PHOENIX (LN) — U.S. District Judge Brittany E. Bennett granted Fontes' motion to dismiss in United States of America v. West, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not authorize the Attorney General to demand Arizona's statewide voter registration list.
The DOJ had sued Fontes to force the production of the list, which includes names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and driver's license or Social Security numbers. The government argued the list was necessary for an investigation into Arizona's compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Fontes refused the demand, citing state and federal privacy laws that prohibit the release of such identifying information.
The court's decision hinged on the text of 52 U.S.C. § 20701, which requires states to preserve records that "come into [the state's] possession" relating to voter registration. The judge found that the statewide list is a database created and maintained by state officials, not a document submitted by voters.
"The Court refers to these documents as '§ 20701 documents,'" the order states. "Section 20703 goes on to provide that the Attorney General may request a state's § 20701 documents: Any record or paper required by section 20701 of this title to be retained and preserved shall, upon demand in writing by the Attorney General... be made available for inspection."
The judge adopted the reasoning from United States v. Benson, a recent ruling in the Western District of Michigan that reached the same conclusion regarding Michigan's voter list. The court noted that the phrase "come into [the state's] possession" refers to documents received from external sources, such as voter applications, not records the state creates itself.
The court also found that interpreting the statute to include voter lists would create a conflict with other federal laws. The NVRA and HAVA require states to regularly update and modify their voter rolls. If the lists were protected under the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the alteration of preserved documents, states would be unable to perform required list maintenance.
"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 reads.
The DOJ had argued that the statute's language was broad and did not exclude electronic or confidential records. The court rejected this, noting that previous cases cited by the government did not address the specific distinction between voter applications and statewide databases.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that amendment would be legally futile.
The ruling is part of a broader legal battle. The DOJ sued 29 states and the District of Columbia in February 2026, demanding their voter registration lists. As of the date of the order, five other federal courts have dismissed similar lawsuits, including cases in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.