, and specifically with the voting centers, they’re coming in from many different precincts, that it’s just harder to manage,” she said.

However, those who oppose the measure referred to the bill as another form of voter suppression and said it would be impossible to implement because counties would have to drastically increase the number of poll workers and voting locations.

According to a Joint Legislative Budget Committee fiscal note, the bill would require 3,957 new voting locations statewide and more than 27,000 additional poll workers. The JLBC estimated that it would cost counties $10.8 million for Election Day, including staff and site use, as well as one-time equipment costs of $31.5 million.

Maricopa County would require 2,457 new locations, along with more than 17,000 additional poll workers, while Pima County would need 574 locations and 4,200 workers. Pinal County would have to add 206 locations and 1,500 workers.

Eight counties utilize voting centers: Cochise, La Paz, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Santa Cruz, Yavapai and Yuma, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. Five other counties use a hybrid system with precincts and voting centers: Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee and Mohave. 

“So where will we find those extra sites?” said Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, during the Senate third read hearing on April 29. “Where will we find the extra 27,000 poll workers who would be needed under law to staff all of these polling places? The reason counties started switching to a vote center model is because they couldn’t find enough locations.”

Ortiz said the bill could further disenfranchise voters in rural areas and minority communities.

“Voting centers allow voters the flexibility to vote throughout the day, and if we are to get rid of it, it will make it harder to vote, especially for working Arizona, especially for rural Arizona, and especially for voters of color,” she said.

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, said the bill won’t lead to faster voting results and the proposed setup could lead to technology issues.

“We know it’s for sure going to be vetoed by the governor, and it doesn’t do anything towards creating a faster voting system, which I hear my colleagues say they want to see,” Kuby said. “It will plague our voting system along the lines of technology issues, and I just simply don’t understand the motive for bringing this forward.”

Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, defended the bill by pointing out that Venezuela, Nicaragua and El Salvador all use strictly precinct voting.

“I find it interesting that quite often when government officials say we can’t, it actually means we won’t,” Finchem said. “It’s a big difference between the two. One has to do with the will to perform for the people. The other has to do with ignoring the calls for what the people want.”

Democrats Must Counter Turning Point

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is a wildfire that Democrats must quell. Headquartered in Phoenix, TPUSA is no longer a fringe organization that can be dismissed. They have a massive presence, primarily on college campuses across the country, and have created a brand that’s made extremism mainstream. Worse, they’ve made these views attractive to younger, lower efficacy voters — particularly young men. Bolstered by right-wing media ecosystems and always on message with MAGA, TPUSA is making extremist right-wing nationalism “cool” to a generation that Democrats have taken for granted. We always assumed Gen-Zs would have a rendezvous with Democratic destiny, not a romance with the far-right. 

Matt Grodsky is a Partner at Matters of State Strategies. He led communications for the 2022 Adrian Fontes for Arizona Secretary of State Campaign and served as the Communications Director for the Arizona Democratic Party in 2020. He is the author of Righteous Might: How Democrats Turned Arizona Blue and How You Can Flip Your Battleground State.
Matt Grodsky

With a message of “Resist the Left,” TPUSA targets voting-eligible students under the age of 21. Its operation has replaced traditional youth groups that would have transitioned young adults into political parties. 

We must remember that this generation has never known a world without Trump as a central figure. If they came of age in Republican households, chances are their parents were supportive of Trump throughout his Presidency and January 6th. This is their Republican Party and Trump is what being Republican means. It’s no longer about small government, strong foreign policy, or free-market capitalism. They have no reverence for the age of Goldwater or the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush because those never existed for them. The pre-2016 political era is as alien to them as this era is to people over the age of 30. If you’re an 18-year-old independent today, you don’t remember 9/11 or the short-lived national unity that stemmed from tragedy. You were two when the economy crashed. You were 10 when Trump was elected. And at 14, your schools were in lockdown as Biden defeated Trump. This generation has experienced only political chaos; in that hurricane’s eye is Trump. He is what they know. 

TPUSA proved vital to helping Republicans run away with voter registration in my home state of Arizona between 2020 and 2024. Their founder has shared publicly how targeting low-information young voters helped move Arizona away from President Biden and Vice President Harris. The organization has three tax-exempt entities and reported $82 million in revenue in 2023. Kirk and his cohorts have become rich in the process, and they spent vigorously in 2024 to help Republicans. For the first time, TPUSA used its giant war chest to target key county races — notably in Maricopa County where Republicans swept. 

There is a growing realization among party faithful in Arizona that TPUSA poses a new challenge coupled with an acknowledgment of diminishing emphasis on strengthening Democratic youth organizations. Former Maricopa County Democratic Party Chair, Steven Slugocki, who was the youngest Maricopa county chair in the state’s history, stated, “We used to utilize young democratic organizations at the county level and on college campuses as a pipeline into the party ecosystem, which hasn’t been prioritized as much in recent years. As Chair I added the ASU Young Democrats and Maricopa Young Democrats to the board to show we couldn’t take youth support for granted. We have to earn young people’s vote like everyone else.” 

Young up-and-coming leaders in the Democratic Party have been working to gain traction and draw attention to TPUSA’s threat. Jacob Marson, Chair of the Keep Arizona Blue Student Coalition, says, “We’ve been seeing TPUSA’s growing influence on college campuses. They are outpacing Democratic youth organizations in terms of reach and scale.” 

Another young leader, Jacob George, Executive Director of Unity Rising and Balsz School District Governing Board Member, said, “I continue to see youth organizations employing the same strategies, but they’re not delivering the results we need. Our vision is to explore a new approach to reconnect and engage with the working class and young voters. People from all walks of life are tired of partisan debates that ignore everyday realities. Democrats must focus on listening to and understanding the working class. We must counter TPUSA’s agenda, money and influence and build a strong democratic coalition that doesn’t die when election time ends.”

It’s true that young voters historically don’t turn out at the same levels as older voters. But they grow up and establish voting behaviors. Democrats can’t risk losing a generation to the right.  While refocusing on bench-building and youth organizations can help Democrats create an alternative to the rise of TPUSA in states across the country, it isn’t the only solution. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Arizona Democratic Party and Democratic youth organizations across the state to take the lead on countering TPUSA — which has already attempted to remold the AZGOP in its image. 

The counter-effort likely starts with educating donors on where to allocate resources. Democratic and Never-Trumper mega-donors would be wise to coalesce around the shared vision of creating an alternative to Turning Point with unpredictable and attractive branding. It cannot be a liberal bastion susceptible to cries of being just another “WOKE” enterprise. It must be an organization cloaked in the mold of TPUSA but with a reasonable message for young, less engaged voters. It should enforce the notion that values aligned with Democrats represent the key to a more prosperous future:

  • Securing the American Dream: Ensuring you can achieve economic prosperity.
  • Defending Personal Liberty: Protecting your freedoms from government overreach.
  • Pursuing Global Stability so You Thrive: How the future of Ukraine / Tawain impacts you.
  • American Promise: Why we are still a beacon for the world and why that matters.

This organization would compete with TPUSA on college campuses, establish chapters and surrogates, and seek to regain electoral territory — especially among young men — through voter registration. Perhaps it could even be based in Phoenix. 

The potential is there. But it will come down to money and willpower to create a bulwark against an ever-growing threat. 

Matt Grodsky is a Partner at Matters of State Strategies. He led communications for the 2022 Adrian Fontes for Arizona Secretary of State Campaign and served as the Communications Director for the Arizona Democratic Party in 2020. He is the author of Righteous Might: How Democrats Turned Arizona Blue and How You Can Flip Your Battleground State. Follow: @mattgrodsky.bsky.social

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.”

Number of voters impacted registration error more than doubles

And now there are about 218,000.

That’s the number of people that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes says are registered to vote but never provided the proof of citizenship legally required under a 2004 Arizona law. A week ago it was 97,928.

But, for the moment, it still doesn’t matter.

Fontes says the Arizona Supreme Court order that allowed the first group to vote for all the offices and propositions on the ballot also applies to everyone else. That order rejected arguments by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer that the lack of citizenship proof entitled those affected to cast a ballot only for federal offices.

Under the Supreme Court order, it is only after this year’s election that officials will have to go through the list and determine whether there is proof of citizenship and, if not, what voters must do before the next election to get a full ballot.

But the ever-expanding problem has given Gina Swoboda, who chairs the Arizona Republican Party, a new chance to lash out at Fontes, a Democrat. She said that, at the very least, he should immediately provide a list of affected voters to each county recorder so they can answer the calls they are getting from people wondering about their registration.

Aaron Thacker, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office, said that’s not an option. He said that is precluded by the Supreme Court ruling allowing all those with questioned citizenship proof to vote via a full ballot this year.

In fact, the justices said any effort to strip people of their registration this close to an election would be illegal because they would not be entitled to “due process” to prove they are, in fact, entitled to vote.

Swoboda, however, said that’s not her reading of the court order.

She conceded, though, that at least for this election, the question is academic: Everyone on the list is getting a full ballot. But Swoboda said the changing numbers themselves – at one time the estimate was as high as 300,000 – become a problem.

“That is very bad for confidence,” Swoboda told Capitol Media Services.

She said some people are still raising questions about the outcomes in 2020 and 2022, though multiple courts have thrown out claims that the results were not accurate. Now comes this.

“I don’t think all voters can take it anymore,” she said.

“It will just collapse, and they’ll stop voting,” Swoboda continued. “And that would be a nightmare.”

All of this still leaves the question: What happened to cause the numbers to balloon?

Thacker said data is still being gathered. But he said this all relates to the state’s continued efforts to figure out what caused the problem in the first place.

It starts with a 2004 voter-approved law which said people can register to vote in Arizona only by providing “documented proof of citizenship.” That can include birth records, passports, certain tribal documents and other recognized paperwork.

But to simplify the process, that law says anyone who got a driver’s license after 1996 was presumed to be a citizen. That’s when a law was passed requiring proof of legal presence to get a license.

Anyone who had a license before then was grandfathered in.

The problem is with people who either registered to vote after the 2004 law or sought to change their registration after moving.

County election officials would query the Motor Vehicle Division database.

If the license was after 1996, then citizenship was assumed. Those with pre-1996 licenses were told to provide the citizenship proof.

But there’s a glitch in MVD records.

If someone had gotten a duplicate license in, say, 1998, that was the date that got reported to the counties – not the date of the original license. Ditto if they had changed their address.

But neither act required proof of citizenship.

Bottom line: MVD was telling election officials that people had post-1996 licenses, meaning they had provided citizenship proof, when they did not.

So who is likely to fall into this category?

The Secretary of State’s Office figures these are people at least 45 years old, given that they got their Arizona licenses prior to 1996.

That older demographic also reflects something else: The list is heavier with Republicans, who make up about 36% of those affected. Democrats comprise about 28%, with the remainder either registered with a minor party or unaffiliated.

There are some ways for people to determine they are not on the list.

One group is comprised of those who have a Real ID license. This is an enhanced license that will soon be required under federal law to board a commercial aircraft or enter certain government buildings.

All of these have been issued since 2005.

More to the point, to get one requires proof of citizenship. And that should be reflected in MVD records.

There also is a website at “my.arizona.vote” where individuals can check their voter registration status.

Thacker said there’s another reason his office hasn’t yet provided each county with a list of affected voters. He said efforts are underway to narrow the list further, using the records available to the Secretary of State’s Office.

“We have to do our part to make sure that what we give the counties is as clean a copy of the list as possible,” Thacker said. He said it’s an extension of what his office did after first getting a list of 300,000 questionable registrations from MVD.

“There’s still more whittling that probably can be done,” Thatcher said.

Anyway, he said, county election officials are now focused on running the upcoming general election. Once this election is done, Thatcher said, “they can focus on these lists so that they can do a responsible job of ensuring every voter’s rights are protected.

And there’s something else: Narrowing the list of what is sent to the counties means fewer individuals will have to dig into their records to find proof of citizenship.

Judges rule Arizona can enforce law adding steep penalties for voter registration violations

PHOENIX – Arizona can now enforce a 2022 law despite claims by some that it could inadvertently make felons out of volunteers who register people to vote.

In a new opinion Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction issued by a federal judge in Phoenix who had said SB 1260 is so poorly written that anyone reading it would not know what is –  and is not –  legal. And that, said Judge Murray Snow, made it unconstitutionally too vague to be on the books.

Snow also barred the state from implementing another part of the same law detailing when county election officials are required to cancel a voter’s registration. The judge said it runs afoul of the National Voter Registration Act which requires that the person be notified before being taken off voter rolls.

But appellate Judge Kenneth Lee, writing for the majority in a 2-1 ruling, said there’s a major flaw in the lawsuit, and in Snow’s ruling. He said the three nonprofit groups who filed the lawsuit lack legal standing  because they failed to show how the provisions on voter registration harmed their “core activities.”

Lee acknowledged they had legal standing to challenge that separate provision that makes it a felony to provide a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered in another state.

But he said that the wording of the statute made it clear that the only thing the 2022 law would outlaw are unlawful acts of voting. Lee said nothing in the law would make felons out of individuals and organizations for normal voter outreach or registration activities.

SB 1260, sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, was one of dozens of measures proposed by GOP lawmakers in 2022 amid claims that changes were needed to prevent fraud.

It includes language making it a Class 5 felony for anyone who “knowingly provides a mechanism for  voting to another person who is registered in another state.” That carries a presumptive 18-month prison term.

He said the target is anyone who would forward an early ballot addressed to someone not living in Arizona.

Mesnard acknowledged he has no first-hand knowledge of people getting early ballots from Arizona who are registered elsewhere. Instead, he said, “folks (have) come to me and insist this has happened,” 

“I’ve had folks come to me and insist this has happened,” he said.

“I’ve not gone to investigate,” he continued. But Mesnard said that his legislation will “make it clear” what the law requires.

In enjoining enforcement, Snow ruled that the bill does not define what is a “mechanism.”

“Thus, in the context of SB 1260, the ordinary meaning of ‘mechanism for voting’ could include any necessary items involved in the process of voting,” the judge wrote in his 2022 order. And that, he said, is where it creates legal problems for the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Voto Latino, and Priorities U.S.A., the groups that challenged the law that sign people up to vote.

For example, Snow said, a voter registration form is a “mechanism for voting” as registration is a prerequisite to being able to cast a ballot.

“It is entirely possible that plaintiffs, in registering newly arrived residents, may be charged with knowledge that those new residents didn’t cancel their previous voter registrations,” Snow wrote.

Lee rejected that contention.

“Construed under its ordinary meaning, the phrase ‘mechanism for voting’ likely refers to a process, technique, or instrument for casting a vote,” the appellate judge wrote. That plain-meaning construction of the phrase does not include activities such as voter registration because providing a mechanism for registering to vote is different than providing a ‘mechanism for voting.”

The other provision that Snow blocked deals with those already registered to vote in Arizona.

It says if a county recorder receives “credible information” that someone is registered in another county and confirms that fact, the recorder must cancel that person’s registration.

Attorney Daniel Arellano who represents the groups who challenged the law argued that creates a situation where someone who has moved could lose his or her registration in both the old and new counties. What’s worse, he said, the person doesn’t even know.

Snow said the legal issue is even more basic than that.

He said the National Voter Registration Act spells out the ways a state can cancel someone’s registration.

One is if the person directly requests to be removed from the rolls.

States can also cancel a registration if the person has confirmed in writing he or she has moved out of the registration area. And cancellation is allowed only after providing notice followed by a specified waiting period.

Lee, in writing for the appellate court, did not address those specific contentions. Instead, he said, the challengers simply lack standing to sue.

He said their basis for seeking the injunction was that the provision could force them to divert resources because voters’ current registrations, versus old, outdated registrations, might be canceled. That, the challengers argued “interferes with their mission to encourage minority voter registration.”

Lee called that a “conjecture-laden theory.”

More to the point, Lee said nothing in the law affects the activities they already were doing.

“The plaintiffs can still register and educate voters – in other words, continue their core activities they have always engaged in,” the appellate judge wrote.

Anyway, Lee said, the law is nowhere near as broad as challengers say. He said it simply says that a county recorder will cancel a registration when the recorder “receives confirmation from another county recorder that the person registered has registered to vote in that other county.”

Arizona Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to void executive orders to make registration and voting easier

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court won’t consider a bid by the head of the Arizona Republican Party to void executive orders issued by Gov. Katie Hobbs designed to make registration and voting easier, at least not now — and possibly not ever.

In an order Thursday, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer said any complaint by GOP Chair Gina Swoboda that Hobbs acted illegally should be taken to a trial court. The justice said there is no reason to bypass the regular process for filing lawsuits and going directly to the state’s high court.

And Timmer took a swat at Swoboda for arguing she needed immediate Supreme Court intervention because of “immediate ramifications” for the upcoming general election. The chief justice pointed out that the orders being challenged as illegal actually were issued by the governor in November 2023.

“Petitioners have not addressed why neither executive order was challenged until this point in time,” Timmer wrote. “An earlier challenge would have permitted the petitioners to secure a final ruling well before the upcoming election.”

There was no immediate response from Swoboda, who filed the suit along with other individuals.

Thursday’s order leaves in place two orders by the governor, which she said are designed to make registration easier and to provide some options for counties that often find themselves looking for polling places and where to locate drop boxes.

One directs state agencies to include on their public websites a link that directs users to either the Secretary of State’s voter registration website or an online voter portal operated by the Motor Vehicle Division where people can sign up to vote.

It also says the agencies should make paper registration forms available in “conspicuous public locations.” And it says if a form is completed and turned in, the agency must return it to the Secretary of State or appropriate county officials within five days of receipt.

Attorney Andrew Gould, who represents Swoboda, charged all of that “substantively and fundamentally exceeds her constitutional and statutory authority.”

The other says that state buildings can be used as voting sites or ballot drop-off locations this year and into the future.

Gould, who ran unsuccessfully to be the Republican nominee for attorney general in 2022, said state law gives the Legislature, which happens to be controlled by Republicans, the power to decide voting and ballot drop-off locations as well as enacting laws on voter registration. And he said it is the county recorder who authorizes individuals to accept registration forms and designates where the forms can be distributed and where they can be received.

So he asked the Supreme Court to issue an order enjoining the governor from enforcing either order.

The governor, for her part, was ready with a response.

In filing on her behalf, attorney Andrew Gaona told the justices there is nothing in state law that prohibits agencies from providing Arizonans with voter registration forms. In fact, he said, the law actually requires county recorders to distribute mail-in registration forms at not just fire stations, public libraries and other locations open to the public but also at government offices.

As to voting locations, Gaona said it is each county, not the governor, which determines where to establish those. Ditto, he said, of drop boxes.

All the order does, Gaona said, is gives the counties options to use government buildings.

Nor, he said, is this idea new.

He pointed out that the state made a Motor Vehicle Division office in Avondale available as a voting location in the July primary, all in cooperation with Maricopa County. And an agreement with Coconino County will allow an MVD office to be used as a site to drop off early ballots for the upcoming general election.

And then there’s the timing of the lawsuit: less than three months before the election — with a direct plea to the state’s highest court

“Petitioners should have filed in superior court months ago, but waited until the day before the ballot printing deadline for the general election in their craven attempt to cast doubt on Arizona’s elections process and limit Arizonans’ access to the democratic process,” Gaona told the justices. And he called the claims “the very definition of frivolous, relying on nonsensical reading of the orders and relevant statutes.”

That timing, and the decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, got the attention of the justices.

Timmer pointed out there are rules that say if anyone wants to bypass the normal process of filing lawsuit they have to explain why. That, she said, is lacking here.

“The court concludes that petitions have not presented adequate justification for the action to commence in this court rather than in the superior court,” the chief justice wrote.

She also pointed out it’s not like failing to address the issue right now will deprive Swoboda of any chance to challenge Hobbs’ orders which affect not just this election but all future ones. Timmer said any questions about their legality will remain even after the November general election.

Timmer was quick to say that refusing to consider the complaint was not a finding for or against either Swoboda or the governor.

“The court expresses no view on the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses,” she wrote.

Timmer did reject requests made by both Swoboda and the governor to have their legal fees paid by the other side, saying that could be revisited later.

The filing at the Supreme Court wasn’t the only bid by Gould, on behalf of Swoboda, to have the orders rescinded.

Before filing suit, Gould actually tried to get Attorney General Kris Mayes to go to court to restrain the governor’s action. That drew a skeptical response.

“I fail to understand how increased access to voter registration forms or polling places could be harmful to anyone, including your clients,” Mayes said.

And a pre-lawsuit plea directly to the governor to rescind her orders also failed to get the response that Gould was seeking.

In a written reply, Bo Dul, the governor’s general counsel, defending the legality of the actions of her boss.

“These executive orders further the important goals of increasing Arizonans’ access to voter registration,” Dul wrote. She also said one reason for allowing state sites to be used as polling locations has been complaints by some counties they find fewer suitable locations willing to do so.

Hobbs’ attorney responds to GOP lawsuit

An attorney for Gov. Katie Hobbs is taking a legal swat at the head of the Arizona Republican Party, accusing her of a last-minute attempt to use the courts to undermine voter confidence and access.

In filings at the Arizona Supreme Court, Andy Gaona tells the justices there is no basis for the new lawsuit by Gina Swoboda seeking to void executive orders issued by the governor last year to ease registration and voting. She claims the orders “severely harm and diminish the public and voter’s confidence in election integrity.”

election contests, Hobbs, Secretary of State, attorney general, Lake, Finchem, Fontes, Mayes, general election, ballots, tabulation, Maricopa County, Mohave County
Andy Gaona, an attorney for Gov. Katie Hobbs.

“These allegations make no sense,” Gaona said in his response on behalf of the governor. He said even if the orders somehow diminished the confidence of Swoboda and her allies – something he is not conceding – their beliefs would be “objectively unreasonable.”

One allows state agencies to make their facilities available as voting locations or places where people can drop off their ballots. The other directs some state agencies to make voter registration forms available to the public.

On the first, Gaona noted that each county decides where to set up polling places and locate drop boxes, not the governor.

“Counties designating state facilities as voting locations has nothing more to do with ‘election integrity’ than any other designation that counties make,” he said. “And state agencies making voter registration forms available has nothing more to do with ‘election integrity’ than anyone else (including the Arizona Republican Party) doing the same.”

And Gaona suggested that there’s something political in the timing of the litigation – 2 1/2 months before the general election – given that Hobbs signed the orders last November.

“Petitioners should have filed in superior court months ago, but waited until the day before the ballot printing deadline for the general election in their craven attempt to cast doubt on Arizona’s elections process and limit Arizonans’ access to the democratic process,” he told the Supreme Court, where Swoboda chose to file her complaint. And he called the claims “the very definition of frivolous, relying on nonsensical reading of the orders and relevant statutes.”

In fact, he contends the whole filing so lacks merit that Swoboda and the other two people who filed suit with her should pay the governor’s legal fees “to dissuade parties from using this court to bring frivolous claims that do little more than continue false narratives about elections in our state.”

The first executive order allows state buildings to be used as voting sites or ballot drop-off locations this year and into the future. Attorney Andrew Gould said it is flawed, saying it does not address things like where to store completed ballots until they can be sent to the appropriate election officials.

And he said it isn’t within the governor’s power to designate state agencies as voting and ballot drop-off locations.

Gould also wants the Supreme Court to void another Hobbs executive order, which directs agencies to include on their public websites a link that directs users to either the Secretary of State’s voter registration website or an online voter portal for registration operated by the Motor Vehicle Division. It also says the agencies should make paper registration forms available in “conspicuous public locations.”

He contends that “substantively and fundamentally exceeds her constitutional and statutory authority.”

Both arguments, Gaona told the justices, are flawed.

It starts, he said, with the claim that Hobbs was wresting power from county election officials. Gaona said the order does no such thing.

“Instead, it orders the Arizona Department of Administration to ‘coordinate with state agencies and counties’ to determine whether there are state facilities that counties could choose to use as polling places,” Gaona said. “It doesn’t order ADOA to unilaterally designate voting locations, nor does it force any county to use any state facility as a voting location.”

As to the other order, he pointed out there is nothing in state law that prohibits agencies from providing Arizonans with voter registration forms.

“In fact, the county recorder must also ‘distribute state mail-in registration forms at locations throughout the county such as government offices, fire stations, public libraries and other locations open to the general public,” Gaona said, quoting state law. “Even more to the point, ‘the county recorder may provide voter registration forms in quantity to groups and individuals that request forms for conducting voter registration drives.’ ”

All that, he said, makes the lawsuit even more questionable.

“That petitioners – including the chair of one of Arizona’s major political parties – objects to state agencies making voter registration forms (which they receive from elections officials) available to the public speaks volumes,” Gaona said.

If nothing else, he said, Swoboda and the two other plaintiffs lack standing to seek to have both orders enjoined.

Under Arizona law, one of the factors a judge has to consider is whether failure to issue an injunction will result in “irreparable harm” to the person seeking the order.

“Petitioners seeking injunction relief must show that they themselves will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction,” Gaona said. “No petitioner even tries to explain how the executive orders could personally and irreparably harm them.

As he sees it, the lawsuit turns the issue of harm on its head.

“It’s difficult to understand how the equities or public policy would ever favor removing voter registration information from state offices or precluding state agencies from allowing counties to use their facilities as polling places or ballot drop-off locations,” Gaona said.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to even consider Swoboda’s lawsuit.

U.S. Supreme Court gives Republicans partial victory

A divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed Aug. 22 to let Arizona block some, but not all, people who don’t provide proof of citizenship when registering from this point forward from voting in this year’s presidential race.

In a brief order, the justices said Arizona is entitled for now to enforce a provision of a 2022 law that spells out anyone who applies to vote using a state registration form from now on must provide “satisfactory evidence of citizenship.” The court said that can continue until a federal appeals court can decide the legality of the statute.

But the justices left in place lower court orders that bar Arizona from requiring such proof from those who sign up to vote using a form designed by the federal Election Assistance Commission.

That form requires only that would-be voters swear, under penalty of perjury, they are eligible to vote. And those who register with that form are entitled to vote only in federal elections.

So that leaves the door open for those who fail to provide such proof to continue to sign up using that federal form between now and the Oct. 7 registration deadline.

More immediately, the court ruling is prospective only. That means the more than 41,000 Arizonans who already are on the rolls as federal-only voters, regardless of which form they used to sign up – still can decide whether they want to cast a ballot for Kamala Harris, Donald Trump or someone else.

And nothing in the decision affects the ability of those who signed up using the federal form who didn’t provide proof of citizenship from voting in the race for U.S. Senate between Kari Lake and Ruben Gallego. State lawmakers conceded years ago they have no authority to regulate in that area.

Ditto in the nine congressional races.

Finally, the justices said the state cannot enforce another law saying those who are federal-only voters must cast a ballot in person. They left in place lower court rulings that the state, having decided people can vote by mail, cannot deny that privilege to some. 

Senate President Warren Petersen, one of those who sought Supreme Court intervention, acknowledged that the ruling is only a partial victory.

“While we’re grateful SCOTUS recognized our state’s sovereignty by allowing our laws requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in Arizona be enforced, individuals who are living here illegally are still able to register on a federal form without providing proof of citizenship,” he said in a prepared statement.

“They must only attest they are lawful citizens,” Petersen said. “Then they are able to vote in the presidential and congressional races, as well as by mail, thus influencing the outcome of our elections.”

That claim of non-citizens voting was echoed in a statement by the Republican National Committee which joined with Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma to seek Supreme Court intervention. It called non-citizen voting “a major threat to our election security.”

“The corrupt leaders driving non-citizen voting are anti-American leftist radicals set on stopping President Trump and his America First policies,” the RNC statement said. “They want open borders and open elections, because they are counting on illegal votes.”

But no evidence was ever presented in the case showing that the people who have signed up in Arizona without presenting proof of citizenship are, in fact, not eligible to vote.

Aaron Thacker, spokesman for Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, said there is evidence that the list of federal-only voters includes students attending state universities, many from within the state, who did not bring their birth certificates or other proof of citizenship with them but may have an interest in voting in this year’s high-profile federal and congressional races. He said the ability to sign up using the federal form gives them that option.

And Fontes, in his own statement, emphasized that those who are not yet registered but want to vote in  November still have the ability to sign up with the federal form. He even provides a link to that form on his agency’s website.

Since 2004, Arizona has required proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections.

But that has bumped up against the National Voter Registration Act. It requires that states “accept and use” the form designed by the Election Assistance Commission to let people register to vote in federal elections.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2013 ruling authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, said Arizona cannot demand more than what is required on the federal form.

In 2022, however, lawmakers sought to pick a new fight.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, conceded that the state has no control over people registering to vote in congressional races. That is because the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to control the time, place and manner of congressional races.

But Hoffman argued and he got Republican colleagues to agree that the state still has a role to play in who can vote for president.

He bases that on laws that allow each state to choose how to select its presidential electors. And, strictly speaking, when Arizonans cast a ballot, they are voting for a slate of electors pledged to a specific candidate, not for the candidate himself or herself.

That argument carried no water with U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton who, in a ruling last year, barred the state from restricting who can vote for president.

“The plain language of the National Voter Registration Act reflects an intent to regulate all elections for federal office, including for president or vice president,” she wrote. “And binding precedent indicates that Congress has the power to control registration for presidential elections.”

Similarly, Bolton said federal law preempts a requirement in the challenged statute that anyone who uses the federal form must provide documented proof of citizenship in order to vote by mail in any race for which they are eligible to vote. She said that’s not what the federal law says.

“Congress recorded that it enacted the National Voter Registration Act not just to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office, but also to make it possible for federal, state and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office,” Bolton said.

The latest Supreme Court order does not end the fight. It still gives state officials, the RNC and their allies the opportunity to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Bolton’s decision, something that would affect future elections.

Aside from the claims by the Republicans about non-citizens voting, the whole issue has other political overtones.

In their legal filings, the GOP challengers pointed out that Republicans make up about 34% of the state’s registered voters. But the latest figures from the Secretary of State’s Office show just 14.3% of these federal-only voters signed up as Republicans.

Another 27.4% are Democrats, with 53.6% listed as “party not designated” and the balance among minor parties.

And all that follows the fact that Trump lost to Joe Biden in Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes, far fewer than the number of federal-only voters.

 

 

It’s time to give thanks, show appreciation to Richer

A welcoming Stephen Richer heads up the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office with knowledge and a dedication to continue meeting the needs of constituents, improving processes and procedures, and instilling confidence...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

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