AZ US Attorney Rejects Mayes, Fontes Concerns Over Subpoenaed Voter Data, Offers Joint Review

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Timothy Courchaine has rejected concerns raised by Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes about the use of subpoenaed Arizona voter information, while offering to work directly with Fontes to review voter rolls.

In a Sept. 25 letter, Courchaine said records received in response to a March 2026 subpoena had been turned over to the FBI and were not being used for the purposes the state officials described. He also cited a Supreme Court ruling issued that day allowing an expanded federal citizenship-verification program to operate while litigation continues.

“However, based solely on what you have relayed, I assure you that you have no reason for concern,” Courchaine wrote. “The information that we received in response to the March 2026 subpoena, which was promptly turned over to the FBI for review, is not being used for the purposes you have outlined.”

The response followed a Sept. 23 letter from Mayes and Fontes raising concerns about alleged misuse of Arizona voter information by federal agencies. Courchaine said an attachment referenced in their correspondence had not been included, preventing him from reviewing the complaint in detail.

The dispute concerns federal efforts to identify potential noncitizen voters. As the Arizona Mirror reported, the March subpoena sought Arizona Senate records related to its review of the 2020 election, including copies of Maricopa County’s voter registration database. 

Courchaine also invoked Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs grand jury secrecy, as a protection against unauthorized disclosure. The rule restricts disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury and provides exceptions for authorized disclosures. 

Addressing the state officials’ privacy-law concerns, Courchaine pointed to the Supreme Court’s Sept. 25 decision in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters.

The court granted the federal government’s request to stay a lower-court order blocking modifications to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. Those changes incorporated Social Security Administration records and enabled bulk searches.

The majority concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 likely supersedes conflicting restrictions on sharing citizenship and immigration-status information with DHS. The ruling allowed the modified program to operate pending further appellate proceedings.

Courchaine quoted the court’s majority opinion, “By prohibiting interference with the disclosure of information regarding citizenship status to DHS- ‘[n]otwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law’-Congress necessarily authorized DHS to request and receive that information. Otherwise, agencies, entities, and officials could find themselves in the impossible predicament of either disclosing information consistent with [Title 8, U.S.C.] section 1373 but in violation of legislation like the Social Security Act and Privacy Act or withholding that information consistent with those Acts but in violation of section 1373.”

The majority found, “It is improbable that Congress intended to place officials in such a bind when it passed IIRIRA, so section 1373 likely supersedes restrictions on disclosure elsewhere in the Code.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, raising privacy concerns and risks to eligible voters whose citizenship records are outdated.

The court also acknowledged the federal restriction on systematic voter-removal programs within 90 days of a federal election and explained that individualized inquiries remain permitted during that period. The justices left unresolved whether the 90-day restriction applies to programs removing noncitizens, identifying that question as an issue in a separate pending case.

Courchaine concluded his letter by proposing direct cooperation between Fontes’ office and federal investigators.

“Moving forward, we would welcome an opportunity to work directly with Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to review voter rolls, which would negate the need for subpoenas and alleviate concerns of misuse,” he wrote.

Fontes’ office maintained its position after receiving the response. In a statement to the Arizona Mirror, a spokesperson said the office would not disclose voter rolls to DOJ without a final court order or other lawful judicial process and contended that the Supreme Court ruling did not change the applicable privacy restrictions. Mayes’ office declined to comment to the outlet. 

“By working directly with our office and federal law enforcement, Secretary Fontes can help us achieve both ends at the same time – protecting voter privacy and ensuring the integrity of Arizona elections,” Courchaine wrote.