This is a Arizona news story, published by tucson.com, that relates primarily to The state Court of Appeals news.
For more Arizona news, you can click here:
more Arizona newsFor more Us circuit and appeals courts news, you can click here:
more Us circuit and appeals courts newsFor more news from tucson.com, you can click here:
more news from tucson.comOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about Us circuit and appeals courts, you might also like this article about
Arizona Supreme Court. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest county election officials news, Arizona Corporation Commission news, news about Us circuit and appeals courts, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
Arizona Senatetucson.com
•
80% Informative
A group that wants checks of whether some voters are citizens got access Monday to the names of about 218,000 Arizonans who may not have provided proof of citizenship.
The state Court of Appeals in a brief order Monday rejected a bid by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to keep the list from being given to Strong Communities Foundation .
Fontes made it clear he still thinks there could be harm from releasing the names.
The issue stems from a 2004 voter-approved law that requires proof of citizenship to register and vote.
That law says proof could be verified by the registrant providing the number on an Arizona driver’s license issued after Oct. 1, 1996 .
That is the effective date of a separate law requiring proof of legal presence to get a license.
What MVD reported to county election officials wasn't always the date of the original license but instead the date someone got a duplicate license or made a change of address.
VR Score
83
Informative language
84
Neutral language
26
Article tone
informal
Language
English
Language complexity
48
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
4
Source diversity
4
Affiliate links
no affiliate links