AZ Supreme Court rules nearly 100,000 voters with unconfirmed citizenship after database error can vote in upcoming election
“We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests.”
“We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests.”

On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that nearly 98,000 voters who lack confirmed citizenship documentation will be allowed to cast full ballots in state and local races in the upcoming election. The court determined that Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer does not have the authority to change the registration status of these voters to “federal-only” ballots, as many of them registered long ago.
This ruling follows an administrative error that allowed approximately 98,000 registrants to vote in state and local elections despite not providing proper citizenship documentation. Under a 2004 Arizona law, residents must provide documented proof of citizenship to register as “full-ballot voters,” enabling them to participate in federal, state, and local elections. Without such proof, they are limited to voting in federal races only, according to AZ Family.
Loading this lets Rumble set cookies and collect data.
View on Rumble"We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer explained in the ruling. “Doing so is not authorized by state law and would violate principles of due process.”
While the court acknowledged that county recorders are responsible for verifying proof of citizenship, it noted there was no evidence suggesting the affected voters are not US citizens.
Chief Justice Timmer pointed out that even Maricopa County officials Stephen Richer and former Secretary of State Adrian Fontes conceded that the voters may have provided sufficient proof of citizenship, saying, "It is possible that Affected Voters have, in fact, provided satisfactory evidence of [documentary proof of citizenship]."
“This Court has also accepted original special action jurisdiction over election matters in which there is a need for immediate relief based on rapidly approaching election deadlines and where the key facts are not in dispute,” Timmer wrote.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.


