Hypocrisy 101: When Protected Voter Data Wasn’t Protected
The 2024 Exposure, the 2026 Felony Warning — and a Federal Referral the Public Record Still Does Not Resolve
By Linda Brickman
From Recorder Fontes to Secretary Fontes – Part 2
SECTION 1 – THE DATA THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE LEFT THE OFFICE
Arizona created its Address Confidentiality Program for people who have a very good reason not to want their real address made public. For example,
Victims of domestic violence. Victims of stalking and sexual assault.
Judges, prosecutors, law-enforcement officers and others whose personal information may be protected by law or court order.
For them: Privacy Is Not Merely a Convenience; It Can Be a Matter of Personal Safety, even Life or Death!
Yet in 2024, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office “accidentally” released protected information belonging to 373 voters. The information included home addresses and telephone numbers.
According to reporting based on internal office emails obtained through public-records requests, the information was distributed while the Secretary of State’s Office was responding to routine requests for voter data. Recipients included political-data firms and a University of Arizona researcher.
But the mistake was not discovered immediately. It remained undetected for months. Then, in October 2024, someone inside the office discovered it — apparently by chance during an internal meeting. Chief of Staff Keely Varvel notified Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. Fontes demanded accountability “ASAP.”
The office began trying to retrieve the information, notified affected voters and ultimately terminated Craig Stender, then the office’s Director of Voter Registration, Administration and Technology. Stender disputed responsibility in internal correspondence.
But something else did not happen: The Secretary of State’s Office did not publicly announce that protected voter information had been released. In fact,
- Arizona voters did NOT learn about the incident during the 2024 election.
- Arizona voters did NOT learn about the incident in 2025.
The story became public in June 2026 only after Votebeat obtained internal emails through public-records requests and reconstructed what had happened!
And that leads to a very uncomfortable question:
How does an office responsible for protecting some of Arizona’s most sensitive voter information accidentally release it — discover the mistake months later — notify the affected voters — yet leave the broader public unaware of the incident for nearly two years?
And that question becomes even more interesting because of what Adrian Fontes would say about protected voter information in 2026. By then, he was warning others just how serious releasing it could be.
SECTION 2 — WHEN PRIVACY BECAME A PRIORITY
By 2026, Adrian Fontes was speaking very differently about the dangers of releasing sensitive voter information. And he was speaking publicly.
On March 30, 2026, during a Politics Unplugged interview posted on the Secretary of State’s official YouTube channel, Fontes discussed concerns about voter information that had been turned over to federal investigators. The video description stated:
“Our first priority will always be protecting Arizona voters and their personal identifying information.”
During the interview, Fontes specifically raised concerns about voters whose addresses were legally protected – including participants in the Address Confidentiality Program, judges, law-enforcement officers and others whose personal information could place them at risk if disclosed. His concern was understandable. Protected voter information is protected for a reason.
But Fontes’s public emphasis on privacy carried an IRONY Arizona voters did not yet know. At the time he was warning about the dangers of exposing protected voter information, the public still had not been told that his own office had accidentally released protected voter data in 2024.
And Fontes’s concerns were not limited to interviews. On March 9, 2026, Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes sent a joint letter to Arizona’s county recorders concerning federal demands for voter information:
- The warning was unusually strong.
- The letter cautioned that releasing certain unredacted voter information could violate Arizona confidentiality laws and potentially constitute a Class 6 felony.
- It urged county recorders to decline demands for information the officials believed was legally protected.
The principle could hardly have been clearer…Protected voter information must remain protected.
But that same principle now sat beside an unresolved fact from Fontes’s own office. Two years earlier, protected voter information had not remained protected. And what began as a dispute over voter privacy was about to become something much larger – Because Senate President Warren Petersen believed the March 9 warning had crossed a legal line.
SECTION 3 — THE LETTER THAT CHANGED THE FIGHT
The dispute began with a Federal Grand-Jury Subpoena. In March 2026, the Arizona Senate received a subpoena seeking records connected to its 2021 review of Maricopa County’s 2020 election. Senate President Warren Petersen complied.
Then came the March 9 letter from Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes to Arizona’s county recorders. Their warning was direct: certain voter information was protected by law, and releasing unredacted records could expose officials to criminal penalties.
But Petersen saw something very different…
- He argued that the letter was not simply legal advice about privacy.
- He believed it was an effort to discourage county officials from complying with federal demands tied to a grand-jury investigation.
Petersen obtained a legal opinion from Snell & Wilmer and, on April 7, referred both Mayes and Fontes to the U.S. Attorney for possible obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
Those were allegations. Neither Fontes nor Mayes was charged with either offense.
Fontes defended the letter as an effort to protect Arizona voters’ private information and ensure compliance with state and federal privacy laws. But the dispute had now moved far beyond voter-data policy. It had become a federal referral.
And one week later, the U.S. Attorney responded.
SECTION 4 — THE U.S. ATTORNEY RESPONDS
Petersen’s referral could have ended as just another political accusation. It did not. One week later, U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine responded.
According to the public record, Courchaine said his office was carefully reviewing the facts surrounding the conduct Petersen had described. More importantly, he said the actions raised “valid concerns of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.”
That did not mean either Fontes or Mayes had committed a crime.
- No criminal charge followed.
- No indictment was announced.
- And no court has found either official guilty of obstruction or witness tampering.
But the U.S. Attorney’s response mattered because it moved the controversy one step beyond a complaint from a Republican legislative leader. A federal prosecutor was now publicly acknowledging that the conduct raised legitimate questions worthy of review. And at the center of those questions was the March 9 letter…
Fontes and Mayes had warned Arizona county recorders that releasing certain protected voter information in response to federal demands could violate Arizona law — and potentially expose officials to Class 6 felony consequences.
From their perspective, the message was straightforward: Arizona officials had a legal obligation to protect sensitive voter information.
From Petersen’s perspective, the timing and language were anything but routine.
Federal investigators were seeking election-related records through a grand-jury process. The Senate had already complied with its subpoena.
Then two statewide officials warned other potential record holders that complying with certain demands could subject them to criminal liability. That is the tension Snell & Wilmer, the Senate’s lawyer, examined. And it is why Petersen argued that the issue was no longer simply whether Arizona should protect voter privacy.
The question became whether state officials had crossed the line from warning about privacy law into discouraging cooperation with a federal investigation.
But Fontes rejected that characterization…He repeatedly framed the issue as one of protecting Arizona voters — particularly individuals whose addresses and personal information were supposed to remain confidential.
In a March 30 interview, Fontes emphasized concern about ACP participants, judges, police officers, firefighters and others whose identifying information could create serious risks if released. The position itself was hardly controversial. Protected information should be protected.
But by then, one fact remained outside public view: Fontes’s own office had already experienced a significant failure involving protected voter data.
In 2024, information belonging to 373 then protected voters had been released from the Secretary of State’s Office. The office discovered the problem months later, notified affected voters and attempted to retrieve the information. Yet the incident itself did not become public until Votebeat’s reporting in June 2026.
That does not prove that Fontes’s later privacy warnings were insincere. It does not prove that he personally caused the 2024 exposure. And it does not establish that the March 9 letter was unlawful. But it creates a striking sequence:
First, protected voter information left the Secretary of State’s Office.
Then, two years later, that same office warned others in unusually strong terms about the legal consequences of releasing protected voter information.
Then came a federal referral alleging that those warnings may have interfered with a grand-jury investigation.
And then?
The public trail grows remarkably quiet.
- NO publicly announced indictment.
- NO publicly announced criminal charge.
- NO publicly announced findings that Fontes or Mayes committed obstruction or witness tampering.
- But also, NO publicly identified announcement closing the matter, declining the referral or explaining what became of the U.S. Attorney’s review after saying the conduct raised “valid concerns.”
The public record simply STOPS. And sometimes what is missing from the record creates the next question…What happened after the U.S. Attorney said he was reviewing the facts?
SECTION 5 — WHAT THE PUBLIC RECORD DOES NOT ANSWER
The documents tell us quite a bit.
- They tell us that protected voter information left the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office in 2024.
- They tell us the mistake was discovered months later.
- They tell us affected voters were notified and efforts were made to retrieve the information.
- They tell us the incident itself was not broadly disclosed to the public and did not become public until journalists obtained internal emails nearly two years later.
- And they tell us that in 2026, Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes were warning other Arizona officials — in writing — about the serious legal consequences of releasing protected voter information.
That warning included possible Class 6 felony consequences.
Then the argument changed…Senate President Warren Petersen accused the two statewide officials of going beyond protecting voter privacy and potentially interfering with a federal grand-jury investigation.
He referred the matter to federal prosecutors… And Outside Counsel supplied a legal analysis…And U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine publicly said the conduct raised “valid concerns of obstruction of justice and witness tampering” and that his office was reviewing the facts.
Then the public record goes quiet. That silence should not be mistaken for guilt.
There has been no publicly announced indictment or criminal charge, and no judicial finding that Adrian Fontes or Kris Mayes committed obstruction of justice or witness tampering. But silence should not be mistaken for resolution either.
Nor have we found a public announcement rejecting the referral, closing the review, or explaining what federal prosecutors concluded after saying the conduct raised “valid concerns.” And the unanswered questions surrounding the earlier ACP exposure remain just as basic:
- When, exactly, did Fontes first learn that protected voter information had been released?
- Why was the incident not disclosed publicly when it was discovered?
- Was there an internal incident report, legal analysis or after-action review?
- Who decided how much the public should be told?
And perhaps most importantly:
Why did an office that later warned so strongly about the legal dangers of exposing protected voter information fail to publicly disclose its own earlier release of protected voter data – and what, if anything, happened after federal prosecutors were asked to examine the later dispute?
Those questions do not require an accusation, but they raise critical issues of judgment, credibility and truthfulness for Voters. And this begs another question: What else is Fontes not telling us?
They ALL Require Answers!
Hypocrisy 101 – Adrian Fontes has repeatedly said that protecting Arizona voters and their personal information is among his highest responsibilities. On that principle, there should be little disagreement…
But accountability does not begin only when someone else possesses protected information. It begins inside the office entrusted with protecting it. And sometimes the most revealing part of a public record is NOT what it says.
IT IS WHERE THE RECORD SUDDENLY STOPS!
By Linda Brickman
©2026 Linda Brickman. All Rights Reserved.
