In a landmark decision, the Arizona Superior Court has ruled that Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, must release records identifying registered voters who have not provided proof of citizenship. This ruling supports the efforts of America First Legal (AFL), which filed the original records request over concerns that Arizona’s voter rolls may include noncitizens, raising potential election integrity issues.
AFL’s case stems from Arizona’s public records law, which allows citizens to access state records as a matter of transparency. The group argued that Fontes had initially withheld these records, claiming they either did not exist or that he was not obligated to provide them due to privacy concerns and potential voter harassment. However, following a legal back-and-forth, Fontes acknowledged that approximately 98,000 individuals on Arizona’s voter rolls had not submitted evidence of citizenship.
Both Fontes and Professor Robert Pape were witnesses who testified against the release of such records.
To the privacy and harassment claims, the court asserted that, “The credibility of Professor Pape’s testimony and report was further diminished by what appeared to be gratuitous political bias in his report and in his testimony. The Professor’s opinions regarding general political violence focused almost entirely on allegations of past and anticipated prospective violence from only one side of the political spectrum, and only related to former president Donald Trump.”
The Arizona Superior Court rejected Fontes’ privacy defense, ruling that public records law supersedes concerns over potential misuse of the information. The court stated, “As the Court admonished the parties prior to and during the hearing, the issue for the Court to decide is whether the records that Plaintiff requested must be released pursuant to Arizona’s public records law. Despite the political undertones, this is simply a public records case.”
Fontes, a Democrat, has previously opposed Arizona laws requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship, arguing they could prevent eligible voters from participating in elections. His opposition includes advocating for more flexible voter identification laws, which he contends protect voting rights without compromising election integrity. His office has not yet commented on the court’s ruling, though officials may still review legal options in response to the decision.
The Arizona Superior Court’s decision could signal broader implications for election law enforcement nationwide. Voter integrity advocates argue the ruling reinforces the public’s right to accountability, particularly in maintaining accurate and lawful voter rolls. AFL, which has taken legal actions in other states to address similar election-related concerns, applauded the ruling as a significant win for election transparency and citizenship verification.
