Arizona Judge Dismisses GOP Claims on Voter Roll Irregularities
A legal battle over Arizona’s voter registration rolls has reached a pivotal moment as a federal judge dismissed claims from the state Republican Party leader and two GOP affiliates. They alleged that up to 1.27 million names on the voter rolls were ineligible.
The lawsuit, led by attorney Dallin Holt, pointed fingers at Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, accusing him of neglecting federal procedures to cleanse voter rolls of deceased individuals and those who have moved. Holt’s claims were based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, suggesting that the votes of his clients could be diluted by these irregularities.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza found the accusations speculative, noting that Holt admitted his clients did not allege these “hypothetical ineligible votes” were being cast in a manner affecting their “partisan electoral interests.”
Lanza also dismissed the notion that Fontes’ alleged inaction under the National Voter Registration Act weakened the challengers’ confidence in the electoral system, stating, “The Court’s dismissal is as troublesome as it is incorrect,” according to Holt. He insisted the data shows Fontes has failed to uphold voter roll integrity, affecting his clients.
Fontes countered, labeling the lawsuit as “politically motivated,” and criticized the use of taxpayer resources for personal political agendas. At issue is the federal mandate requiring states to make a “reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters,” including those deceased or relocated.
Holt represents Gina Swoboda, Scot Mussi, and Steven Gaynor, arguing that voter registration rates in certain counties appear “implausibly high,” suggesting a potential 1.27 million ineligible registered voters. He highlighted that Maricopa County sent over 750,000 notices to verify voter residency, with no follow-up on 620,000 cases.
Despite lacking specific evidence of deceased or relocated individuals on the rolls, Holt maintained that discrepancies between Census data and voter registrations were sufficient for legal action. Yet, Judge Lanza disagreed, stating the plaintiffs lacked “standing” as they failed to demonstrate actual harm.
“A citizen may not sue based only on an asserted right to have the government act in accordance with law,” Lanza wrote, adding that even if Fontes violated the NVRA, it did not entitle the plaintiffs to sue without showing concrete harm. Holt’s claim of “vote dilution” was unsupported by evidence of ineligible votes being cast and counted.
Lanza further dismissed claims that inaccurate voter rolls required the challengers to spend more on voter education and fraud monitoring, calling these “vague claims that a policy hampers its mission.”
—
Read More Arizona News
