Judge Dismisses GOP Bid to Purge 1.27 Million Arizona Voters

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Arizona Republicans, which claimed the state was in breach of federal law regarding the maintenance of its voter registration list. The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to initiate the lawsuit.

The Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Gina Swoboda, alongside Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi and businessman Steven Gaynor, argued that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes failed to remove over one million ineligible voters from the state’s rolls. They contended that this negligence diluted their votes and burdened the party’s efforts on voter education and mobilization.

The National Voter Registration Act mandates that states undertake reasonable efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. However, in a ruling issued by U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient standing to sue. Lanza emphasized that to establish standing, plaintiffs must show a specific, imminent injury that can be resolved by the court.

In his 19-page opinion, Lanza clarified that simply asserting a legal violation by the government does not qualify as standing. “A citizen does not have standing to challenge a government regulation simply because the plaintiff believes that the government is acting illegally,” he noted, referencing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The plaintiffs had alleged that their votes were diluted due to the presence of ineligible voters. They cited estimates that 500,000 to 1.27 million voters on the rolls were either deceased or had relocated. These figures were derived from the 752,387 confirmation notices sent by Fontes’ office, with only a fraction leading to removals from the roster.

Judge Lanza found the claims of vote dilution to be overly speculative. He pointed out that the theory depended on numerous uncertain events—such as ineligible voters requesting ballots and successfully casting votes—which were not substantiated by evidence. The court has ruled that mere speculation does not suffice to claim injury.

Furthermore, Lanza addressed a theory proposed by the plaintiffs regarding a collective lack of confidence in the electoral system that might deter them from voting. He rejected this as hypothetical harm that the plaintiffs had imposed on themselves.

The judge also dismissed the argument that the costs incurred by the Arizona Republican Party due to the alleged inefficiency of voter roll maintenance constituted a valid basis for standing. Lanza underscored that organizations must demonstrate a direct impact from a government action to establish standing.