PHOENIX (LN) — A federal judge granted Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ motion to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking Arizona’s statewide voter registration list, ruling that the database is not a "document" the Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires states to preserve for federal inspection.
U.S. District Judge Brittany E. Bennett adopted reasoning from a recent Michigan federal court decision, holding that the Act’s text limits federal access to voter registration applications, not the compiled lists states create from them.
The complaint alleged Fontes violated the law by refusing to produce the list, which includes voters’ full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and driver’s license or Social Security numbers. The Attorney General made the request as part of an investigation into Arizona’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.
Fontes refused the request, citing state and federal privacy laws that prohibit the release of such identifying information.
The court’s analysis turned on the statutory language of Title III, which requires states to preserve "all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting."
The judge found the phrase "come into his possession" refers to documents received from prospective voters, not records created by state officials.
"The court found that this phrase 'refer[s] to only those documents that state election officials receive from prospective voters,' and that this meaning would be superfluous if it also encompassed records the state created," the order stated.
The ruling aligns with United States v. Benson, a February decision from the Western District of Michigan that reached the same conclusion regarding Michigan’s voter registration list.
The court noted that interpreting the Act to include statewide lists would conflict with other federal election laws. The National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act require states to maintain and update their voter rolls, which would violate a provision of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits the alteration of preserved documents.
"The NVRA outlines a variety of situations in which states are required to modify their VRLs where § 20702 would prohibit such an alteration," the order said.
The Justice Department had argued that the Act’s definition of covered documents is "sweeping" and does not exclude electronic or non-public records. The court rejected this, noting that previous cases cited by the U.S. Department of Justice did not address statewide voter lists.
The Attorney General also argued that the Michigan decision was "atextual" and that no other court had adopted such a limitation. The court responded that the issue had not been heavily litigated and that the Michigan decision was among the first to consider the question.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that amendment would be legally futile.
The Justice Department sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for production of their voter registration lists. As of the date of the order, five courts have dismissed the lawsuits.
The case is United States of America v. $60,503.00 in US Currency, No. 2:24-cv-02815.