On Monday, the Salt River Project (SRP) Board of Directors made the results of last week’s Board and Council elections official. While SRP released unofficial results last Wednesday, the board’s official recognition transforms the election from a niche interest of political junkies to a profound change in how many Valley residents get their water and energy.

I am not a landowner, and was therefore ineligible to vote. But as a Tempe resident, the SRP election has suddenly captured my attention. Not as a window into the midterms, or a glance into changing demographics, but because it will result in real policy decisions that will affect the lifestyle choices I make daily.

As a public utility company serving large chunks of the Valley, SRP’s jurisdiction is split between the Association, which manages water resources, and the District, which oversees power generation and distribution to over one million customers. The District is in turn governed by a Council, which votes on the bylaws that regulate internal conduct, and a Board that votes on rates, contracts, and resource management policy. Thus, the District Board has a large influence on energy policy, and their decisions can affect utility bills, blackout and brownout likelihood, and whether energy comes from fossil fuels or renewable resources. Even their most technocratic decisions have political implications. As such, SRP candidates are not mere administrators but are often politically aligned.

In this and past elections, several candidates have run under the banner of the “Clean Energy Team,” which was backed by the Sierra Club and out-of-state celebrities like Jane Fonda. They support a fast transition away from fossil fuels and charging data centers higher rates for their energy consumption.

Arizona is rich in renewable resources, and our utility companies should take advantage of them. But this infrastructure is not built overnight. If these voices dominate the board and are not balanced by other voices that focus on consumer prices and the economic growth that can support new investments, it’s hard to imagine any outcome other than rising energy costs and higher utility bills. And for Arizonans already facing a heightened cost of living, that is a hard pill to swallow. Conservatives should stand up for them and push to keep prices low.

Chris Dobson and Barry Paceley, two candidates committed to keeping costs down, won the SRP Presidency and Vice Presidency, respectively. They were backed by Turning Point Action (TPA), and their victory is a testament to TPA’s ballot-chasing campaign. But down ballot, candidates from the “Clean Energy Team” won a majority of the District Board for the first time in SRP history. While the President can vote as an ex officio member of the Board, the Vice President can only vote in his absence. And though the President supervises SRP officers and conduct, most of the executive management is appointed by the Board. As a result, the new majority will likely be able to implement their agenda. As Paceley reflected, “We are saddened that several of our highly qualified candidates were not elected who would’ve been instrumental in the future success of Salt River Project.”

These results do not represent a massive shift in Arizona voting patterns, as SRP’s jurisdiction is, after all, in the urban core of the Valley—a traditionally Democratic constituency. But they do show that conservatives are struggling to adjust their tactics to the nuances of local politics. Ultimately, Arizona conservatives view utility elections and other local contests the way progressives do, which only plays into progressive hands. If they want to see better results, conservatives will need a new strategy.

Arizona conservatives are playing a progressive’s game

The most important factor in the SRP election is that, despite increased attention this year, it was a low-turnout election. That makes it very different from national or even statewide campaigns.

SRP spokesperson Jennifer Schurich revealed that only 36,000 ballots were cast. That’s a fourfold increase from 2024! But SRP serves over 1.1 million customers. While not every customer is eligible to vote, given a usual turnout rate of 5% in SRP elections, a fourfold increase should yield a 2026 turnout of no more than 20%. That is still lower than what you typically see in midterm and primary elections.

That is why debates about whether the SRP electorate leans Republican or Democratic are largely a distraction. No grouping of 36,000 voters can be representative of the whole SRP electorate. Whereas national elections are decided by winning over swing voters, SRP elections and many other local elections are decided by the unusual dynamics that motivate people to turn out in ultra-low-profile contests.

To understand these dynamics, consider a term that left-of-center pundits have been throwing around recently: “the groups.” An apparent staple of D.C. lingo, the phrase appears in two telling incidents described by blogger Matthew Yglesias, in which national Democratic staffers used it. After the 2020 election, an aide to Chuck Schumer reported to Yglesias that Schumer had privately conceded that comprehensive immigration reform was dead. When Yglesias asked whether he would consider standalone immigration bills, the aide responded “Well, it depends on what the groups think.” Then, after the 2024 election, Yglesias asked another Senate aide why Democrats didn’t attempt the permitting reform that Joe Manchin wanted in 2022, who responded that “the enviro groups killed it.”

These mysterious “groups” are progressive advocacy organizations, usually nonprofits dedicated to a specific interest, such as environmentalism or gun control. They can exert significant pressure within the Democratic coalition on behalf of their special interests. But as Samuel Hammond notes, their main function is to “grease the wheel of party cohesion by mobilizing activists, lobbyists, pollsters, and grassroots outreach whenever a big vote is afoot.” What gives them an advantage is a strong understanding of institutions combined with an unusually high level of engagement in low-profile issues.

These groups were clearly present in the SRP election, with the “Clean Energy Team” receiving support from the Sierra Club, the Jane Fonda Climate PAC, feminist group Arizona List, and union ally Worker Power PAC. These groups already have a long history of mobilizing in response to political moments that most people ignore. Worker Power PAC has moved to block major developments in Glendale, Scottsdale, and, most famously, the failed Coyotes Stadium proposal in Tempe. And the Sierra Club is an infamous organization even among Democrats: In their book Abundance, Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein lament how the California Environmental Quality Act lobbied for by the Sierra Club, “became a potent weapon against the construction of new homes.”

So, is the solution for conservatives to build their own groups? The SRP election shows that it’s not that simple. Just as progressives have done, conservatives have built the infrastructure necessary to mobilize supporters for low-profile issues. The board candidates opposed to the Clean Energy Team were backed by just the kind of conservative organizations you would expect to replicate the success of the “groups.” Yet despite conservatives outspending this array of progressive groups by 10 to 1, these candidates still lost. Clearly, the power of progressive groups comes from something other than money or organizational structure.

What makes progressive groups so powerful is the activists, lawyers, and policy analysts who staff them. These professionals are able to navigate complex institutions and procedures, identify lobbying opportunities others might overlook, and organize activism effectively. But increasingly, they are drawn from a narrow social class, and as Hammond notes, “there is nothing to prevent them from self-organizing” around their own values.1 Research suggests that graduates from elite universities who choose to work in the nonprofit sector are the most ideologically committed of their classmates. In fact, when Ralph Nader first pioneered these groups during the 1960s, an entire third of Harvard Law School’s 1968 graduating class applied to work for his activist organization.

This creates a catch-22 for conservatives. When conservative organizations treat low-profile elections as a turnout game the way progressives do, even well-organized campaigns are more likely to mobilize the highly engaged activist networks of progressive groups than their own bases. Indeed, this is exactly what happened in the SRP election. While conservatives deployed an immense get-out-the-vote effort, their participation galvanized progressive groups to do the work of “motivating many left-wing voters to come to the polls.” One 55-year-old Tempe resident told the New York Times that he had never voted before because “it never mattered before.”

Ultimately, the advantages that make the “groups” successful are unavailable to conservatives. This is mostly a good thing. Democrats have grown frustrated with their own groups, whose ability to pressure the coalition on behalf of their special interests has made it “harder to get complex projects done.” As the example from Yglesias shows, the groups prevented the Democrats from adopting a popular permitting reform agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans now appear to have an advantage over low-engagement voters who decide national elections—a testament to the populist movement that they have built in the past decade.

But if conservatives want to influence policy decisions made by SRP and other local bodies, they will have to adopt a different strategy. When conservatives play the “groups” game, they only trigger the progressive activist class into action. The good news is that there are proven ways that populist movements can withstand group resistance on low-profile issues.

How conservatives can make the most of the results—and keep costs down

While the “Clean Energy Team” has a majority of the SRP District Board, their agenda is not set in stone. Conservatives still have a say in what the board’s policies will look like: Supporting growth to fund renewable investments or discouraging development with unequal rates; lowering rates by building up supply or increasing rates through carbon reduction mandates. Maintaining a voice in these debates will help conservatives learn lessons on influencing local bodies, lessons they can take to the equally difficult environment of low-profile elections. Here are some principles that can guide them:

Bring “Secret Congress” to the Valley: D.C. analysts have started floating a “Secret Congress” hypothesis suggesting that bipartisan action happens “not despite a lack of public attention, but because of it.” Whether it was the FAST Act on infrastructure under Obama, the Anti-Money Laundering Act under the first Trump administration, or the CHIPS and Science Act under Biden, legislation with bipartisan support tends to focus on low-salience issues. When issues fly under the radar and don’t polarize, policymakers can focus on their relationships with one another and explore possibilities for reform.

Fortunately, we already know those relationships exist in the SRP Board. Dobson and Paceley are veteran leaders within the utility company and know how to hammer out a compromise. Dobson has characterized their position as: “We’re not against renewables, but we’re just [in favor of] a balanced approach to make sure that we incorporate it properly where we can maintain our reliability.” This frames a policy of growth and affordability as a common-sense strategy rather than a culture-war victory for conservatives. And this can also help during elections in SRP’s urban core: The typical Tempe resident may not support the national GOP brand, but they still care about utility prices. Focus the election on the issue that matters, rather than tying it to a high-visibility agenda in D.C.

The most important takeaway is to “avoid making your issue code as highly partisan.” It is by this principle that the YIMBY (“Yes In My Back Yard”) movement has been able to build a bipartisan movement in favor of deregulating barriers to housing development. Both sides can benefit from increased housing supply, and for that reason, housing reform has passed in red and blue states alike. But YIMBY also teaches that, as much as it helps to fly under the radar, you still need some attention. As Caleb Watney from the bipartisan Institute for Progress notes, policymakers still need to be convinced that an issue is “worth prioritizing over other issues and aligned with their preexisting goals.” Conservatives need to demonstrate that voters care enough to see the change they are advocating for. At some point, conservatives will still have to win a debate over ideas, which leads to the next principle.

Educate When You Advocate: When the time for an election comes, ballot-chasing will not be enough. Instead, conservatives must take responsibility for educating voters about how SRP and other local bodies decide policy and how these seemingly small decisions can affect their daily lives. Reaching voters with this information will require an entrepreneurial approach to social media.

Zohran Mamdani’s populist campaign for New York City mayor is instructive here. During the primary, Mamdani found that many of the city’s progressive groups were actually arrayed against him—and in a twist of irony, the democratic socialist was opposed by most local unions! But Mamdani’s primary victory depended largely on viral videos that explained how otherwise obscure policies, such as food-truck permitting, were affecting New Yorkers, even identifying specific bills that could make a difference. Mamdani showed that local decisions and procedures can still be the focus of a populist campaign.

Unlike the “groups” game, this strategy comes with the advantage that progressives do not have a monopoly on social media talent. Conservatives can learn the tricks of modern messaging—authentic language, consistent posting, positive vibes—and focus that messaging on how local elections affect their wallets. If they do that, they can not only turn out their own base but also start competing with the “groups” in the fight to persuade high-engagement voters.

Dream Big on Energy: One way to win over the kind of voter that turns out in a low-profile election is to think outside the current polarized paradigm and latch on to a big idea. If the kind of voter mobilized by progressive “groups” is dissatisfied with conservatives’ opposition to a more rapid transition to renewables, conservatives should offer something bold that they support.

What, for instance, can SRP do to move in the direction of the massive desalination project proposed during Gov. Doug Ducey’s administration? Ducey’s original plan to construct desalination plants on the Sea of Cortez and pipelines feeding water into the state has faced budget cuts since Gov. Katie Hobbs took office. Conservatives should position themselves as a movement that provides long-term strategies for water supply and supports public works projects that honor the state’s legacy.

Besides desalination—largely a statewide issue—conservatives interested in SRP should be asking bold questions. Should nuclear power be on the agenda? Can SRP promote a battery revolution to support solar? How might the EV industry contribute to the transition to renewables? Answering these questions allows conservatives to move beyond mere opposition to rival agendas and towards a positive vision for the state’s future.

Arizona Needs an Independent Identity: The core thread running through these principles is that Arizonan conservatives need to defend and promote an Arizonan identity that diverse interest groups can rally behind. Whether you’re taking a “Secret Congress” approach to the new SRP Board, trying to sell a Tempe resident on bold ideas, or teaching Arizonans about their institutions, policy influence will depend on having a cultural consensus that conservatives can appeal to. This is where the work of the policy wonk ends, and the work of the historian (and perhaps the Virgilian poet) begins. Conservatives should highlight the unique values that inspire Arizonans and connect present ambitions to the state’s heritage. On top of this, they should be bold in imagining what a thriving Arizona in the 21st century would look like—what Arizonans have inherited from their past and how they are taking it forward.

For too long, conservatives have treated local politics as a base mobilization game just as progressives do. Because of their sophisticated activist network, progressives can get away with this in a way that conservatives cannot. But local politics is not simply the domain of the most highly-engaged voters and the activist groups that mobilize them. It is also a world of policymaker relationships, effective communication, bold ideas, and shared cultural values. Conservatives should harness the whole gambit of strategies available to them. The SRP election presents an opportunity to experiment with new methods of policy influence and offer Arizonans a brand of conservatism that responds to the pressing issues close to home.

Craig Ruiz is a fellow at the 1912 Institute. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership from Arizona State University and a Bachelor of Arts in History and Politics from the University of Oxford.

“Reagan’s policies are turning our industrial Midwest into a rust bowl.” So said then-presidential candidate Walter Mondale to assembled steelworkers at an industrial facility in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1984. The facility’s parent company went out of business in 2001.

While the phrase “rust belt” appeared with increasing regularity beginning in 1980, it was Mondale who brought the term to the fore with his critique of the Reagan Administration’s lifting of steel import quotas. Since then, the Rust Belt—states in the (formerly) industrial Midwest whose economies have been hollowed out with the decline of domestic manufacturing—has been a recurring theme in our politics and culture.

The Rust Belt is a bogeyman, and perhaps rightly so: it’s oft-cited as proof of American decline, the reason Barack Obama won in 2008 and Donald Trump won in 2016 and in 2024, an example of where free trade absolutism falls apart… the list goes on.

Where the Rust Belt exudes pessimism—long gone are the days when it was primarily referred to as “America’s Heartland”—the “Sun Belt” embodies optimism. The term was first coined by Kevin Phillips, an advisor to Richard Nixon, in The Emerging Republican Majority. Today, this region leads the nation in in-migration and economic growth.

This brief analysis dives into the diverging economic, population, and political trajectories of these two regions and makes some modest predictions about what’s in store in the decades to come.

Not enough attention has been paid to the Sun Belt. Our national consciousness remains mired in nostalgia and continues to under-index the incredibly bright trajectory of states like Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Georgia, and Florida.

Diverging trajectories

The Sun Belt’s population climbed upwards as the Rust Belt’s population leveled off following World War Two, with Sun Belt states overtaking Rust Belt states in the mid-2000s.

After indexing the base year (1950) to 100—allowing us to analyze both regions’ population growth on their own terms—the difference in population growth rates is more striking: the Sun Belt grew 5.2 times since 1950, and the Rust Belt grew only 1.5 times. Compare this to the population growth of the entire United States during this same period: 2.3 times its 1950 baseline.

Despite the divergence in population growth rates, the Rust Belt still grew by ~20 million people since 1950 (larger than the total population of Sun Belt states in 1950). They just grew remarkably slower than the Sun Belt and the national average.

The Sun Belt’s growth is not a pro-natalist success story. It’s mostly a story of sustained net positive migration, driven primarily by Americans leaving other states and new arrivals from abroad.

The decline in natural population increase (births minus deaths) from 2011 through 2024 is not a result of declining births (these held steady, at ~840k per annum), but of more deaths (climbing from ~482k in 2011 to ~655k in 2024). I suspect this is a result of the Sun Belt’s large elderly population.

A surge in international immigration in the early-to-mid 2020s—which can be presumed to have leveled off significantly given the Trump Administration’s restrictionist immigration policy—contributed mightily to more recent surges in Sun Belt population growth.

Worryingly, the region’s wild population growth has been migration-dependent: There is no shelter from the global fertility decline in the Sun Belt’s balmy climes. These states are simply doing a better job of luring people from other places.

California (265k Sun Belt migrants annually, per the 2018–2022 ACS 5-Year estimates), New York (117k), Illinois (76k), North Carolina (64k), and Virginia (63k) are the leading sources of domestic Sun Belt migrants (for the purposes of this analysis, I excluded intra-Sun Belt migration).

Foreign Sun Belt migrants are primarily from Latin America, with Mexico and Cuba leading the pack. The only non-Latin American nations in the top 10 countries of origin for the Sun Belt’s foreign born population are India (at #3) and China (#9).

The Sun Belt’s population growth has steadily improved its political representation. From 1950 to 2020, Sun Belt Congressional representation increased by 50 seats—doubling its national political footprint in 70 years. The Rust Belt, on the other hand, lost 38 seats. 21% of the U.S. House of Representatives now hails from a Sun Belt state.

Texas and Florida have driven these gains, but smaller Sun Belt states—Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia—have had large percentage gains:

• Texas: +16 (22 → 38) — 73% increase

• Florida: +20 (8 → 28) — 250% increase

• Arizona: +7 (2 → 9) — 350% increase

• Georgia: +4 (10 → 14) — 40% increase

• Nevada: +3 (1 → 4) — 300% increase

Sun Belt population growth has driven dramatic economic gains. The rate of increase for the region’s real personal income and real personal income per capita has exceeded the national average and the Rust Belt average. The Sun Belt’s real GDP growth since at least 1997 outperforms the Rust Belt.

Interestingly, Sun Belt economic growth is driven more by population growth than by gains in per-worker output. The Sun Belt is slightly more productive than the Rust Belt and has reached rough parity with the national average, but it hasn't yet pulled ahead of U.S. national productivity.

The Sun Belt closed most of its per capita income gap with the Rust Belt by the early 1980s but the two blocs then moved roughly in lockstep for decades, both stuck a few points below the national average. Real GDP per worker has improved marginally in the last quarter century compared to the national average (especially vis a vis the Rust Belt) but it still underperforms the national average.

Takeaways

The Sun Belt’s trajectory remains bright, but there are two key trends that policymakers and entrepreneurs should keep an eye on:

1. Sun Belt population growth is driven primarily by immigration, not an increase in net births.
   Domestic and international immigration are contributing to recent Sun Belt population growth more than net births. In order to keep pace, the region will need to find ways to maintain net in-migration flows to the region (keeping in mind, of course, that immigration—especially foreign immigration—has non-economic impacts that should be weighed carefully). The region can also find new ways to increase net births, remembering that the large senior population will continue to weigh down natural population growth.

2. Sun Belt economic growth has primarily been a function of population growth, not productivity gains.
   The Sun Belt generally outperforms the Rust Belt in terms of productivity, but still lags behind the national average. To sustain growth with or without sustaining high net in-migration numbers, Sun Belt leaders can focus their attention on increasing economic productivity. This might entail better supporting the development of high-productivity industries and the cultivation of a more highly skilled workforce.

Decline is a choice, but so is success. The region’s newfound vitality is not inevitable.

National implications

Our contemporary politics is coming to be shaped by two certifiably American worldviews.

Rust Belters have experienced American decline firsthand. They grew up in towns with hollowed out factories, declining populations, and a general air of pessimism. Every day, they are reminded of what was—they mourn a world lost. Their grievances are not without basis.

Sun Belters grew up in places built yesterday: new suburban developments, exurbs, and skyrises. Every day they are reminded of what can be—they anticipate a world to come. If they have grievances, they are with Rust Belters, who, to them, are mired in a past that can never be restored.

These worldviews cut across party lines. Ezra Klein and Doug Ducey are both Sun Belters, preferencing growth and believing that decline can be averted by embracing innovation and the wave of the future.

JD Vance and Bernie Sanders are both Rust Belters, seeing the world through the lens of scarcity and believing that decline can be averted by restoring the past, or at least elements thereof (higher rates of unionization, reshored manufacturing, etc.).

(A brief aside: Sanders does not hail from a Rust Belt state. The Sun Belt and Rust Belt attitudes are regionally sourced but nationally distributed.)

If the Sun Belt’s sunny trajectory continues apace—signs are good, but far from certain—Sun Belters will exercise an increasingly large role in our politics. Does this mean that Sun Belt policies will gain traction? Not necessarily. Sufficient backlash to streamlined regulation, improved state capacity, and elevated but perhaps inequitably distributed economic growth could put the Rust Belters back in the driver’s seat.

The emerging dominant paradigm in our politics—Sun Belt vs. Rust Belt—cuts across party lines. It could be the fulcrum upon which 21st century American politics turns.

Joe Pitts is the president of the 1912 Institute.

A note to our readers: As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the Western Tribune–and 1912, our latest project–has not been publishing at our usual pace. We have no big news to announce at this time, but the gears have been turning behind the scenes. In the coming year we hope to unveil some exciting new developments that will prime us for our next stage of growth. We encourage you to stay along for the ride.

We truly believe that Arizona’s best days are far ahead of her. We are committed to supporting this wonderful state’s development in the decades to come. It’s time to take a bet on the Copper State–not simply as one good state among many, but as a great state, with the potential to build great things; transform our burgeoning metropoli–Phoenix, Tucson, and beyond–into great American cities on par with those in Florida, California, Texas, and New York; and build an economy and political system that empower people to govern themselves. Our contribution will be larger than just another news outlet carving out a small slice of the pie in a declining industry. We’re here for the long haul.

Today, we are excited to share an in-depth analysis of the latest chapter in Arizona’s sports industry saga. J.J. Cichoke, the Tribune’s manager for policy and research, dove deep to figure out why the Diamondbacks have chosen to remain in the Valley for at least the foreseeable future, and how private- and public-sector forces joined together to prevent their departure.

We believe this story is important to share because decline is a choice–and we can learn how to successfully navigate a culture of managed decline by looking at examples of how it’s been done in the past… even the very recent past.

We hope you enjoy.

– Joe Pitts, Chairman of the Board, Western Tribune

Subscribe now

As the 2025 Major League Baseball (MLB) season approaches the All Star break, the Arizona Diamondbacks are preoccupied not only with a competitive National League (NL) West race, but also with a campaign to maintain Chase Field as the team’s home for the next several decades. The Diamondbacks and public stakeholders have been involved in negotiations for over a year, and just recently gained substantial traction in their efforts to: (i) renovate Chase Field; and (ii) extend their expiring 2027 lease agreement.

In late January, State Representative Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler)–who serves as Chairman of the House Commerce Committee–introduced H.B. 2704 to address lingering concerns regarding a potential move by the Diamondbacks out of Chase Field, and maybe even out of Arizona entirely. The legislation, recently signed by Governor Katie Hobbs (D-AZ), aims to prolong the now 27-year-old relationship between the Diamondbacks franchise and the stadium it has called home since its inaugural ball game in 1998.

Subscribe now

What’s in the bill?

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Weninger, would assist in making significant repairs to a stadium that is consistently ranked near the bottom of MLB playing venues. As explained in a House Commerce Committee memo, the legislation creates a “funding mechanism for reconstructing, equipping, repairing, maintaining or improving” Chase Field. A Senate Fact Sheet subsequently details provisions surrounding: (i) Income Tax Distributions; (ii) County Excise Tax Distributions; (iii) City, Town, and State transaction privilege tax (TPT) Distributions; and (iv) Notice and Penalty for Leaving the MLB Facility.

While the bill stops short of establishing a new tax, it redirects sales tax revenue generated at Chase Field and “adjacent facilities” to the Maricopa County Stadium District Fund. This funding mechanism, which is similar to that used by the Arizona Cardinals in improving State Farm Stadium, will be capped at $500 million in public expenditures over the course of 30 years. The bill also requires the Diamondbacks to contribute at least $250 million of their own money toward ballpark improvements. Notably, the legislation would implement a $10 million fine should the team leave Arizona prior to 2035.

The introduction of Weninger’s legislation came after a year of stalled talks between the Diamondbacks and Maricopa County leaders on a lease renegotiation at Chase Field. Given that the Diamondbacks’ current lease with Maricopa County expires following the 2027 season, there exists a certain level of urgency. Most recently, in September of 2024, the Maricopa County Stadium District (MCSD) proposed a 50-year lease that would grant the Diamondbacks both: (i) early termination options; as well as (ii) opportunities for mixed-used development. While the County wants the team to “make meaningful near-term investment to fund critical maintenance and capital expenditures for which they are responsible under the MOU,” the Diamondbacks requested substantial amounts of public funding in order to do so.

Throughout the legislative process, opponents of the funding bill–including Mayor Kate Gallego (D-Phoenix)–raised concerns that the city would miss out on key public funding typically used for fire, police, and other services. After Gallego explained that she had spent “months of scrutinizing the financial numbers and leading the fight to protect city taxpayers,” the Mayor added that “Phoenix taxpayers will come out ahead financially.” In her AZ Republic op-ed, Mayor Gallego touted her advocacy for bill provisions establishing “clear rules so that sports teams cannot use taxpayer dollars to build and upgrade suites and club seating sections.” Gallego added that these “broader changes” would ensure that “[t]hose types of luxury amenities should be paid for by sports teams, not taxpayers.”

Subscribe now

Stadium bill passes despite hurdles

Within just over a week’s time, H.B. 2704 was able to clear three key hurdles in the legislative process. Despite some bipartisan pushback, the bill passed both legislative chambers with relative ease–following months of stalled negotiations. Diamondbacks CEO Derick Hall called these negotiations “a long, yet collaborative and productive process,” before adding that “signs are pointing towards a positive solution.”

On June 19, H.B. 2704 passed through the Arizona Senate with a 19-11 final tally. While the bill passed handily, concerns came from both parties, with Republicans and Democrats calling for a decreased public tax burden. For example, Senator Lauren Kuby (D-Tempe) argued that “[s]tudy after study has found that stadiums do not catalyze economic development.” Fellow Senate Democrat Analise Ortiz (D-Phoenix) echoed similar concerns, arguing that Arizona taxpayers “are tired of being asked for their tax dollars to be spent on private corporations.” In a more unorthodox form of dissent, Senators Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) and Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) each shared poems regarding their dissatisfaction with the bill and their desire for increased private funding from billionaire owner Ken Kendrick.

On June 23, H.B. 2704 the House passed a revised Senate version 35-20. The House vote was the second time H.B. 2704 passed through the chamber, with a previous version securing a 35-25 vote in late February. After nearly four months of Senate deliberations, the House received a version with several key amendments addressing concerns from the upper chamber. In an interview, Senate President Warren Peterson (R-Gilbert) explained that the amended bill “is something that the governor’s on board with, it got enough Senate members on it and it has enough House members on it.”

On June 27, Governor Hobbs signed H.B. 2704 as part of a slate of legislative actions. In a private signing ceremony held alongside Diamondbacks CEO Derick Hall and Diamondback players Corbin Carroll and Corbin Burnes (among others), the governor applauded the “bipartisan deal” that would “creat[e] good-paying jobs and mak[e] sure families can enjoy baseball for generations”. Mr. Hall joined Hobbs’ in lauding the product of months of negotiations, calling the bill a “homerun for Arizona.”

Subscribe now

Need for renovations

As it stands, Chase Field ranks as the second largest stadium in Major League Baseball (MLB) with a total capacity of 48,330. So far this year, average attendance at Chase Field sits around the middle of the pack among MLB stadiums (30,215 fans per game). The attendance situation appears far from dire, so why the urgent need for stadium upgrades?

Beyond the importance of an extended mutual lease commitment between Maricopa County and the team, it has become apparent that Chase Field is behind the curve when compared to other major sporting venues. As explained by Mr. Hall in a recent interview with Arizona’s 12 News, Chase Field is the “fourth oldest building in the league” despite only being built in 1998. Mr. Hall subsequently emphasized his desire to make Chase Field “one of the best facilities again like it was nearly 30 years ago.”

Subscribe now

What should fans expect?

Regarding the changes set to be made to the longtime-Diamondback home, Mr. Hall has urged fans not to expect the most glamorous updates (at least initially). Mr. Hall explained that much of the renovations will “be done over phases over years” due to the relatively short MLB offseason window. The first series of changes will likely address infrastructure and “what fans don't even see,” explained Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall added that the team will prioritize improving the current HVAC system, as well as “fixing concrete and piping and plumbing.” Mr. Hall has emphasized that the bill’s allocated funds are “not going to [the team],” but rather “into a building that is a public asset.”

In terms of more long-term cosmetic updates, Mr. Hall explained that the stadium “will look new” and “brand new, state of the art.” Mr. Hall added that the team will install new video boards and sound systems “pretty soon,” potentially during the upcoming offseason. Mr. Hall also signaled the team’s desire to implement more gathering spaces at Chase Field, citing what “you're seeing at so many new ballparks.” Mr. Hall explained that recently-constructed stadiums tend to include “new bars, new gathering areas, new social areas,” before adding that “[y]ou're going to see a lot of that now at [Chase Field].” Mr. Hall further emphasized that “there's going to be some changes around the park,” noting that “you'll start to see it come to life.”

Subscribe now

What’s next?

While the enactment of H.B. 2704 serves as a major milestone on the road to keeping the Diamondbacks in the Valley, much more work remains to be done. Most notably, the Diamondbacks and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors must agree on a Chase Field lease extension given the impending 2027 expiration date. Mr. Hall touted the importance of securing a deal with the County given that the team now has the “funding mechanism in place to make [Chase Field] as state of the art as possible.” Despite the influx of optimism stemming from H.B. 2704’s enactment, Mr. Hall commented that past negotiations with Maricopa County “ha[ven’t] been easy in the past.”

In a September letter sent to the Diamondbacks, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jack Sellers (R-Chandler) discussed the County’s position regarding several “items that need to be addressed” before reaching a lease agreement. As specified in an accompanying term sheet, the County “propose[d] a 50-year lease that provides the Team with early termination options and opportunities for mixed-use development that would generate additional revenue for the Team.” The proposal subsequently requires the Diamondbacks to “make meaningful near-term investment to fund critical maintenance and capital expenditures for which they are responsible under” a binding 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Subscribe now

What people are saying:

• Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego: “What we crafted is a good deal for Phoenix. The law redirects sales taxes from purchases at Chase Field into an infrastructure fund, but I pushed for caps that cut Phoenix’s portion almost in half from the original proposal — limiting the city’s contribution for stadium repairs at $3.5 million per year. Another change: Should the Diamondbacks move, the land’s ownership will transfer to the city of Phoenix — and it will carry a value of more than double our total contribution, according to the city’s Economic Development Department. Put simply, Phoenix taxpayers will come out ahead financially.”

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “Really enjoyed teaming up with the Diamondbacks to keep them right here in downtown Phoenix. Grateful for their partnership and excited for many seasons to come.”

• House Commerce Committee Chairman Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler): “This is a smart, responsible solution that keeps the Diamondbacks where they belong—at Chase Field in the heart of our capital city. The costs will be covered by revenue generated through team activity, not by pulling from the pockets of Arizonans who never set foot in the stadium. We’re protecting jobs, preserving economic impact, and keeping our beloved World Champion Major League Baseball team in Phoenix—all without new taxes.”

• Dbacks CEO and General Partner Derick Hall: “I want to thank Representative Weninger, all of the supportive lawmakers, and Governor Hobbs for the leadership with HB2704. The voting results and bipartisan enthusiasm clearly showed the need for funding for this economically generating public asset.”

• Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry: “It’s official: Diamondbacks are safe at home! Thanks to Governor Hobbs and the Arizona Legislature, smart policy is now in place to enable overdue renovations to Chase Field—preserving a key public asset and keeping the team in Phoenix for the long haul. Great news for the local businesses, jobs, and community supported by having the Dbacks downtown.”

• Maricopa County Stadium District (MCSD) Board: “MCSD believes it’s important to provide flexibility to the Team as they consider their long-term business needs, so long as that flexibility is also fair to taxpayers. To that end, MCSD needs the Team to commit to short- and long-term maintenance to extend the life of the stadium, which was built primarily using taxpayer dollars. MCSD also sees the value in working with the Team to provide land development rights so that an entertainment district can be built in the area, again, provided the taxpayer’s investment (Chase Field itself) is protected and prioritized.”

• MCSD Board Chairman Jack Sellers: “We agree with [the Diamondbacks] that the path to an improved, state of the art stadium, may need to include a partnership of all the stakeholders in downtown, including business leaders, the City of Phoenix, and the State. We also believe the first step in that process must be a long-term extension of the lease between the Team and the County. This surety will assist in facilitating the long-term funding solutions the Team is seeking. We also believe it is fair to give the Team flexibility as [it] contemplate[s] [its] future. This flexibility should be reflected in [the] agreement, but it must be fair to both sides...Our latest proposal includes the ability for the Team to obtain development opportunities on County property. If done properly, this would generate revenues that would allow for investments in the stadium and the Team.”

J.J. Cichoke is the manager for policy and research at the Western Tribune.

A note to our readers: This is a piece of investigative journalism, diving into the half-decade long conflict between Grand Canyon University and the U.S. Department of Education surrounding their tax status and degree-pricing practices.

GCU is the nation’s largest Christian university, serving over 100,000 students. It also happens to be located in the heart of the Phoenix Valley. Its struggle against the federal government in recent years is therefore directly relevant to Arizonans, and to residents of the broader American Southwest.

We encourage all of our readers to engage critically with the evidence gathered and the narrative painted — our republican form of government relies upon people making up their own minds, after all.

We also would like to thank Brian Mueller, the president of GCU, for agreeing to sit down for an interview that informed the authors’ investigation.

“[W]e are cracking down not only to shut them down, but to send a message to not prey on students.” So said Miguel Cardona, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), while testifying before the U.S. House Appropriations Committee. He was referring to the nation’s largest Christian university, Grand Canyon University (GCU), which now serves over 100,000 students.

For over half a decade, federal officials have wrestled back and forth with GCU on everything from their tax status to their degree-pricing practices.

In October of last year, the Department levied a nearly $40 million fine against the institution on the grounds that they had deceived their students. “An FSA investigation found GCU lied to more than 7,500 former and current students about the cost of its doctoral programs over several years,” a press release announcing the fine reads. “GCU falsely advertised a lower cost than what 98% of students ended up paying to complete certain doctoral programs.”

GCU has refused to cede an inch, claiming they maintain fair pricing practices, and that they are being targeted by the Biden Administration.

Subscribe now

The university responded to Cardona’s latest comments in a press release: “Regarding Cardona’s misguided comments that GCU ‘lied’ and ‘preyed’ on students, we have asked ED repeatedly for evidence of intent and verified student complaints, and they have refused to provide us with that information.”

Before cataloging the Department and the university’s competing claims, it's worth digging into GCU’s history. A proper understanding of how they grew is key to a thorough understanding of their present woes.

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill, was passed into law with unanimous Congressional approval and signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944. Following its ratification, a veteran who served for at least 90 days was eligible to receive up to $500 (the equivalent of nearly $9,000 in 2024) in subsidy to pursue postsecondary education or workforce training.

Men returning from war-torn Europe and the beaches of Guadalcanal not only sought food and shelter — they wanted to take full advantage of their hard-won peace. These 10 million retiring soldiers ached to build families, raise children, and seize a chance at “getting ahead.” For many, that chance was a college education. The G.I. Bill was their ticket to ride.

College enrollment skyrocketed in the years following the Second World War, with the G.I. Bill driving this trend. Existing institutions expanded and new institutions sprouted up from the shores of California to the valleys of Appalachia. One such institution was Grand Canyon College (GCC). Established in 1949 by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention, GCC was a non-profit university charged with delivering a Christian higher education to its students. The college boasted only 100 students when it first opened its doors in Prescott, Arizona — though the town itself was only home to 6,734 residents at the time.

Subscribe now

The university moved to Phoenix, the state capital, in 1951, because they wanted to grow their campus to incorporate more disciplines of study and to accommodate more students.

At its beginnings the school made a religiously-inspired education available primarily to Baptist Christians in the American Southwest. In 1984, the school voted to transition to being a university, as opposed to a college. As part of this shift, GCC transferred its governance from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to an independent board of trustees in 1989. They also changed their name to GCU, signaling planned growth. During the 1999-2000 academic year, GCU officially severed its affiliation with the SBC.

From their founding on, the school was beset by financial struggles. “Grand Canyon, from its first day, was on thin ice,” said former president Dr. Gil Stafford. “The institution was always in dire straits.” These woes came to a head in 2004, when GCU was purchased by Significant Education, LLC. Upon its purchase, GCU became a for-profit corporation, making it the first for-profit Christian university in the United States.

In 2008, Significant Education became Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (GCE). GCE exists as a separate entity that supports GCU’s operations, online education offerings, and program development. It became publicly traded on the NASDAQ in the same year under the ticker symbol, “LOPE.”

Subscribe now

GCU’s restructuring enabled the university to raise more capital and expand their operations and degree offerings. Its enrollment skyrocketed over the course of the next decade. An institution once beset by financial struggles experienced an unprecedented influx of students, cash, and capital — they were quickly able to balance their books and pay back long-owed debts.

It’s rise was not unmarked by controversy. In the mid-2010s, university leadership explored a reversion to non-profit status. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), their institutional accreditor, rejected GCU’s application in 2016. The HLC cited GCU’s close relationship with GCE, which would remain a for-profit entity if the university transitioned to non-profit status. In order to become a non-profit, HLC’s board said, it must maintain “both teaching and learning as well as service functions within the accredited structure.” Outsourcing such functions to GCE, a for-profit corporation, was unacceptable.

In 2018, GCU succeeded in transitioning to non-profit status. The HLC relented, citing changes GCU made to their original proposal. Purdue University had also recently acquired Kaplan University, which maintained a similar relationship with an outside for-profit entity that GCU would maintain with GCE if permitted by the HLC — meaning there was precedent for this arrangement.

GCU quickly gained recognition from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as well as state entities, but the U.S. Department of Education (ED) stood firm: They claimed GCU was a “captive entity” of GCE. After a prolonged legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 decision this November that ED had acted outside its authority in denying GCU this status. They remanded the case back to ED, ordering them to reassess their decision.

Subscribe now

As mentioned previously, this decision by the courts followed ED’s levying of an historically large fine on GCU for their alleged deception of doctoral students regarding the total price of their degrees. ED claimed only 2% of GCU doctoral students paid the advertised sticker price for their credential — 78% paid at least 25% more than originally advertised. Much of the additional cost came as a result of “continuation classes” students are required to take as they wrap up their dissertations.

GCU leadership responded by making clear they provide more pricing information to students than is legally required. They also maintain a degree program calculator many students use. This calculator reflects more accurate total costs than sticker prices. In addition, they argue other universities employ similar practices and have not faced the sanctions GCU has as a result.

At the core of GCU’s battle with ED is their relationship with GCE, which receives approximately 60% of the university’s revenue. GCU maintains GCE pays fair market value for every service they render the university. GCU’s critics say there isn’t a clear wall of separation between the for-profit and non-profit, and in turn, GCU should not be recognized as a non-profit.

Brian Mueller, the president of GCU and the CEO of GCE, told the Tribune prior to the court’s decision that he doesn’t “know why we can’t come to an agreement, we have flourished as a non-profit, it’s been impressive, and we do not understand why they are not recognizing us, it is a mystery.” Interestingly, he doesn’t suspect anti-Christian bias, as some conservative media outlets and activist groups claim.

Responding to criticisms about GCU’s close relationship with GCE — and his status as president of one and CEO of the other — Mueller said he sees no reason this arrangement could be illegal, or even suspect. GCE provides GCU services they pay for at fair market value, he said, and this doesn’t imply any rotten relationship between the two entities.

Critics can no longer place their faith in regulators at ED to reign in GCU, especially in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron deference, which curtailed the power of federal agencies. One of their only hopes is Congressional action, most likely through a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

For all these disagreements, no one can deny GCU is now a major player in Arizona’s economy and the nation’s higher education economy. It educates over 100,000 students, is the largest recipient of federal student aid of any university in America, and continues to expand its real estate footprint in the nation’s fifth largest city. Now it seems poised to maintain its nonprofit status, potentially even receiving long-sought-after recognition by ED.

Joe Pitts is the cofounder and CEO of the Western Tribune. He is a senior columnist at 1912.

Joseph Kavetsky is managing editor at 1912.

In this Round Up: Arizona leaders addressed looming challenges in the energy and education sectors. First, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs crossed aisles and joined Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo in seeking to ensure that recently proposed California legislation regulating oil refineries would not lead to increased gas prices and shortages in neighboring states. Also, State Superintendent of Public Education Tom Horne released a survey highlighting Arizona’s inability to recruit and retain teachers. 

Arizona, Nevada Governors Urge Newsom to Thwart Oil Regulations

In a rare case of cross-state, bipartisan action, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) and Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo (R) called on California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) to “reconsider” legislation that “threatens to cut the supply of gasoline from California to Arizona and Nevada and could hike gas prices for consumers in the states.” In a letter sent to Newsom, the governors emphasized their opposition to “mandating refinery inventory” and instead urged California to work toward “finding viable regional energy solutions that lead to lowered fuel costs.” The governors’ letter echoes a warning from refiners that the bill’s inventory mandates “could lead to supply shortages and possible refinery shutdowns.” 

California’s SB 950 (now ABX2-1), which is currently being considered by the legislature in a special session, was first unveiled by Newsom and California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) earlier this month. In Newsom and Rivas’ plan, the California Energy Commission (CEC) would “make oil refiners manage California’s gasoline supply responsibly.” According to the plan, the CEC would prevent price increases by “requir[ing] petroleum refiners to maintain a minimum inventory of refined fuel throughout the distribution chain to avoid supply shortages” and “plan for resupply during scheduled refiner maintenance.”  Governors Hobbs and Lombardo argue that their citizens will be forced to foot the bill. Intended to “address escalating fuel costs and ensure regional economic stability,” the governors’ joint effort targets the legislation as it reportedly would “artificially create shortages in downstream markets.” In response to a previous letter by Lombardo on this topic in May, a Newsom spokesperson said Lombardo’s effort was “a stunt to appease Governor Lombardo’s Big Oil donors, who contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign.” As of this newsletter’s publication, Newsom has not responded to Hobbs and Lombardo’s letter.

What the governors are saying:

• Governor Katie Hobbs (D-AZ): “Arizonans are struggling with the high cost of living, [and] we can’t afford yet another price hike. I urge Governor Newsom and the California legislature to reconsider this legislation that could slash Arizona’s gasoline supply, raise prices at the pump, and threaten Arizona’s strong economic growth. I’m glad to work with Governor Lombardo on this critical issue, and hope we can come together as a region to deliver lower fuel costs to all of our constituents.”

• Governor Joe Lombardo (R-NV): “The people of Nevada and Arizona should not have to foot the bill for California’s misguided policies — especially when it comes to higher gas prices. Lowering fuel costs is a bipartisan issue, and I’m grateful to partner with Governor Hobbs as we fight back against policies that will raise prices and cause regional economic disruption. I urge Governor Newsom and the California legislature to reconsider this harmful legislation during their special session and to include Nevada and Arizona in policy discussions moving forward.”

• Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA): “I’m glad to see the Assembly is moving this important proposal forward to save Californians hundreds of millions of dollars at the pump. Gas price spikes are profit spikes for Big Oil, and California won’t stand by as families get gouged.”

Arizona Department of Education Warns of Teacher Retention Troubles

Earlier this month, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne published a teacher retention survey illustrating “alarming numbers pointing to a crisis in the teaching profession.” The Education Department’s survey found that educators are leaving the profession due to a “lack of administrative support for classroom discipline,” as well as “a desire for better pay.” Further, the survey found that Arizona teachers are leaving their jobs within the first few years at an “alarming rate,” and “there are more teachers leaving than are coming into the classroom.”

In its survey of 945 Arizona teachers who left their jobs after 2023, roughly two-thirds of respondents cited “low pay” as a key problem within the profession. (According to ZipRecruiter, the average 6th-grade teacher salary in Arizona is $49,673, roughly $6,000 less than the national average.) Also, almost 64 percent of respondents added that “student behavior and discipline problems” contributed to their decisions to leave teaching in the state. Lastly, the survey found that 47 percent of respondents were “dissatisfied with their administration,” while just over 45 percent were “unhappy with [their] working conditions.”

What Arizona education leaders are saying:

• Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne: “This is a crisis, and it needs to be addressed immediately. In the most recent legislative session, I urged the passage of a bill that would require school leaders to support classroom teachers in discipline matters. Sadly, it did not get passed by the legislature and the crisis will not only persist but will just get worse. . . . I have also consistently advocated for higher teacher pay, and yet legislative efforts have been rebuffed because of political disputes that do nothing to help improve the salaries of teachers. . . . In short, just about any classroom teacher can tell you what they need to thrive as educators and lead students to academic excellence. Better pay and robust support from administrators on discipline are vital.” 

In The News

• Horne expands statewide school safety partnership (September 5, 2024) – “State schools superintendent Tom Horne has extended the Department of Education’s agreement with Off Duty Management through 2026 at multiple schools in six counties as part of Horne’s goal to make sure students, educators and staff are protected by armed and uniformed School Safety Officers.”

• $10 million in federal funding allocated to Arizona for wildfire management (September 10, 2024) – “The acting Deputy Secretary of the Interior visited Tucson today to talk wildfire safety. Laura Daniel-Davis announced $236 million in funding from President Biden’s Investing in America Act to support wildland fire management into fiscal year 2025 across the nation. The money will go toward management of fires, training and improving burned areas. . . . The state is receiving upwards of $10 million in this latest allocation, bringing the total funding for wildfire mitigation and recovery in Arizona through the bipartisan infrastructure law to more than $60 million.”

• Trump stumps in Tucson, pledges mass deportation, says he won’t debate Harris again (September 12, 2024) – “Former President Donald Trump took the stage in Tucson Thursday afternoon for the first time this campaign cycle, vowing if elected to begin the ‘largest deportation operation’ in the history of the United States. Trump, whose main messaging has historically centered around immigration, told the rowdy crowd of 2,000 supporters at the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall downtown that he would stop migrants from coming from ‘mental institutions and insane asylums’.”

• Second Gentleman’ Doug Emhoff visits Tucson, talks abortion rights, access (September 13, 2024) – “Douglas Emhoff, husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, spoke in downtown Tucson ahead of a trip to Nevada as part of the Harris-Walz 2024 campaign. His stop in Tucson was meant to spotlight reproductive freedom, a key issue in Tuesday’s Presidential Debate. . . . In addition to Emhoff's stops, other Harris-Walz surrogates will host events aimed at key voter groups in Arizona.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

A note to our readers: Local news has struggled to survive for at least the past 20 years, with many local papers giving way to national conglomerates. The Western Tribune exists to buck this trend. We are building a grassroots nonprofit newspaper in the American West, with a focus on Arizona. 

Right now, we fill gaps in coverage at the State Capitol and across the Grand Canyon State, offering a unique blend of straight news and analysis. 

To support our work, you can subscribe here and donate here. All donations are tax deductible.

In this round up: Gov. Katie Hobbs rebrands the State of Arizona, education savings accounts (ESAs) come in under budget for fiscal year 2024, former President Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. barnstorm at Glendale’s Desert Diamond Arena, and more. It’s been a busy week for one of the nation’s key swing states — it’s hard for us to stay out of the headlines!

Labor Day History: The Bisbee Deportation

In July 1917, in what is commonly referred to as the most important event in Arizona labor history, approximately 1,300 striking mine workers and their supporters were illegally arrested by a deputized posse and sent on cattle cars to Tres Hermanas, New Mexico. The mine workers had been on strike over poor working conditions. Phelps Dodge, the company that owned the Copper Queen Mine, colluded with the sheriff to kidnap the workers and send them to Tres Hermanas.

President Woodrow Wilson worked with the governor of New Mexico to house the deportees and make sure they were cared for. A presidential mediation commission found the deportation to be completely illegal, but no charges were ever brought. In a landmark Supreme Court decision, the court found in United States v. Wheeler that the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to stop kidnappings.

This is all to say that we hope your Labor Day is a bit more gleeful than the Bisbee Deportation!

Arizona Gets A Rebrand

The Arizona Department of Tourism unveiled a rebrand for the State of Arizona featuring a new logo and the tagline: “Vibrant Arizona.” This rebrand is the culmination of a project launched in 2023, Discovering Arizona: Finding the Future of Arizona’s Story. The state was previously rebranded under Gov. Doug Ducey.

The most recent rebrand was guided by interviews of over 2,000 Arizonans across the state designed to elucidate consistent elements associated with Arizona. The rebrand is supposed to showcase Arizona’s growth and diverse offerings, assisting in growing the state’s tourism economy and its public image.

The project comes at an apt time, say its proponents, with Arizona growing both in terms of population and GDP. Critics charge that this rebrand is a waste of taxpayer resources: It cost taxpayers $700,000, compared to the $250,000 effort under Gov. Ducey. It was funded by federal pandemic relief funds.

What Arizonans are saying:

• Lisa Urias, CEO of the Arizona Office of Tourism: “Talking to a wide range of people across the state helped us ensure our updated brand reflects what Arizonans love about the state and want amplified. This brand emerged as a reflection of those amazing experiences.”

• Gov. Katie Hobbs: “We deserve a brand as vibrant as our people, and one that showcases our collective history.”

• Marc Garcia, President and CEO of Visit Mesa: “As we strive to create greater demand for all that Arizona has to offer, this brand is a testament to our enduring relevance, inclusivity, and authenticity.”

• Dan Coulson, Deputy Press Secretary, Citizens for Free Enterprise: “How much is it going to cost state agencies to comply with the new branding? Website redesigns, reprinting official materials, new decals for state vehicles… and that’s just the start… Sounds expensive…”

ESAs Come In Under Budget

Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program came in under budget for fiscal year (FY) 2024, much to the chagrin of its critics. Over the last 12 months, ESAs and Basic State Aid payments cost taxpayers $4.3 million less than projected.

ESA funds cover students’ education expenses up to $7,000 per year. These funds can be used to cover tuition at eligible private schools across the state or purchase other education-related items such as school supplies, curricula, and tutoring. In 2022 Arizona became the first state in the nation to make ESAs available to all students (as opposed to only students with learning disabilities), marking a turning point in the national school-choice movement.

In January of this year, many of the program’s critics, including Gov. Hobbs, accused the ESA program of draining the state’s coffers. State Republicans defended the program at the time, sure in their belief that it would be a success.

What Arizona leaders are saying:

• Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction: “Having a surplus of more than $4 million is proof positive that the critics who have claimed the ESA program will bust the [sic] not only the state’s education budget but the entire budget itself were always wrong. It was always a myth, and that myth is utterly demolished.”

• Todd Beauford, Christian School Advocate: “Arizona’s ESA program is proof that school choice works! With nearly 60,000 students benefiting from the freedom to choose the best education for their needs, it’s clear that empowering parents leads to thriving educational outcomes.”

• Jeffrey A. Singer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute: “No doubt the Chicken Littles will continue to cluck their doomsday scenarios when it comes to choice. But, as Arizona—the first state to pass a universal ESA—shows, the real-world results don’t match the fear-mongering.”

• State Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D): "It’s fiscally irresponsible to give away taxpayer dollars to private institutions with zero accountability."

• State Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D): “The unlimited voucher program is out of control and unsustainable. There’s no limit on how much can be spent, and it is on pace to cost nearly $1 billion when its original price tag was $33 million.”

RFK Jr. Endorses Trump At Glendale’s Desert Diamond Arena

Weeks after Vice President Kamala Harris held her largest rally yet at Glendale’s Desert Diamond Arena, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed former President Donald Trump at the same location. 

In his speech, Kennedy suspended his campaign and spoke about his perception of the Democratic Party’s shift away from the defense of “freedom” to advocating “censorship.” He spoke at length about the press and how he believed that they worked alongside the Democratic Party to undermine his campaign. Finally, he concluded that since he did not believe himself to be a viable candidate, his supporters, especially those in swing states, should vote for Trump. 

Trump spoke mostly about immigration, pulling up the infamous chart that he claims saved his life in Butler, PA. With Kennedy on stage, Trump pledged to release the classified documents concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He also spoke about “establish[ing] a panel of top experts” to investigate childhood health problems, with Kennedy at the helm. Kennedy praised Trump on foreign policy, saying that, “He told me he wants to end the grip the neocons have on foreign policy.” 

Following President Joe Biden’s decision to bow out of the race, a new jolt of energy has surged into the presidential contest, notably in favor of Harris. Trump’s former lead over Biden has given way to a dead heat between the former president and Harris, with polls showing both candidates within spitting distance of victory. Time will tell who wins, but one thing is clear: Democrats and Republicans see Arizona as an important piece of their strategy to win the requisite 270 electoral votes come November 5.

What Arizona leaders are saying:

• Rep. Eli Crane: “This is our election to lose. We can’t count on Donald Trump to carry this entire load on his back.” 

• Justin Harris, President, Arizona Police Association: “He always had our backs.

• Kari Lake: “We need this energy for the next two and a half months and we can’t let it die down.”

• Kerry Kennedy: “I love Bobby. But I think this is dramatically misguided. And I think it tramples on my father’s and my uncles’ and aunts’ reputations and their vision.”

In The Headlines

• New poll shows Trump with very slim lead over Harris in Arizona (August, 27, 2024) 

“The data shows Trump just three points ahead of Harris, with 9% of registered voters saying they’re still not sure how they would vote. The three-point lead is the same margin Trump held against Biden in Noble’s poll in May. It shows a large 80% majority of all polled voters think it was the right move for Biden to step down, with 82% of voters saying Harris is the right choice for nominee and there was nothing wrong with the nomination process.” 

• Hikers evacuated from Grand Canyon flash flood recount rescue (August, 27, 2024)

“Hundreds of hikers and Havasupai tribal members were evacuated last week during a flash flood along Havasu Creek near Grand Canyon National Park.”

• Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego condemns Phoenix DOJ report (August, 27, 2024)

“Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, sent his letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney General Clarke. It said, ‘It is clear a pattern or practice of civil rights violations does not exist - and it is certainly not the kind of situation Congress envisioned when it gave DOJ the authority to conduct investigations of this type.’”

• AZ Supreme Court rules open primary issue can go on ballot (August, 27, 2024)

“In a 10-page order, the justices agreed that what is in Proposition 140 would amend multiple sections of the Arizona Constitution about how elections are run in Arizona. And they acknowledged that, generally speaking, voters can’t be asked to make such choices on an all-or-nothing basis.”

• Tempe woman found dead at work 4 days after she clocked in (August, 29, 2024) 

“She was found dead by security the following Tuesday, Aug. 20. Police confirmed the death when they responded to the office for a call about a ‘“subject down,’” according to a statement by Tempe police.”

This round-up was produced by Joe Pitts, senior columnist for 1912 and CEO and cofounder of the Western Tribune, alongside Joseph Kavetsky, managing editor for 1912.

In this Round-up: Arizona’s electoral procedures continue to garner national attention, with questions lingering around voting requirements and ballot measure language. Both of these issues have made their way to high courts in recent weeks.

Additionally, Arizona Democrats launched an investigation into the Arizona Department of Education’s school improvement and Title I funding allocations. Led by Governor Katie Hobbs, the Democrats highlighted the department’s apparent loss of over $24 million in federal funding and subsequently called for an investigation into State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne.

Arizona, National Leaders Seek Clarity on Voting Requirements

Earlier this month, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona Republican legislative leaders — including Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma — filed an emergency application for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. This application followed a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that prevented implementation of an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voting. Signed into law by former-Governor Doug Ducey back in 2022, HB 2492 was enacted as a “balanced approach” to “address [the] growing number of new registrants participating in elections who have not provided evidence of citizenship.”  Last Thursday, 24 Republican state attorneys general joined an amicus brief echoing calls for the Supreme Court to grant a stay and support enforcement of the citizenship requirement for voting in Arizona. 

Last Friday, the Biden administration entered the conversation when Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that “judicial intervention at this stage would undermine the orderly administration of the election, risking the disfranchisement of thousands of voters who have already registered to vote using the federal form.” In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court, Prelogar echoed concerns of fellow Arizona Democrats that “a stay would throw the administration of the election into chaos.” The State of Arizona and Attorney Gene​​ral Kris Mayes also joined Prelogar in submitting filings, similarly arguing that a stay “at this time would be destabilizing.” According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, over 40,000 citizens could potentially be impacted by the ruling. 

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the emergency application for stay was “granted in part and denied in part.” While Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled that they would “deny the application in full,” the majority consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh ruled that Arizona may legally require DPOC for voting. Given that only Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito voted to “grant the application in full” however, a portion of the law potentially barring over 40,000 registered voters from voting will remain on hold. 

What U.S. and Arizona leaders are saying:

• Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar: “[T]he State of Arizona, its Attorney General, and its Secretary of State have opposed a stay, explaining that Arizona has never yet implemented the challenged requirements and that judicial intervention at this stage would undermine the orderly administration of the election, risking the disfranchisement of thousands of voters who have already registered to vote using the federal form. This Court should deny the application to the extent it pertains to the United States’ claim.”

• Arizona Republican Party: “The Constitution gives states the power to set voter qualifications, and AZ is leading the charge to ensure ONLY CITIZENS vote in our elections. This case has the potential to prevent non-citizen voting once and for all, which should have been the case all along.”

• Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda: “This is a landmark moment for Arizona and our nation. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold our right to secure our elections.”

Arizona Abortion Measure to Appear on November Ballot

Earlier last week, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, officially certified a ballot measure establishing a right to abortion in the state. The ballot initiative, spearheaded by Arizona for Abortion Access, received roughly 578,000 signatures, easily reaching the 383,923-signature requirement. Currently, abortion is essentially banned after 15 weeks in Arizona. The ballot measure would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability.

In the leadup to the important vote, Arizona Republicans have been using the term “unborn human being” in informational pamphlets set to be distributed to registered voters, a phrase considered by Democrats to be misleading and partisan. Last Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Arizona for Abortion Access v. Ben Toma, et al., a lawsuit advanced by abortion advocates to challenge the impartiality of the ballot language. The Supreme Court’s decision subsequently allows the contentious term to be used ahead of November’s election. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that initially labeled the proposed phrasing as “packed with emotion and partisan meaning,” instead finding that the pamphlet’s phrasing “substantially complies” with necessary requirements. While the ruling represents a significant victory for pro-life advocates, it is worth noting that Secretary of State Fontes will still choose the actual language for the ballot measure seeking to establish a right to abortion in Arizona’s constitution. 

Two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling clarifying the pamphlet language, U.S. Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Arizona State Representative Barbara Parker — who serves as vice chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee — jointly filed an amicus brief with the state Supreme Court “in strong opposition” to the Arizona Abortion Access Act. The lawmakers’ brief serves to echo concerns of the Plaintiff/Appellant in Arizona Right to Life v. Adrian Fontes and Arizona for Abortion Access, arguing that the “radical initiative” slated for the November ballot contains “vague and misleading language” intended to “conceal[] its true impact: stripping Arizona courts of their power to apply traditional legal standards to abortion legislation.” Further, Biggs and Parker wrote that the ballot measure would “elevate abortion above existing fundamental rights” and subsequently called for the “initiative [to be] disqualified from the ballot to prevent the erosion of judicial review and the protection of other fundamental rights.”

On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed Arizona Right to Life’s lawsuit seeking to argue that the ballot measure’s 200-word description is “misleading.” In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed a prior superior court ruling in a significant win for abortion advocates in the state. In the unanimous majority opinion, the justices emphasized that “[n]othing in the Description ‘either communicates objectively false or misleading information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic thrust.” With the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling, the question of whether a right to abortion should exist in the Arizona Constitution will be answered by voters in November as Proposition 139. 

What Arizona leaders are saying: 

• Chief Justice Ann Timmer: “The Description explains each of these provisions and the tests that would apply to restrictions upon that right. Nothing in the Description ‘either communicates objectively false or misleading information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic thrust.”

• Secretary of State Adrian Fontes: “This is an incredibly important piece of the freedom agenda that the Democrats have launched through our new presidential candidate. . . . It’s incredibly important because in Arizona, we don’t like people telling us what to do. And when you’ve got folks trying to force folks into, and force anybody into decisions with especially what they can do with their bodies, that’s problematic politically.”

• Representative Barbara Parker: “This dangerous initiative would strip Arizona courts of their crucial role in safeguarding the balance between fundamental rights [. . .] The people of Arizona deserve to know that this measure would place the so-called ‘right to abortion’ above all other rights, including religious freedom, and prevent the courts from considering compelling state interests that protect life and health. As a lawmaker and a neonatal ICU-trained nurse, I will always stand against any attempt to silence the voice of the people or to erode the protections that ensure the safety of all Arizonans, born and unborn.”

• Arizona for Abortion Access: “This is a huge win for Arizona voters and direct democracy. With this decision, voters will have a chance to vote YES on Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and restore and protect the right to access abortion care in our state. With less than 80 days to go until the election, we will continue working around the clock to ensure Arizona voters from every corner of the state, and from every background and every political party say YES to putting personal decisions about pregnancy and abortion where they belong—with patients, their families and their doctors, without government interference. We are confident that this fall, Arizona voters will make history by establishing once and for all a fundamental right to abortion.”

Democrats Flag Potential Mismanagement of Public School Funds

Earlier this month, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and six House Democrats requested a “special audit” of the Arizona Department of Education’s school improvement and Title I funding allocations. (Title I, established as part of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a federal program that provides funding to public schools in low-income areas.) In a letter sent to Representative Matt Gress — who serves as chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) (and who recently wrote an op-ed on this subject for 1912) — the Democrats touted reports “showing the Department of Education lost $24 million in federal funding for public education.” The Democrats commented that the allegations “bring into question whether the Department exercises the attention, transparency and clear communication needed to appropriately oversee our state’s educational funding,” and subsequently called for JLAC to “clarify this year’s funding reductions and determine which Department practices kept federal funding from reaching schools.”

In response to the Democrats’ request, Representative Gress announced State Superintendent Tom Horne’s intention to attend an upcoming JLAC meeting. In a press release, Gress explained that Horne had “directly requested” to respond to the “misinformation surrounding school improvement and Title I funding allocations” while at the September meeting. Given JLAC’s role as a “legislative check on the executive, providing oversight of all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to ensure accountability and transparency,” Gress called a public forum “essential to better understand the issues at hand.” 

What Arizona Leaders are Saying: 

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “I commend the members of the state legislature who are demanding accountability and transparency. It is unconscionable that Superintendent Horne has let tens of millions of dollars disappear from our schools — critical federal funding that helps students succeed. I sincerely hope that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee takes up this investigation and finds out what happened to these resources. Our kids deserve better.”

• House Democratic Whip Nancy Gutierrez: “As our letter states, the actions of the Arizona Department of Education and Superintendent Horne have raised serious questions about their ability to responsibly oversee the state’s education federal funding distribution. We need more attention to detail, basic transparency and better communication with schools — and with us — to avoid the budget cuts and negative impacts that our schools have experienced. We need an audit right now to find out exactly what is happening and why, and to restore trust.” 

• Representative Matt Gress: “As you know, JLAC serves several functions. First and foremost, the committee serves as a legislative check on the executive, providing oversight of all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to ensure accountability and transparency. As Chairman of JLAC, I sincerely appreciate your interest to utilize the expertise of the Office of the Auditor General to investigate and better understand agencies like ADE. . . . I believe it is essential to better understand the issues at hand by first allowing a public forum for questions and answers before proceeding with a special audit; therefore, I welcome Superintendent Horne’s presence at JLAC’s September meeting.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Governor Katie Hobbs Shares Update on Uranium Ore Transportation Negotiations (August 16, 2024) — “Navajo Nation and Energy Fuels Resources Inc. began good-faith negotiations on the transport of uranium ore through Navajo lands. Both parties described the meeting as productive and committed to continued conversations to reach an agreement.”

• Donald Trump to visit US Southern Border in Cochise County this week (August 18, 2024) — “Former President Donald Trump will be making a trip to southern Arizona this week. Trump will visit the U.S. Southern Border in Cochise County on Thursday, Aug. 22, at 11:30 a.m. After visiting the border, Trump will travel to Glendale to hold a rally at the Desert Diamond Arena on Friday, Aug. 23, at 4 p.m. It’s the same venue where Vice President Kamala Harris held a rally earlier this month. This will be Trump’s second visit to Arizona in the last few months. He previously held a rally in Phoenix in June.”

• Attorney General Mayes Warns of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Scams (August 19, 2024) — “Attorney General Kris Mayes is again warning Arizonans to be on high alert for cryptocurrency scams targeting vulnerable individuals, particularly senior citizens. ‘Scammers are taking advantage of the lack of familiarity on how cryptocurrency works to scam Arizonans out of their hard-earned money,’ said Attorney General Mayes. ‘My office is committed to ensuring that all Arizonans are informed and protected against these emerging threats. I urge Arizonans to be vigilant and to report any suspicious activity to our office immediately.’ Scammers are always finding new ways to steal your money using cryptocurrency.”

• Republicans are central in an effort to rescue Cornel West’s ballot hopes in Arizona (August 19, 2024) — “A group of lawyers with deep ties to the Republican Party scrambled over the weekend to rescue an effort to get independent presidential candidate Cornel West on the Arizona ballot, offering one of the clearest examples yet of the GOP’s extensive involvement in furthering the left-wing academic’s long-shot bid. . . . This work appears to be part of a broader effort by conservative activists and Republican-aligned operatives across the country to push West’s candidacy and subvert the integrity of the ballot in the months leading up to November’s presidential election.”

• RFK Jr. withdraws from Arizona ballot as questions swirl around a possible alliance with Trump (August 22, 2024) — “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the ballot in Arizona late Thursday, a day before he and Donald Trump were set to appear miles apart in the Phoenix area as speculation grows that Kennedy could drop his independent presidential bid and endorse the Republican nominee. Kennedy is scheduled to speak at 2 p.m. Eastern time in Phoenix ‘about the present historical moment and his path forward,’ according to his campaign. Hours later, Trump will hold a rally in neighboring Glendale.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

A note to our readers: Today we are joined by Arizona State Representative Matt Gress. Rep. Gress has served the people of Phoenix and Scottsdale since 2022.

Our content may be free, but we rely on the kindness of everyday benefactors (like you!) to keep the lights on. Everyone on our team — from our editors to our CEO — refuses compensation. All revenue at this stage goes to building a thoughtful and respected news media company that truly represents the spirit of the West. We hope you consider giving today — as little as $5 per month goes a long way (that’s one Starbucks espresso every 30 days!).

As a reminder, this is an opinion piece and does not necessarily represent the views of this publication.

As a former public school teacher and school board member, and now as a state representative, I have dedicated my career to ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money invested in our public education system is spent where it matters most — in the classroom, directly benefiting our students and teachers. 

I’ve championed more dollars for school. My Pay Teachers First Plan would give every Arizona teacher a $10,000 raise directly into their paychecks, without being funneled through school administration. It’s something both parties can get behind. Supporting our teachers shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

That’s why I’m so troubled by a pair of recent reports from the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Auditor General’s Office that highlight instances of financial mismanagement in some of Arizona’s school districts.These reports reveal a pattern of wasteful spending that cannot be ignored. These findings are not just numbers on a page; they represent a betrayal of the trust that Arizona taxpayers have placed in our education system. As someone who believes in the transformative power of public education, I find these revelations both alarming and disheartening.

There are three school districts in particular that should be emphasized:

1. Misuse of funds in the Phoenix Elementary School District

One of the most concerning instances of financial mismanagement involves the Phoenix Elementary School District. According to the Goldwater Institute, the district’s governing board approved the use of taxpayer dollars to send a school board member to the 2024 Local Progress Conference in Oakland, California. The conference’s agenda was not focused on educational development or student outcomes; instead, it promoted partisan politics and activism. This is not where our education dollars should be going.

Under public scrutiny, district officials ultimately canceled the trip. However, the fact that it was approved in the first place raises serious questions about the priorities of those responsible for overseeing the district’s finances. At a time when we are facing a teacher shortage and are repeatedly told that there are not enough funds to increase teacher salaries, it is unacceptable for any school district to allocate money for what can only be described as a politically motivated junket.

2. Wasteful spending in Baboquivari Unified School District

The issue of financial mismanagement is not isolated to the Phoenix Elementary School District. The Auditor General’s Office recently released a report detailing nearly $500,000 in unnecessary and wasteful travel expenses by the Baboquivari Unified School District, located an hour southwest of Tucson. Among the most egregious examples was a two-day out-of-state conference that cost approximately $342,000. This expenditure, along with many others, exceeded state guidelines and lacked the required approvals.

This kind of reckless spending is a slap in the face to the taxpayers who fund our education system and to the teachers and students who are shortchanged as a result. These are funds that could have been used to provide better resources for classrooms, improve school facilities, or, most importantly, increase teacher salaries. Instead, they were wasted on lavish trips that do little to nothing to improve the quality of education in Arizona.

3. Ongoing issues in Gadsden Elementary School District

Perhaps even more troubling is the situation in the Gadsden Elementary School District. A performance audit conducted by the Auditor General in 2020 uncovered a series of financial mismanagement issues, including paying employees for time not worked, limiting public access to governing board meetings, and wasting $65,000 on unnecessary travel. Additionally, the district lacked proper oversight of its transportation program.

Fast forward 30 months, and a follow-up report reveals that the Gadsden District has yet to address seven of the 13 findings from the original audit. Most notably, the district has failed to implement basic financial accountability measures, such as segregating the responsibilities for entering and updating employee pay and benefit information. This failure previously led to fraud, with one employee caught stealing approximately $8,000. Despite this incident, the district has shown a troubling lack of urgency in addressing these issues.

This ongoing lack of accountability is unacceptable. Audits conducted by the Arizona Auditor General are not just bureaucratic exercises; they are critical tools for ensuring that our public institutions are operating efficiently, effectively, and legally. When a school district fails to act on the findings of an audit, it not only undermines the integrity of the process but also erodes public trust.

The Need for Better Stewardship and Accountability

These examples paint a clear picture of a systemic problem in Arizona’s education system: a lack of proper oversight and accountability when it comes to the use of taxpayer funds. This is not just about a few bad apples; it is about a culture of complacency and entitlement that has taken root in some of our school districts. This culture must change.

As a state representative and chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I am committed to making sure our taxpayers dollars get to where the taxpayers expect them to — in this case, the classroom. The misuse of public funds is not just a financial issue; it is a moral one. Every dollar that is wasted on unnecessary travel or political conferences is a dollar that could have been spent on improving our schools, supporting our teachers, and providing our students with the quality education they deserve.

To address this issue, I will continue to push for greater transparency and increased oversight of school district spending. I will also work to ensure that the findings of audits are taken seriously and that districts are held accountable for implementing the necessary changes. The public deserves answers when it comes to how their money is being spent.

Matt Gress is a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, representing Legislative District 4. He formerly served as the Director of Arizona Governor's Office of Strategic Planning & Budgeting under Gov. Doug Ducey.

In this week’s Round-up: Both major presidential campaigns passed through the valley over the last two weeks, with Republican VP nominee J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris and VP nominee Tim Walz (D-MN) making stops in Glendale. Both campaign events featured a bevy of Arizona leaders, with these prominent figures from the two parties seeking to rally support in the battleground state. These two stops—which both came just after each party ticket’s announcement—illustrate Arizona’s undeniable electoral significance in November.

At the state level, two courts issued recent rulings that would affect Arizona’s voting procedures. First, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individuals are not required to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Second, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that abortion ballot language including the phrase “unborn human being” was “partisan,” and instead called for “neutral[ity].” Arizona Republicans, including Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, have already announced plans to appeal the aforementioned rulings. 

Presidential Campaigns Sweep Through the Valley

Just over a week ago, Republican Vice Presidential Nominee J.D. Vance spoke to a crowd of supporters at Glendale’s Arizona Christian University. The event came just two weeks after his selection as former President Donald Trump’s running mate. The rally lasted over two and a half hours and featured several Arizona leaders including GOP Chair Gina Swoboda, State Senator Janae Shamp, Senate President Warren Petersen, and Arizona Senate Candidate Kari Lake. The event also featured U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Turning Point USA founder, Charlie Kirk, who introduced Vance. 

During his remarks, Vance unsurprisingly focused heavily on the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy, which he followed up with a visit to the border wall the next day. Just south of Sierra Vista, Vance was joined by the Border Patrol Union, the Cochise County Sheriff's Department, and local ranchers in discussing “how bad the policies of the Kamala Harris administration have been when it comes to the southern border.” This line of attack will likely remain at the forefront both in Arizona and nationally this election season, particularly due to Harris’s two-plus year-long tenure as Biden’s “border czar,” a role in which she was tasked with identifying “root causes” of “irregular migration” from Central America. 

On Friday, current Vice President and Democrat nominee Kamala Harris appeared alongside her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale. Before a crowd of roughly 15,000 supporters, Harris and Walz brought on stage Arizona leaders including U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, U.S. Representative and Senate candidate Ruben Gallego, and Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego. During the event, the Democrats mainly focused on hot-button issues such as immigration, abortion, and climate change. 

What U.S. leaders are saying:

• Senator J.D Vance: “500,000 kids have been trafficked by the Mexican drug cartels because of [Harris’s] policies. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens are dead from fentanyl overdoses because of her policies….​​[S]he was appointed the border czar and then unleashed the worst border crisis in the history of this country. On her watch, more than 10 million illegal aliens have invaded our country. And it wasn’t by accident, it was by design….They suspended deportations, they stopped building President Trump’s wall, they reinstated catch and release and that’s how every state became a border state because they just released these people into our country….Kamala Harris’s vision is for closed factories and open borders. It’s a government so big it can tell you what to do, but bank accounts that are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Donald Trump delivered, not just talked about it, this isn’t just his vision, it’s what he actually did, he delivered rising wages and a strong border.”

• Vice President Kamala Harris: “I was attorney general of a border state. I went after the transnational gangs, the drug cartels, and human traffickers. I prosecuted them in case after case, and I won. So I know what I’m talking about. We know our immigration system is broken, and we know what it takes to fix it. Comprehensive reform that includes strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship. But Donald Trump does not want to fix this problem. Be clear about that. He has no interest or desire to actually fix the problem. He talks a big game about border security, but he does not walk the walk. Earlier this year, we had a chance to pass the toughest bipartisan border security bill in decades. But Donald Trump tanked the deal because he thought by doing that it would help him win an election. But when I am president, I will sign the bill.”

Arizona Voting Requirements in Flux

Republican members of the House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee wrote to Arizona’s county recorders, urging them to “promptly update voter rolls and enforce state law that mandates proof of citizenship for voter registration using state forms.” In a letter sent late last month, the lawmakers “reiterate[d] the obligation” of the county elections officials to “remove foreign citizens from voter rolls in accordance with state and federal laws.” Noting the “unprecedented levels of illegal immigration” experienced under the Biden-Harris administration, the committee members underscored the crucial importance of “maintaining accurate voter records.”

Last Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its own previous ruling that would have required those registering to vote in Arizona to provide proof of citizenship, rather than simply a state form. In a 2-1 decision, the Court overturned a temporary July stay order submitted by Republican legislative leaders, and subsequently argued that the leaders had failed to explain how the form’s use “inflicts an irreparable ‘competitive injury’ on the RNC.” In response to the ruling, Senate President Warren Petersen announced his intention to “tak[e] the case” to the Supreme Court and “file an emergency stay application.”

What Arizona leaders are saying:

• House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee Republicans: “[C]ounty recorders and other election officers are now required to reject Arizona’s state-specific voter registration form submissions that lack documentary proof of citizenship….State and federal laws require removal of ineligible voters from your voter rolls. In light of the unprecedented flow of illegal immigration across the southern border under the Biden Administration since January 2021, it is imperative that you prioritize maintenance of your voter rolls and removal of foreign nationals.”

• U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: “The RNC alleged that the existence of voters who are registered to vote in federal elections (so called “federal-only voters”) inflicts irreparable harm upon it….Simply put, the RNC has not shown that enforcement of [statute] specifically will prevent a likelihood of irreparable harm pending appeal….Under the circumstances, we are compelled to exercise our discretion to reconsider the motions panel’s order and reinstate the status quo in Arizona as it has been since 2018 pending this expedited appeal.”

• Senate President Warren Petersen: “This is just another example of why the radical Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the nation. They routinely engage in judicial warfare to carry out their extremist liberal agenda that's contrary to the laws our citizens elected us to implement. We will seek assistance from the Supreme Court to ensure only American citizens are voting in our elections. If this principle is not followed, democracy as we know it, and as our Founding Fathers intended, is in jeopardy.”

Arizona Judge Rules on Abortion Ballot Measure Language

Late last month, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten sided with Arizona for Abortion Access in preventing the phrase “unborn human being” from appearing on an upcoming November ballot measure. In his decision, Judge Whitten called on the Republican-controlled Legislative Council to use “neutral” language in educational pamphlets being prepared for voters ahead of this fall’s election. In response, House Speaker Ben Toma—who co-chairs the legislative council—announced plans to appeal the “clearly partisan” ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision comes after Arizona for Abortion Access previously sued over the council’s ballot measure language, advocating instead for the use of the term “fetus.” Judge Whitten’s ruling in favor of Arizona for Abortion Access asserts that the use of “unborn human being” does not provide an “impartial analysis of the provisions” of the ballot measure, which seeks to establish abortion as a Constitutional right. While Republicans argued that the term “unborn human being” already exists in Arizona statute, Whitten explained that he was “not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature” is inherently neutral. 

What Judge Whitten is saying:

• “Defendants argue that the term ‘unborn human being’ is taken directly from Arizona’s current law - A.R.S. § 36-2322(B), and therefore must be neutral. The court is not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature in every statute it enacts is intended to be a neutral in character. There is no requirement that the legislature chose its words in such a way, and plenty of evidence that they sometimes do not.”

• “Other than arguing that the phrase ‘unborn human being’ must be neutral as a matter of law because those words are used in [statute], Defendants offer little to support their argument that it is impartial.”

• “The term ‘unborn human being’ is packed with emotional and partisan meaning, both for those who oppose abortion and for those who endorse a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion.”

• “Accordingly, it is ordered granting Plaintiff’s request for special action relief, a permanent injunction and a writ of mandamus and ordering the Legislative Council to strike the phrase ‘unborn human being’ from its description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act and, instead, adopt an impartial summary of the Initiative that replaces that phrase with a neutral term.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Arizona Grand Jury Wanted to Indict Trump in Fake Electors Case (August 6, 2024) — “A state grand jury in Arizona that charged 18 people this spring in a scheme that sought to overturn Donald J. Trump’s 2020 election loss wanted to indict him, too, according to court papers released on Tuesday. But prosecutors, the papers said, recommended that Mr. Trump should not be charged, citing a Justice Department policy that discourages bringing state and federal cases against the same defendant that are largely based on similar facts.”

• Judge says ‘speech restrictions’ in Arizona's elections manual are ‘overbroad, unenforceable’ (August 6, 2024) — “An Arizona judge has ruled certain ‘speech restrictions’ outlined in the state’s elections procedures manual are ‘unenforceable.’ Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill blocked the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office from enforcing certain provisions intended to prevent voter intimidation at polling places….Judge Ryan-Touhill determined the manual’s restrictions are ‘greater than necessary, vague, overbroad’ and potentially problematic….The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office said the agency intends to appeal.”

• Arizona Dept. of Education ‘stifled’ political voices on social media (August 6, 2024) — “The Arizona Department of Education said it would uncensor social media accounts after an Arizona’s Family investigation found the department had blocked or muted about two dozen accounts belonging to activists and politically outspoken individuals….A spokesperson for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said all of the blocks were done by the previous administration….Kathy Hoffman, Arizona’s previous state superintendent, declined to comment. Public records obtained by Arizona’s Family showed the department’s official X account, @azedschools, blocked or muted 28 people.”

• Group halts Arizona minimum wage ballot campaign hours before judge rules against it (August 8, 2024) — “Raise the Wage AZ announced Thursday morning it would withdraw its submitted signatures for a planned ballot measure to boost the state’s minimum wage — just prior to a judge’s ruling it would not qualify for November’s ballot. Several hours after the group released a statement about its intentions, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled against the measure in a consent decree both parties agreed to.”

• As workers brave record-breaking heat, Labor secretary visits to talk protections (August 8, 2024) — Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Julie Su “was in Tempe to talk alongside union leaders about proposed nationwide rules to compel employers to provide workers greater protection from heat, including shade, water and breaks….Phoenix recently enacted rules to protect workers from heat. Su pointed to examples of local officials elsewhere attempting similar measures only to be overruled by their state governments in Florida and Texas. U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton, a Democrat whose district includes Tempe, joined Su and underscored the urgency of such protections as temperatures rise.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

Share

A note to our readers: Following a brief interlude, weekly round-ups are back! As a reminder, you can support our work by subscribing, donating, and sharing our content with others. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, meaning that all donations are tax-deductible. Join us as we navigate the next frontier of journalism!

In case you’ve missed some of our most recent content, here’s a brief summary of what we’ve published:

• Former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico: The U.S. and Mexico: Reset Required

• Joe Pitts: Arizona’s Promethean Spirit

We hope you enjoy this week’s round-up.

In this week’s Round-up: Over the last week, the 2024 presidential contest has undergone multiple seismic shifts. The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, followed by the selection of Ohio Senator J. D. Vance as his running mate, has dramatically reshaped the Republican campaign. On the Democratic side, President Joe Biden’s withdrawal and subsequent endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris represent even starker changes, adding a layer of uncertainty to an already chaotic race. These landmark events have been felt in key battleground states, including Arizona, where candidates are now scrambling to adjust their strategies 100 days before the November 5th contest. Recent reports indicating that Harris is considering Arizona Senator Mark Kelly as her running mate further suggest that the Copper State could serve as a focal point ahead of the election.

Within Arizona’s borders, several key government figures have become the focus of recent investigations. After three years of a comprehensive investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the Phoenix Police Department and City of Phoenix have committed multiple civil rights violations. Also, it was announced last month that Governor Katie Hobbs is being investigated over her role in an alleged “Pay to Play” scheme that saw a political donor receive preferential treatment. 

Arizona Responds to Trump Assassination Attempt, Secret Service Director Resigns

Immediately following the July 13 assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump, Arizonans in both parties were quick to denounce political violence, as well as to offer their well wishes to the 2024 Republican nominee. Moreover, bipartisan scrutiny surrounding the U.S. Secret Service — specifically Director Kimberly Cheatle — emerged because of the apparent security lapses at the Butler, Pennsylvania, campaign rally. Calls for Cheatle’s resignation mounted after a Monday House Oversight Committee hearing, with lawmakers  demanding “new leadership to swiftly address this crisis and rebuild the trust of a truly concerned Congress and the American people.” These calls ultimately proved successful, with Cheatle resigning just a day after delivering her House testimony. 

The day after the shooting, Arizona Senate candidate and current Representative Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, “raise[d] grave concerns regarding the security measures — or lack thereof” in place to protect the former President. In a letter sent to Director Cheatle, Gallego questioned whether the Biden administration had previously denied requests for “additional protection or resources” from the Trump campaign. In seeking to “demand accountability,” Gallego asked Cheatle if “there [were] any failures in protocol that enabled the shooting,” as well as whether a “proper threat assessment of nearby buildings [was] conducted.” Notably, Gallego also inquired about the status of Secret Service protection for Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose requests had been repeatedly denied by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Subsequently, Gallego urged “all those responsible for the planning, approving, and executing of this failed security plan to be held accountable” and to “testify before Congress immediately.” 

Arizona Republican Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar joined their House Oversight Committee colleagues in questioning the Secret Service’s “management of resources and personnel” related to the campaign rally. As part of their investigation, the Oversight Republicans requested that Director Cheatle preserve certain documents, audio, and video in “anticipation” for her July 22 hearing appearance before the committee. Specifically, the lawmakers asked for detailed records of security protocols, surveillance data, communications regarding the rally, and any internal assessments conducted by the Secret Service. 

In response to the shooting, Mayorkas announced that the Secret Service had “enhanced” Trump’s protection both “prior to and after the events of this past weekend.” Due to the “evolving nature of threats” levied against the former president, Mayorkas explained that “personnel and other protective resources, technology, and capabilities have been added” to Trump’s security detail. Additionally, Mayorkas stated that President Biden had “directed [him] to work with the Secret Service to provide protection” for Kennedy, Jr.

What Arizona lawmakers are saying:

• Senator Mark Kelly (D): “[Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords] and I are horrified by the incident in Pennsylvania. No one should ever have to experience political violence — we know that firsthand. We’re keeping former President Trump, his family, and everyone involved in our thoughts.”

• Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I): “Violence, especially political violence, is completely unacceptable. We must be a model for civil democracy and commit to the values that define us as Americans.”

• Congressman Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06): “Our family is praying tonight for President Trump, the innocent bystanders that have been killed or remain in critical condition, and all those in attendance. We also owe our utmost gratitude to the law enforcement and Secret Service who acted swiftly in response. Our political leaders should never fear that their beliefs or political stances threaten their lives, and I call on all of those in positions of power and influence to condemn these attacks in the strongest of terms — unequivocally.”

• Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07): “I condemn the attempted assassination of the former president. It’s unacceptable to condone or embrace political violence in any form.”

• Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-09): “Maude and I are praying for Donald Trump, his family and all of America following the cowardly and heinous assassination attempt of the 45th President of the United States. I am extremely grateful to the brave law enforcement officials protecting President Trump and I thank God he is doing well and will never stop fighting for the American people.” 

• Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05): “Democrats trying to take away President Trump’s Secret Service protection should be ashamed. The results of their dangerous rhetoric and actions are on full display today.”

• Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03): “Last night’s attempted assassination of former President Trump was a tragic chapter in our history. We must enhance Secret Service protection for all major presidential candidates, including Robert Kennedy, Jr.”

• Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ-01): “Political violence has no place in America. Joyce and I send our prayers to President Trump, his family, and the family of the rally attendee whose life was tragically taken.”

• Congressman Eli Crane (R-AZ-02): “Warrior. Pray for the safety and wellbeing of President Trump and the patriotic Americans at his rally in PA.”

• Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08): “I am sending my prayers to former President Trump and all attending his rally in Pennsylvania. Please join me in lifting our nation in prayer.”

• Governor Katie Hobbs (D): “Political violence is unacceptable, and has no place in this country. I am glad that former President Trump is safe, and hope that others at the rally were not seriously injured. I hope the perpetrator of this heinous act will be swiftly brought to justice.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D): “The attack against former President Trump must be strongly condemned by ALL Americans — no matter their political beliefs. Political violence is never acceptable. Never. My thoughts are with the former President and anyone else who may have been injured or hurt at today’s rally.”

• State Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R): “Praying for President Trump and his recovery. This act of violence has no place at a peaceful campaign rally. May we pray for peace and civility in America.”

• Arizona Senate Democrats: “The Arizona Senate Democrats condemn the act of violence targeting former President Trump earlier today. No matter an individual’s beliefs, violence is not acceptable. Period. Our thoughts are with the former President and everyone impacted by the incident at the rally.”

• Arizona House Democrats: “We unequivocally condemn this abhorrent act and hope for former President Trump’s swift recovery. There is no place for political violence in our nation. We also thank the Secret Service and law enforcement for their swift and fearless response.” 

• Arizona Senate Republicans: “Fighter. This is the strongest leader in America. Arizona Senate Republicans are praying for you, President Trump. May justice be served.”

Arizona Congressmen Call on Biden to Step Aside, Kamala Steps Up to Plate

On Sunday, President Joe Biden officially announced his plans to “stand down” from the top of the Democratic Party ticket. In a statement posted on Twitter/X, the President highlighted the progress made by his administration before stating it was “in the best interest of [his] party and the country” to step down. Soon after the statement’s release, President Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement. 

Several days after the June 28 presidential debate, Representative Raul Grijalva became the second House Democrat to explicitly call for President Biden to step aside. Following the lead of Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) who had previously urged Biden to “make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw” from the race, Grijalva highlighted similar concerns regarding Biden’s ability to maintain control of the White House this November. In a New York Times interview, the Tucson Congressman emphasized that Biden “needs to . . . shoulder the responsibility for keeping that seat” in the hands of Democrats by “get[ting] out of this race.” 

Just over a week later, Representative Greg Stanton echoed calls for Biden to “pass the torch to a new generation of leaders.” In a statement, Stanton — who labeled himself as “one of President Biden's earliest supporters” in 2020 — argued that “the stakes in this election could not be higher.” Despite highlighting the “progress [Democrats have] made for Arizona” during the Biden Presidency, Stanton commented on the importance of “hav[ing] a nominee who can effectively make the case against” former President Trump. Subsequently, Stanton called on Biden to “step aside as [the party’s] nominee.” 

What Arizona Democrats are saying:

• Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07): “If he’s the candidate, I’m going to support him, but I think that this is an opportunity to look elsewhere. What he needs to do is shoulder the responsibility for keeping the seat — and part of that responsibility is to get out of this race.”

• Representative Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04): "Back in 2020, long before Joe Biden was the presumptive nominee of our party, I endorsed his candidacy for President — and I’m proud of that decision. President Biden has been one of our country’s most effective modern chief executives, and has truly delivered for Arizona — signing into law a once-in-a-generation investment in our infrastructure, the most consequential bill ever to fight climate change and protect our water, lowering drug prices for seniors, and turbocharging the U.S. semiconductor industry. . . . The Democratic Party must have a nominee who can effectively make the case against Trump, and have the confidence of the American people to handle the rigors of the hardest job on the planet for the next four years. For the sake of American democracy, and to continue to make progress on our shared priorities, I believe it is time for the President to step aside as our nominee."

DOJ Reports on Purported Civil Rights Abuses in Phoenix 

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report following a three-year investigation into alleged civil rights violations committed by the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD) and the City of Phoenix. Following its “comprehensive investigation,” the DOJ found that both the PhxPd and the City have “engage[d] in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law.” The DOJ’s investigation revealed “systemic problems” within the PhxPD, including “pervasive failings in [the Department’s] policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems that have disguised and perpetuated these violations for years.” 

According to the DOJ’s Executive Summary, key findings of the investigation include that: (i) “PhxPD uses excessive force, including unjustified deadly force and other types of force”; (ii) “PhxPD and the City unlawfully detain, cite, and arrest people experiencing homelessness and unlawfully dispose of their belongings. This is the first time the Department has found a pattern or practice of conduct that focuses on the rights of people experiencing homelessness”; (iii) 

PhxPD discriminates against Black, Hispanic, and Native American people when enforcing the law”; (iv) “PhxPD violates the rights of people engaged in protected speech and expression”; and (v) “PhxPD and the City discriminate against people with behavioral health disabilities when dispatching calls for assistance and responding to people in crisis.”

Immediately following the report’s release, Phoenix City Attorney Julie Kriegh sent a letter to several members of the DOJ, including Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Civil Rights Division. While Kriegh explained that the City “want[s] to take the necessary time to fully digest [the report] before responding,” she highlighted her commitment to “ongoing efforts to implement best practices in policing.” Further, Kriegh argued that both the PhxPD and the City are “materially different” after consistently “invest[ing] in substantial public expenditures and propos[ing] and approv[ing] significant projects.” Given an opportunity to “thoroughly review the report,” Kriegh added that she was “look[ing] forward to discussing possible options for an effective and efficient resolution that will best serve the Phoenix community.”

• Attorney General Merrick Garland: “The Justice Department has concluded there is reasonable cause to believe that the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police Department engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives its residents and visitors, including Black, Hispanic, and Native American people, of their rights under the Constitution and federal law. The release of today’s findings report is an important step toward accountability and transparency, and we are committed to working with the City of Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department on meaningful reform that protects the civil rights and safety of Phoenix residents and strengthens police-community trust.”

• Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division: “Our comprehensive investigation revealed unlawful and unconstitutional practices in the Phoenix Police Department’s enforcement activities that impact some of Phoenix’s most vulnerable residents, including Black, Hispanic, and Native American people, homeless people, and those experiencing behavioral health crises. The police also used excessive force, delayed necessary medical aid, and infringed on the civil rights of those engaged in First Amendment-protected conduct, including demonstrations and protests. Our findings provide a blueprint and a roadmap that can help transform the police department, restore community trust and strengthen public safety efforts in one of America’s largest cities.”

• Phoenix City Attorney Julie Kriegh: “The City of Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department of today are materially different than the Department that you investigated. . . . The Phoenix City Council has consistently, through meaningful dialogue with community members, invested in substantial public expenditures and proposed and approved significant projects. Some examples are the approval and funding for full implementation of body worn cameras, the expenditure of millions of dollars for people experiencing homelessness and for the CAP program to address mental health concerns, creating staff for a new Office of Homeless Solutions and increasing salaries for 911 operators.”

• Phoenix City Manager Jeff Barton: “We are taking all allegations seriously and are planning to review this lengthy report with an open mind. Self-reflection is an important step in continuous improvement, and our Police Department has demonstrated a commitment to reform by making improvements to policy, discipline, internal investigations and training.”

• Phoenix Interim Police Chief Michael Sullivan: “We want to see not only what these individual incidents are that the Department of Justice refers to, but we also want to see whether it included policy change or whether it possibly included discipline, or other changes within the department as far as practices go.”

Governor Hobbs Investigated Over Alleged “Pay to Play” Scheme

Early last month, Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes’s Office announced an investigation into an alleged pay-to-play scheme involving Governor Katie Hobbs and Sunshine Residential Homes. Following a June 5 request from Senate President Pro Tempore TJ Shope, the AG’s office explained that it was “statutorily authorized to investigate the allegations and offenses outlined” by Senator Shope. 

In his initial inquiry, Senator Shope relayed Arizona Republic reports that Sunshine Residential Homes has “benefited beyond all other[]” group home providers due to its “close ties to Gov. Katie Hobbs.” Specifically, Shope highlighted concerns regarding the Department of Child Safety’s “alleged decision to approve a nearly 60% rate increase” for Sunshine Residential Homes. Shope emphasized that the allegation “brings many legal questions that are both criminal and civil in nature,” before touting the importance of “find[ing] the truth of what Governor Hobbs knew and at what time she knew, as well as what she directed based on that knowledge.”

After the announcement of AG Mayes’ investigation, Arizona State Treasurer Kimberley Yee called on Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell to launch a “concurrent criminal” inquiry. In letters sent to both Mitchell and AG Mayes, Treasurer Yee wrote that the recent reports call into question whether public entities are “ensuring fiduciary duties and engaging in a waste and abuse of government resources.” While Mayes had previously “requested that this investigation remain under [the AG’s] sole jurisdiction” and called it inappropriate “to conduct parallel investigations,” Treasurer Yee urged the involvement of Mitchell or an “independent county attorney” due to “concerns of conflict of interest.” The same day, Representative David Livingston called for Mayes’s recusal “so that County Attorney Mitchell and the Auditor General can do their jobs without interference or delay.” 

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D): “The Criminal Division of my office is statutorily authorized to investigate the allegations and offenses outlined in Senator Shope’s referral. It would not be appropriate or in the best interest of the state to conduct parallel investigations into the same matter. Furthermore, a separate process conducted by the [Maricopa County Attorney or Auditor General] could jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation that my office will now proceed with. Should my office need the assistance of either [the Maricopa County Attorney or Auditor General], we will reach out and let you know.” 

• Treasurer Kimberley Yee (R): “Arizona taxpayers need financial accountability and deserve to know how their money is being spent. Providing state dollars to political donors is a grave misuse of public funds. ‘Pay to play’ and special favors have no place in state government. . . . The Attorney General wrongfully asserted that she has singular control over any investigation. I have requested a separate investigation to be conducted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has separate jurisdiction in this matter and the current investigation by the Attorney General’s Office raises concerns of potential ethical conflicts of interest in representing state agencies and officials involved in the alleged scheme.”

• Governor Katie Hobbs (D): “I’m a social worker, and it is outrageous that I would not act in the best interest of Arizona’s children in foster care. I have always and will always do what is best for Arizonans. . . . There is an AG investigation . . . I look forward to the conclusion of the investigation and finding that we acted in the best interest of Arizona.”

• Senator TJ Shope: “I am deeply disturbed by recent reports in the media outlining what can only be described as a pay-to-play scheme between Governor Katie Hobbs’s Office, the Arizona Department of Child Safety, and political donors. These reports, if verified, raise serious public corruption questions that could implicate several state laws, including potentially: [bribery, fraud schemes, conflict of interest, and illegal expenditure of state monies]. Elected officials are bound by an oath to uphold the laws of our state and to be prudent stewards of taxpayer money.”

• Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell: “I agree with [AG Mayes] that two simultaneous investigations could have a negative impact. Therefore, I am asking that [Mayes] not complicate an already complex investigation by duplicating efforts. . . . This is not an accusation against you or the many fine employees in your office. We, however, are in a time when people are increasingly distrustful of government. Your insistence on being the sole investigator in this matter will greatly contribute to people’s distrust but also to their belief that nothing can change.”

Other Relevant Announcements

• Two groups sue, claim Arizona elections manual violates rights (July 10, 2024) — “Two groups with ties to Republican interests are charging that new election rules adopted by the Democratic secretary of state interfere with free speech and could disenfranchise many Arizona voters. The lawsuit filed in federal court here by American Encore and the America First Policy Institute claims what Adrian Fontes put into the Elections Procedures Manual about harassment of voters and election officials is so broad and nebulous that it could criminalize otherwise legal conduct.”

• Alex Meruelo officially gives up rights to Coyotes franchise (July 10, 2024) — “If the Arizona Coyotes are to come back to the NHL, Alex Meruelo does not plan to be the owner of the new team. He officially relinquished his rights to the Coyotes franchise on Wednesday, according to a report. It brings Meruelo’s rocky road of an ownership tenure over the Coyotes to a close….It’s not clear if or when the Arizona Coyotes will return to the NHL. If they do, it would likely be under a new ownership group willing to build a new arena in the Valley.”

• AG Mayes opens new investigation of private school vouchers (July 11, 2024) — “Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is investigating alleged spending violations in Arizona’s hotly debated private school voucher program, beginning what could be new broad-based scrutiny of the $800 million program. . . . The AG’s office alleges the Arizona Department of Education’s handbook for parents gives bad advice because it allows them to use ESA funds to purchase ‘supplementary materials’ without proof those materials are recommended by curriculums.”

• New voters using Arizona registration forms must prove citizenship, federal court says (July 18, 2024) — “A federal appeals court handed a victory on Thursday to Republicans who have been fighting to uphold a proof-of-citizenship requirement in state law. Going forward, the ruling applies to people who register to vote in Arizona using the state form and don’t provide documents showing they are U.S. citizens. Until now, those voters have been able to register by attesting to citizenship when they sign the state registration form and have been limited to voting only in federal races. That practice will not be allowed, at least not for now, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided.”

• Activists take fight against border-control ballot measure to state Supreme Court (July 20, 2024) — “Activist organizations are appealing a judge's ruling that allowed a proposal making it a state crime to cross the border illegally to qualify for the November ballot. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder on July 12 rejected the organizations’ argument that the measure violated the constitution’s single-subject rule. The appeal is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

— Genesis 1:26-28

The world’s first major civilizations developed along waterways. Rivers are often embanked by fertile soil and floodplains, enabling the development of agriculture. They are conducive to commerce, because navigating a waterway eases the flow of goods, people, and ideas. Civilization flourishes where natural resources are readily available and where these resources can be traded with others. This wisdom holds true from ancient Egypt to modern America; the Nile to the Mississippi.

As mankind developed and matured, technological progress accelerated. Simple inventions like the spoke and wheel slowly but surely extended man’s dominion over the earth. In our industrial and postindustrial era, such innovations are manifold: Rockets fire men upward into the heavens and bring them back again, industrial agriculture enables the growth of crops in regions heretofore inhospitable to life, heavy machinery allows for the construction of continent-cutting canals. Nature, once man’s master, now bows to man’s designs.

Nowhere is this more true than in the American West. And long before European settlers extended their imperial ambitions westward, American Indians bent nature in their favor.

The Hohokam, a tribe that made home in modern day Arizona, constructed the largest pre-Columbian canal system in the Americas beginning in approximately 600 AD. Unable to provide for the food needs of a growing population, the Hohokam irrigated what is now the Phoenix valley. These desert people built out over 100 miles of canal. The flowing water enabled the Hohokam to flourish for hundreds of years, expanding their agricultural output and with it their civilization. At their height, these canals irrigated over 110,000 acres.

Source: David Abbott

The Hohokam vanished suddenly and mysteriously in the early 1500s (some historians posit a devastating drought), but vestiges of their canals lasted long after they disappeared. Many pioneers who flocked to Arizona in the 19th century noticed strange and winding channels tracing their way through creosote bush and cacti. Native peoples living in those parts no doubt shared oral histories of their ancestors constructing these ancient canals. These stories enraptured travelers, but few had the foresight, let alone the resources, to capitalize on these ancient designs.

For a long time, the Phoenix valley was considered an inopportune location for building a major city. Water is a crucial ingredient in cultivating a civilization. Prescott to the north and Tucson to the south were far more populous, and they traded the status of territorial capital until nearly 1890. Prescott was cooler and full of mineral wealth; Tucson had been developed by the Spaniards and remained Arizona’s most populous city through its territorial days and during early statehood. But some innovative settlers looked at the desolate valley’s old and dusted canals as more than a remnant of the past. These were the groundwork for a new future.

Hoping against hope, these pioneers imagined a Phoenix that would not only outpace other American desert civilizations, but emerge as a great American city.

Source: Arizona Archives, Carl T. Hayden Photograph Collection, 2062

“A city will rise phoenix-like, new and beautiful, from these ashes of the past,” wrote Phillip Darrell Duppa, an early Arizona pioneer. And indeed that Phoenix did rise. Following the American Civil War, Jack Swilling founded the Swilling Irrigating and Canal Company. He saw a business opportunity: Ranchers were willing to pay for someone to irrigate the Phoenix valley. Under Swilling’s leadership, the Salt River Valley was irrigated, making it open to agriculture for the first time since the Hohokam built their original canals. Many of the new canals followed the same path as the ancient channels.

Like most civilizations, Phoenix was built at the confluence of waterways: the Gila and the Salt Rivers. But it was not until man unlocked these waterways and their potential that civilization was made possible. Otherwise, the valley may have remained a sparsely populated region of the state, outperformed by its more populous neighbors to the north and south.

Phoenix’s history, as well as recent concerns about drought, have rightly made Arizonans concerned about water usage and skeptical of the long-term sustainability of our rapid growth. They’re right to be worried: After all, our desert civilization would simply not exist without forward-looking water management. The ghost of the Hohokam haunts every Phoenician: Will we suffer the same fate? And yet, such pessimism is far from the whole story.

Source: Shutterstock

Some look at Phoenix and other desert civilizations as monuments to man’s hubris. But I cannot help but find something deeply human in such striving. Despite 120-degree summer heat, despite drought after drought, despite all the vicissitudes of desert life, brave people have decided again and again to risk their lives in order to make a home for themselves among bramblebush and rolling sandstorms.

Our ancestors’ spirit of daring still satiates the Great American West, a sign not simply of man’s hubris but of his invincible soul.

Joe Pitts is a senior columnist at 1912. He serves as Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Western Tribune, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit news media company. He founded the company in 2021 alongside Clay Robinson.

A note to our readers: Today we are joined by Christopher Landau, an American lawyer and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021. In lieu of Claudia Sheinbaum’s ascension to the Presidency of Mexico, we invited him to write for us about the future of U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Arizona relations. We hope you enjoy.

In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably presented her Russian counterpart with a red plastic “Reset” button to symbolize the need for a fresh start in bilateral relations between the two countries. That effort proved futile, but the animating spirit was spot on. Relations between nations, like relations between people, can grow stale over time. A change in administration in one or both countries provides a propitious occasion to take stock of the relationship, identify what is working and what is not, and modify course as necessary. 

Nowhere is such a reset needed more than in U.S.-Mexico relations. There is arguably no other country in the world that more directly affects the security and prosperity of the American people—and that is particularly the case in a border state like Arizona. The relationship with Mexico presents not only challenges in areas such as migration and drug trafficking but also enormous opportunities, especially in the commercial sphere. But U.S. relations with Mexico have been on autopilot for several years, guided largely by bureaucracies on both sides of the border that have their own long-standing agendas and grievances.

This year provides an opportunity for a much-needed reset in relations. Both countries are holding national elections, and indeed Mexico has just elected a new president. Regardless of who wins the American election in November, major changes in the relationship with Mexico are overdue. These changes should focus on the three main issues in the bilateral relationship: migration, drugs, and commerce. All three issues share one common denominator: the 2,000-mile-long land border between the two countries. If that border is not under control, the U.S.-Mexico relationship cannot be healthy.

Migration

Although the migration issue has bedeviled U.S. relations with Mexico for decades, the current challenges are relatively new. Historically, the migratory flows over the U.S.-Mexico border consisted primarily of adult male Mexicans looking for work in the United States. Over time, the U.S. immigration system, both in terms of the law and its implementation, adapted to this challenge, with alternating periods of greater and lesser enforcement on the U.S. side. In those days, if an American administration wanted to address the issue, the tools were there. 

Starting about a decade ago, however, migrant demographics changed completely. For one thing, Mexican outflows declined, reflecting both demographic and economic changes in Mexico. At the same time, migrants from across the globe began to view the U.S.-Mexico border as a back door to enter the United States. These third-country flows started primarily from Mexico’s Central American neighbors (i.e., Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) but have since expanded worldwide. On any given day, Mexicans are now usually the minority of those trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, and represent just a fraction of those trying to enter by claiming asylum. A review of today’s border crossers’ countries of origin looks like a cross section of the United Nations: Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Congo, Cameroon, and Ukraine, to name just a few. 

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

This transformation in migrant demographics creates both challenges and opportunities. It has proven much harder for the U.S. to deport non-Mexicans, especially those arriving as families, and asylum seekers, whose cases often languish for years before an immigration judge can adjudicate them. But, for the first time, Mexico and the U.S. have a common interest in controlling migratory flows, as Mexico has no desire to serve as a doormat for people from third countries seeking entry into the United States. While public opinion in Mexico has historically been pro-migrant, given that most of the migrants historically were Mexicans, that sentiment is changing rapidly along with the migrants’ shifting demographic makeup. Not surprisingly, many Mexicans are unenthusiastic about having millions of unvetted persons cross their national territory to make their way to the United States. 

For that reason, the stage is set for unprecedented cooperation between the United States and Mexico on migration issues, even if the U.S. has to apply political pressure to achieve it. Indeed, during the Trump administration, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador—in response to a threat of tariffs—cracked down on third-country migrants trying to cross Mexico to enter the United States. Even now, after a tsunami of illegal immigration during the first three years of the Biden administration, it appears that Mexico is curbing such third-country migrant flows in response to election-year pressure and inducements from the Biden administration. Clearly, Mexico has shown that, with the necessary political will, it is capable of working with the United States to limit migratory flows of third-country nationals across its territory. 

But it would be a mistake for American policymakers to think that they can outsource enforcement of U.S. immigration laws to Mexico. As long as the United States fails to address the incentives for illegal migration, the migratory flows will continue. Those incentives now consist primarily of the ease of obtaining jobs in the U.S. without lawful authority to work, the absence of any serious threat of deportation, and an overly permissive asylum regime. While it is certainly necessary and proper for the United States and Mexico to work together to curb illegal migration, the U.S. cannot and must not abdicate its responsibility to control its own borders and enforce its own immigration laws. Any U.S. immigration policy that depends on Mexican enforcement for its success is doomed to failure.

Drugs

The challenges and opportunities relating to U.S.-Mexico cooperation on drugs closely track those relating to migration. Drugs have been on the bilateral agenda for some 50 years, but the problem today is very different than in the past. Historically, Mexico was a source of both marijuana and heroin (from poppies grown in the highlands) as well as a transshipment point for cocaine from South America. For most of that period, the Mexican and American governments have pointed fingers at each other, with the Mexicans accusing the Americans of doing nothing to reduce demand (not to mention the flow of money and firearms) and the Americans accusing the Mexicans of doing nothing to reduce supply. 

Within the past decade, synthetic opioids—including, most notoriously, fentanyl—have come to dominate the illegal drug trade. Gone is the need for vast plantations of organic plants—synthetic drugs can be manufactured to any strength in a lab. To make matters worse, these drugs are so potent that a dose of fentanyl the size of a grain of salt or sand can kill an average adult. A single brick of fentanyl can thus contain hundreds of thousands of doses. These synthetic opioids can be pressed into pills or “cut” into another drug like cocaine or heroin to increase its potency. As recently as five years ago, most of the fentanyl entering the United States came directly through the mails from China or was transshipped through Mexico. But as China began to crack down on fentanyl production, Mexican production began to ramp up. Now, fentanyl is both transported through and produced in Mexico from precursor chemicals imported from China. The surge in overdose deaths in the United States over the past decade (almost every year has broken the previous year’s record) can be attributed largely to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. 

While the challenge has changed significantly, the response of the U.S. and Mexican governments has not. Rather, both countries have maintained a “business as usual” approach, light on action and heavy on blaming the other country. For decades, the American approach has been dictated largely by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) within the Department of Justice, which prioritizes urging Mexico to apprehend suspects and extradite them to face justice in the United States. The Mexican approach, in contrast, has been characterized by diffidence, complicity, and resentment toward the DEA. Not surprisingly, these contrasting approaches have stymied progress and increased tension. 

It is time for a new approach, one in which both Mexico and the U.S. stop complaining about the other country and instead do more within their own borders. In particular, Mexico must assert control over the shipments into its ports of fentanyl and its chemical precursors in ships arriving from China. If the Mexicans refuse to cooperate, the U.S. would be fully entitled to take matters into its own hands, including stopping and searching ships on the high seas if necessary. In addition, the U.S. must do more to combat drug trafficking within its own territory—the drugs do not magically transport themselves from the border to the streets of New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia—and stem the flow of illegal money and firearms into Mexico. 

Calls for the U.S. to take unilateral military action in Mexico to capture or kill drug kingpins are an understandable response to frustration at the current impasse. But such unilateral military action in another country might amount to an act of war, and the “forever wars” of recent decades have taught us that not every international problem requires a military solution and that it is much easier to get into a war than out of one. Moreover, such calls for unilateral military action against cartel leaders in Mexico just double down on the DEA’s misguided focus on individual criminals. It is a fantasy to suppose that the Mexican drug cartels will crumble if their leaders are neutralized. To the contrary, history has shown that when you cut the head off the snake, it will grow five new heads. The U.S. must show its resolve, but it must also be smart, and getting sucked into unilateral military action in a foreign country with no clear path to victory is not smart. 

Commerce

A focus on migration and drugs must not obscure the importance of the U.S.-Mexico commercial relationship. Each country is currently the other’s largest trading partner, and that relationship can and should boost prosperity and economic growth on both sides of the border. But that relationship cannot become a mechanism to siphon American jobs to lower-paid workers in Mexico or to open a back door for China to evade tariffs and penetrate the American market. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review in 2026, and it must contain additional safeguards to ensure that it promotes not just free but fair trade.

Trade that is both free and fair will surely promote prosperity. Many Americans do not recognize the vast potential of the Mexican market. Mexico’s population of roughly 130 million people makes it by far the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world, and its close proximity to the U.S. and strong cultural ties make it a natural market for American goods. Mexicans know and value American brands, sometimes more than Americans themselves—which helps explain why brands like Radio Shack and Woolworth, which have vanished north of the border, still exist in Mexico. A border state like Arizona is perfectly positioned to lead the way for American businesses to develop Mexican markets for their goods and services. 

The border itself can serve as an obstacle to commerce if customs and border agents become overwhelmed with stopping illegal migration and drugs. Lengthy delays of trucks carrying goods are not uncommon, and the infrastructure of border crossings is woefully outdated and inefficient. Once again, a border state like Arizona is perfectly positioned to champion the need to upgrade and modernize points of entry along the border. 

The recent landslide election of Claudia Sheinbaum, a close confidante of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and considered by many as his political heir, shows that the Mexican people have opted for a stay-the-course agenda. It remains to be seen whether the American people will make a similar choice in November. But, at least with respect to the bilateral U.S.-Mexico relationship, the present course appears unsustainable. Regardless of who wins in November, the two countries require a “reset” in relations. The challenges are daunting, but the greatest peril of all is to pretend that everything is fine.

Christopher Landau is an American lawyer and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021. You can follow him on X (formerly known as Twitter) here.

On this special edition of the Round Up: Late last month, former President Donald Trump was convicted by a New York City jury on 34 counts of fraud and falsifying business records. The former president’s conviction almost immediately (and unsurprisingly) sparked an intense partisan reaction at both the national and state levels. For Republicans writ large, the conviction mainly served as a representation of a “politicized” justice system. Across the aisle, Democrats have almost unanimously praised the jury’s decision as a long-overdue step toward justice. 

Given Arizona’s status as a key battleground state, Trump’s conviction could play a significant role in determining who returns to the White House next January. In 2020, President Joe Biden won a narrow victory in Arizona, capturing 49.36 percent of the state’s popular vote compared with Trump’s 49.06 percent. With such a slim margin, even a slight shift in voter sentiment could sway the 2024 outcome. 

GOP

Arizona Republicans have largely unified behind former President Trump, condemning what they view as a “politically motivated” prosecution. Each Republican member of Arizona’s Congressional delegation, with the exception of Representative David Schweikert, released statements criticizing the New York court’s decision. (Schweikert has yet to comment as of June 15.) Longtime Trump allies Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, for example, were quick to voice their disapproval on social media. Similarly, fellow House members Eli Crane and Debbie Lesko accused the New York jury of engaging in “election interference.”

Notably, GOP Senate candidates Kari Lake and Mark Lamb were also emphatic in their support for the former President. With Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema set to retire following the conclusion of her term in January, control of the U.S. legislature’s upper chamber could ultimately come down to who wins the Arizona seat. It is a safe assumption that both Lake and Lamb will continue to stand behind the former President — especially in the leadup to the July 30 primary — to ensure base support. Given the former President’s 80 percent approval rating among Arizona Republicans, his conviction will likely remain a key issue in the primary, as well as the general election. 

Here’s what AZ Republicans are saying:

• Representative Eli Crane: “They shamelessly weaponized our ‘justice’ system against their political opponent with a rigged trial. Unjust and un-American. I stand with President Donald J. Trump . . . . Turns out that when the ruling class of Democrats ‘defends democracy,’ it looks a lot like election interference.”

• Representative Andy Biggs: “This politically motivated prosecution has been tainted from the start and spewed forth a stench of prosecutorial persecution until this managed verdict. Prosecutor Bragg’s star witnesses are proven liars, the presiding judge is a Biden donor, and the jury pool overflowed with Trump Derangement Syndrome. District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a campaign pledge to indict President Trump. Bragg took the unprecedented action of converting alleged minor business misdemeanors to 34 individual felonies in an attempt to put President Trump behind bars and humiliate him and his supporters. Today’s verdict is the result of a corrupt DA, a corrupt trial, a corrupt judge, and a corrupt system. President Trump is a fighter, and he will not back down from this challenge. He and conservatives across the nation will continue to defend the Constitution at all costs. We will not be deterred by the radical Left’s weaponizing and corrupting of the judicial system similar to the former USSR to attack all political opponents. I will always fight for our Republic and stand with President Trump.”

• Representative Juan Ciscomani: “Given the political motivation behind it, the outcome of this trial was never truly in doubt. In Arizona, the voters I talk to every day — Republican, Democrat, and Independent — aren’t interested in these games. This is exactly why the American public is losing faith in our judicial system. People want a government that protects them, is accountable, and is transparent. But that is not what we saw today.”

• Representative Debbie Lesko: “Very few people thought Trump would receive any fair treatment in NYC, & the judge & prosecutor proved us right with their historic & unprecedented efforts to interfere in the 2024 election. Americans see through this distortion of justice & will render their own verdict in November.”

• Representative Paul Gosar: “I completely disagree with this shameful verdict. This trial has been a sham from the beginning & while I am angry with the decision, I am not at all surprised by the Democrats’ actions & efforts to silence & destroy their greatest political opponent & threat.”

• Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda: “This conviction is a blatant assault on the principles of justice. President Trump’s trial was marred by bias and a predetermined agenda, stripping him of the fair trial to which every American is entitled to. We stand resolutely behind President Trump and the Arizona Republican Party will not waver in our fight to uphold justice and ensure that political opposition is not silenced through judicial overreach.”

• Senate Candidate Kari Lake: “We just witnessed the most egregious example of election interference and an outright mockery of the rule of law in the 246-year history of our Republic. This entire process right down to the verdict itself has been nothing but a shameful political stunt. This is a non-crime that a Soros-backed DA conjured out of thin air and placed in front of a highly conflicted Democrat judge, all in an effort to imprison Joe Biden’s political opponent. The star witness in this case was a convicted perjurer, whose testimony before the court was one of the most embarrassing debacles ever seen in a courtroom. This conviction should be immediately reversed upon appeal, and this legal tyranny will be summarily rejected by the American people on November 5th.” 

• Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb: “For close to two decades in law enforcement, I have become increasingly troubled by the deterioration of the rule of law in the way of unequal application of justice and the political weaponization of our laws. This case is a perfect example of a politically motivated District Attorney who campaigned on prosecuting President Trump with the sole purpose of inevitably having an effect on the election. All Americans should be concerned about this weaponization of our justice system.”

Subscribe now

Democrats

On the other side of the aisle, state Democrats have unsurprisingly found themselves united in support of the jury’s decision. In statements, Senator Mark Kelly and Representative Raul Grijalva expressed somber tones, emphasizing the notion that “nobody is above the law.” Representative Ruben Gallego, the expected Democratic nominee in the race to replace Senator Sinema, similarly highlighted the importance of accountability and the rule of law.

As of June 13, Representative Greg Stanton is the lone Congressional Democrat to have not yet commented on the ruling. Also of note, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes — the latter of whom just recently announced indictments against eighteen individuals involved in the 2020 alternate elector scheme — have yet to comment on the ruling. 

What AZ Democrats are saying: 

• Senator Mark Kelly: “We are a country of laws, and nobody is above the law. It’s a sad day for our nation to see, for the first time, a former president convicted on criminal charges. I respect the independence of our justice system and the integrity of this trial.”  

• Representative Ruben Gallego: “I respect our justice system and the rule of law. The process played out, and we should always demand accountability from our elected leaders.”

• Representative Raul Grijalva: “The felony conviction of a former president marks an unprecedented event in American history. It is a moment of profound reckoning. It also underscores the importance of accountability and the evergreen truth that no one, regardless of their position or power, is above the law. However, this recent ruling also highlights the fragility of our democracy as at the heart of the conviction was the purposeful deceit of the American people to aid Trump in his election to our nation’s highest office. This was not a witch hunt or rigged trial, but a stark reminder of the need to further safeguard our democratic institutions from deception, erosion, and abuse.” 

Voters

According to both polling and anecdotal evidence, voters are sharply divided over the merits of the conviction and the potential implications for the upcoming 2024 elections. A recent Fox News analysis shows former President Trump with a slight lead over President Joe Biden. Among both registered voters (51-46 percent) and those who “say they are extremely motivated to vote” in the November elections (52-47 percent), Trump leads Biden by five points in Arizona. In this poll conducted after Trump’s indictment, his margin increased by one point since March, to 49-45 percent.

On the two biggest issues for Arizona voters — the economy and immigration — Trump maintains a sizable advantage over Biden, as he leads by 15 points on the economy and 20 points on immigration. Perhaps recognizing his weakness on immigration, just last week President Biden issued a border-related Executive Order and criticized Congressional Republicans for “put[ting] partisan politics ahead of national security.”  

Fundraisers

According to the Trump campaign, almost $53 million was raised online during the 24 hours immediately following the former president’s conviction. This brought the total amount raised by the campaign during May to roughly $141 million. Combined with another $150 million donated by “organizations supporting President Trump,” last month’s total fundraising haul sits at around $300 million. 

After months of outpacing Trump in fundraising, President Biden’s advantage has slowly dissipated. Through April, the Biden campaign’s war chest had a total of $195 million, while Trump’s held roughly $60 million less. Also, according to most reports, President Biden still holds a significant lead in terms of cash on hand over Trump. That said, it remains to be seen if Trump’s conviction will continue to have a large effect on fundraising totals moving forward. 

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

In this week’s Round Up: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes remains in the news. Last week, AG Mayes joined the U.S. and state attorneys general in a lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster over alleged “anticompetitive practices.” Separately, Arizona House Republicans published a report this week accusing Mayes of various abuses including abuse of power and malfeasance. 

Meanwhile, after a week-long delay, the controversial “Secure the Border Act” passed the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate on a narrow, party-line vote. Modeled after Texas law SB 4, which is currently being litigated in federal court, the Secure the Border Act would grant Arizona voters — rather than just the federal government — a say on immigration policy, provided the House vote on the bill is successful. Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, commented that the bill “is not the answer to” Arizonans’ frustration at the border.

House Issues Report on AG Mayes’ Alleged Abuses

This week, the House Ad Hoc Committee on Executive Oversight released a “comprehensive investigative” report outlining alleged abuses by Attorney General Kris Mayes. The 102-page report was published following a two-month-long investigation conducted by the Committee, which was launched by House Speaker Ben Toma in March. The Ad Hoc Committee only included Republican membership, as both Democrats in the legislature, as well as AG Mayes, refused to participate.

According to the House GOP’s release, the report found that AG Mayes has “abused power, neglected legal duties, and committed malfeasance in office.” Committee Chairwoman Jacqueline Parker subsequently concluded that Mayes has “committed impeachable offenses,” including: (i) “unjustifiably threaten[ing] the Mohave County Board of Supervisors with personal criminal and civil penalties if they voted against her wishes”; (ii) “abus[ing] the legal system to attack her political opponents”; (iii) “abus[ing] her power and authority under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act by issuing a consumer alert filled with deception, fraud, and misrepresentations about organizations providing health care service to women”; (iv) “misus[ing] public resources and town halls to threaten public nuisance lawsuits against farmers and advocate for ballot measures relating to groundwater use”; (v) “refus[ing] to defend state laws when challenged in court, including Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act”; and (vi) “hinder[ing] the Committee’s work by failing to timely produce records and information and refusing to explain her actions to the Committee.”

Based on its findings, the Committee recommended that the House “adopt a resolution” to impeach Mayes. Additionally, the Committee urged the House to “appoint[] a board of managers to prosecute” Mayes in a potential Senate trial. Further, the Committee called on the House to “carefully scrutinize all appropriations made to the Attorney General’s Office, continue to exercise oversight over Attorney General Mayes’ abuses of office, and consider legislation in the next legislative session to strengthen and clarify Arizona laws aimed at preventing further weaponization of the Attorney General’s Office.” Although the House could foreseeably vote to impeach Mayes with a simple majority, any prospect of conviction and removal in the Senate is highly unlikely: Conviction requires a two-thirds majority, but Republicans only have a 16-14 advantage in the upper chamber. 

What Arizona lawmakers are saying:

• Committee Chairwoman Jacqueline Parker (R-AZ): “The people of Arizona deserve better from the state’s chief legal officer. I am deeply frustrated and disappointed by Attorney General Mayes’ lack of cooperation with our requests for more information and records concerning the many allegations that came to the Committee’s attention. I am also disappointed that none of my Democratic colleagues decided to participate whatsoever or learn about the proper role of the Attorney General under our state constitution. Despite the Attorney General’s lack of transparency with the Committee, we have seen and heard enough. I hope all House members will thoroughly review the Committee’s report and findings and agree to impeach Attorney General Mayes and consider other measures outlined in our report to prevent future weaponization of the AG’s office.”

• Office of Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “The investigative report released today by the sham House ad hoc oversight committee isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. This partisan stunt by far-right members of the Legislature makes a mockery of real legislative oversight. It is based on nothing more than political and policy disagreements that legislators like Rep. Jacqueline Parker have with Attorney General Mayes.”

Arizona Senate Passes Border Bill

Last Wednesday, the Arizona Senate voted 16-13 along party lines to send HCR 2060 to the state House. Known as the “Secure the Border Act,” the legislation, which provides law enforcement the “authority to arrest individuals who are non-U.S. citizens entering Arizona from Mexico outside of a lawful port of entry,” passed the lower chamber following a brief delay the week prior. Should the bill pass the Republican-controlled House without amendments, Arizona voters would decide whether to approve the ballot measure in November. 

According to the Senate GOP’s release, the bill “include[s] harsher penalties for drug dealers trafficking fentanyl across the border that leads to an overdose death of a person.” Also, HCR 2060 seeks to “establish a state crime of any individuals living in Arizona illegally who knowingly submit false information or documents to apply for government benefits or apply for employment.” Finally, the legislation would “require state agencies administering benefits to use the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, in addition to current state verification systems when determining eligibility of non-U.S. citizens.”

In response to the bill’s passage in the Senate, Arizona Sheriffs emphasized the need for more resources to implement the policy should it become law. For example, Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels commented that while he’s “not against the bill,” law enforcement agencies must be “funded and resource allocated.” “Otherwise,” said Dannels, “it’s not going to work.” San Luis Police Chief Nigel Reynoso was even more critical of the legislation, calling it “a huge burden on [his] agency.” 

What Arizona lawmakers and enforcers are saying:

• Senate President Warren Petersen (R-AZ): “The Governor’s reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of our citizens during this open border crisis our state is currently enduring at the hands of Joe Biden has left us no other option than to send the Secure the Border Act to the ballot. She’s blocked numerous attempts by Republican lawmakers to pass legislation addressing this issue, so we want to empower Arizonans to take matters into their own hands to protect their communities and support our law enforcement. . . .  Sadly, all Senate Democrats voted against the measure. Illegal immigration cost Arizona taxpayers more than $3 billion dollars last year. We’re confident we can offset future losses, reduce crime, and save lives with HCR 2060.” 

• Governor Katie Hobbs (D-AZ): “[HCR 2060] will demonize communities. It will drive businesses out of the state and send jobs to Texas and California. After we fought so hard to remove the black eye from Senate Bill 1070, we’re going to end up right back in that same place. . . . I understand Arizona’s frustration with the lack of federal action on the border and the failure to secure the border. [HCR] 2060 is not the answer to that.”

• Senator Janae Shamp (R-AZ): “The people of Arizona have had enough with Democrats turning a blind eye to the border invasion. The chaos Governor Hobbs and Democrat lawmakers are perpetuating from Biden’s open border fiasco needs to stop, and I’m confident it will when voters make their voices heard in November.”

• Senator David Gowan (R-AZ): “Democrats touting dangerous and misleading rhetoric about the Secure the Border Act, as well as the border crisis as a whole, is reckless for many reasons. They would like citizens to believe the only people entering our country are innocent asylum seekers. . . . According to the most recent federal data, the number of suspected terrorists who have entered our country illegally has spiked over 2,500% during the Biden Administration. Border Patrol agents have apprehended nearly 400 illegal aliens between fiscal years 2021 and 2024 whose names appeared on the terror watch list. This includes Afghan, Pakistani, and Chinese nationals, among many others.”

• Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels: “What we need is the federal government to do their job. . . . What’s scary about this and what the sheriffs are very guarded on and that’s why we’re announcing it now is, if this passes this year in a few months, that the unfunded mandate behind this bill is going to collapse local governments. . . . Again, I’m not against the bill, I have to be an advocate along with my fellow sheriffs to make sure we’re funded and resource allocated otherwise it’s not going to work.”

• San Luis Police Chief Nigel Reynoso: “If the law will come into effect, it will create a huge burden on our agency, because we don’t have the staffing to support that law. . . . If the law will come into effect, it will create a huge burden on our agency, because we don’t have the staffing to support that law.”

• Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos: “I need a lot of things. . . . What I don’t need is, I don’t need the state Senate telling me what I need.”

• Arizona Sheriffs Association President and Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes: “If this is put on the ballot, and if the majority passes this bill, then the elected leaders at the state need to prioritize funding for law enforcement to have any impact whatsoever. . . . Without funding, the ability of the sheriffs to have really any impact is going to be greatly diminished.”

AG Mayes Joins Lawsuit Against Live Nation

Last week, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes joined the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), twenty-eight states, and the District of Columbia in suing Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit alleges that Live Nation — which owns Ticketmaster — has: (i) “[h]armed fans through higher fees and limited the amount of information fans have regarding the ultimate cost to see a show”; (ii) “[m]aintained its monopoly in ticketing markets by locking up venues through restrictive long-term, exclusive agreements and threats that venues will lose access to Live Nation-controlled tours and artists if they sign with a rival ticketing company”; and (iii) “[l]everaged its extensive network of venues to force artists to select Live Nation as a promoter instead of its rivals, maintaining its promotions monopoly.” Moving forward, the lawsuit urges the court to “restore competition in the live entertainment industry” by “[p]rohibiting Live Nation from engaging in its anticompetitive practices” and “[o]rdering Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster.”

According to the Justice Department, the lawsuit finds that Live Nation-Ticketmaster has “unlawfully exercise[d] its monopoly power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” The DOJ argues that U.S. consumers have been “deprived of ticketing innovation and forced to use outdated technology while paying more for tickets than fans in other countries,” in addition to criticizing Live Nation-Ticketmaster for “exercis[ing] its power over performers, venues, and independent promoters in ways that harm competition.” The DOJ’s press release highlights the following tactics, among others, employed by Live Nation-Ticketmaster to “eliminate competition and monopolize markets”: (i) “Retaliating Against Potential Entrants”; (ii) “Threatening and Retaliating Against Venues that Work with Rivals”; (iii) “Locking Out Competition with Exclusionary Contracts”; (iv) “Blocking Venues from Using Multiple Ticketers”; (v) “Restricting Artists’ Access to Venues”; and (vi) “Acquiring Competitors and Competitive Threats.”

The lawsuit is a bipartisan effort, featuring not only Arizona and California but also Oklahoma and Texas.

What people are saying:

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “For years, Live Nation’s anti-competitive and monopolistic practices have resulted in Arizonans paying more to see their favorite artists than they otherwise would have. The uncompetitive live entertainment market created by Live Nation has also left artists and venues without any real choice but to use Live Nation. This lack of competition hurts everyone, from fans to performers — and it’s time to hold Live Nation accountable for its violations of the law.”

• U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland: “We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators. The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

• Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco: “Today’s announcement reflects the latest efforts by the Justice Department to combat corporate misconduct. Our fight against corporate wrongdoing includes an intense focus on anticompetitive conduct — which disadvantages consumers, workers, and businesses of all kinds. Today’s complaint alleges that Live Nation-Ticketmaster has engaged in anticompetitive conduct to cement their dominance of the live concert market and act as the gatekeeper for an entire industry. Today’s action is a step forward in making this era of live music more accessible for the fans, the artists, and the industry that supports them.”

• Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer: “The Department is committed to competition throughout the economy, including in live music. As our complaint alleges, Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopolizes the markets for concerts and other live events at the expense of fans, venues, and artists across the country. The Department is proud to bring this case to restore competition to this industry.”

• Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter: “The live music industry in America is broken because Live Nation-Ticketmaster has an illegal monopoly. Our antitrust lawsuit seeks to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Navajo leaders ratify historic Colorado River water settlement, await action by Congress (May 25, 2024) — “Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren signed a historic water settlement with the federal government on Friday, the day after the Navajo Nation Council approved it unanimously. Speaker Crystalyne Curley said she believes Congress will support the measure, finally bringing the promise of water for thousands of people. The Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, once passed by Congress, will settle the Navajo Nation’s claims to water rights to all Colorado River water in Arizona. . . . The settlement would end long years of legal disputes among the tribes and the state and federal governments and offer certainty for all sides as the rights to water resources are finally resolved.”

• Mexico chooses a new president in June. Here's why Arizonans should care (May 27, 2024) — “On Sunday, June 2, Mexican voters will head to the polls to choose a new president to lead the country for the next six years. Current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is termed out, and the top two candidates are women so Mexico’s next leader is likely to become the country’s first-ever female president. . . . This year, for the first time, Mexican citizens will be able to vote for president in person at designated polling sites outside of Mexico. The Mexican consulate in Phoenix is one of 20 approved sites in the United States and will have 1,500 ballots available for Mexican citizens with a valid electoral ID who did not register to vote abroad by the February deadline.”

• New Canada trade office unveiled in Arizona (May 28, 2024) — “A Canadian trade office is opening in the Valley to bolster ties between Arizona and its second-largest trading partner behind Mexico. The office will be established by the Canadian government and staff about four people, adding to the country’s existing trade office footprint in Southern California. . . . Total trade between Arizona and Canada surpassed $5.3 billion in 2023, according to the Arizona Commerce Authority. Canada businesses and residents have also greatly contributed to the state’s economy — about 100,000 Canadian snowbirds live in Arizona while Canadians add an estimated $2.5 billion to the state’s economy every year.”

• Phoenix council votes to ban people from sleeping near schools, parks (May 29, 2024) — “The Phoenix City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday banning encampments near schools and public parks. In an 8-0 vote, the council approved a policy that declares it unlawful to camp within 500 feet of any local school, daycare facility, transitional living shelter, or park. A violation of the ordinance could result in getting charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor and a fine of $100. . . . Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego said it is not safe for individuals to be living in these areas and the city will continue to help unsheltered individuals with social services. Other members of the council emphasized that the ordinance was not intended to criminalize the homeless population. . . . The ordinance takes effect in September 2024.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

Following the failed Senate vote on the Secure the Border Act earlier this month, the attention of state leaders has (at least temporarily) shifted from immigration to a myriad of other issues. Just this past week, the state legislature took bold steps against the Biden Administration’s new electric vehicle (EV) regulations. Governor Katie Hobbs also responded to recent abortion-related legal developments by issuing an executive order expanding access to contraception for state workers. In addition to initiatives on EVs and abortion, state leaders also took steps to improve access to housing and cut down teen violence. 

In a couple of major moves last week, Attorney General Kris Mayes worked her way into the national spotlight. First, Mayes unsealed the April indictment naming eighteen individuals for participating in the 2020 Arizona alternate elector scheme. While most of the defendants were already publicly known, the decision to unseal revealed multiple prominent names associated with former-President Donald Trump’s campaign. Last week, Mayes also announced that the State of Arizona was suing Amazon over inflated pricing and harm caused to third-party retailers. Further, Mayes sued a local health care facility over alleged elder abuse.

Governor Hobbs Acts on Contraception

On Monday, Governor Katie Hobbs issued an Executive Order intended to “expand access to free and affordable birth control” for women in the state. In response to recent events that have caused “uncertainty” surrounding abortion laws in Arizona — including the Arizona Supreme Court's “ruling on Arizona’s territorial-era abortion ban,” the Arizona Legislature's “unjustified delay in repealing the territorial-era abortion ban,” and the Legislature's “repeated failure to consider and pass measures that would protect the rights of Arizonans to access contraception” — Governor Hobbs announced several contraception-focused initiatives. These actions center on: “making over-the-counter birth control options available at no cost to State employees, reporting on the costs and benefits of requiring expanded contraception coverage for other health insurance plans, and requiring [Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS)] to consider ways it can expand access to contraception for its members.”

Specifically, Governor Hobbs’ executive order aims to protect Opill and other potential FDA-approved “over-the-counter self-administered hormonal contraception” under state law. Hobbs’ order would label federally-approved contraception as a “preventative essential health benefit,” that would be “no cost to participants, with or without a prescription, under the State Plan as soon as practicable.” Under the order, the Arizona Department of Administration would be required to notify State employees “who are or can be enrolled in the State Plan” of the benefit change. Also, the Department must submit a report to the Governor’s office focused on “analyzing the benefits and feasibility of any additional options for expanding access to contraception.” 

• Governor Katie Hobbs (D-AZ): “Access to contraception is a right. While members of our legislature tell Arizona women to put aspirin between their knees instead of taking action to pass the Arizona Right to Contraception Act, I will continue to do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedom and ensure every Arizonan can access contraception.”

Mayes Unseals Alternate Elector Indictment, Electors Plead Not Guilty

Also on Monday, Attorney General Kris Mayes published an unredacted version of the April indictment charging eighteen individuals as part of the 2020 alternate elector scheme. The indictment names eleven individuals who served as alternate electors, as well as seven members of the Trump campaign. Included among the indictments were former Trump administration Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Attorney Rudy Giuliani, who were the only two individuals in this week’s batch that hadn’t been served prior to the original indictments last month. In an interview with CNN, Mayes commented that seventeen of the indicted individuals “accepted service, quietly, professionally, the way this usually happens,” while Giuliani was “absolutely the last of the 18 defendants here in Arizona to be served.” 

In addition to Giuliani and Meadows, Mayes has named the following individuals as part of the “ongoing” investigation: Arizona State Senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern; former state GOP chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael Ward; RNC Committeeman Tyler Bowyer; GOP activist Nancy Cottle; former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon; former Cochise County Republican Committee Chair Robert Montgomery; former Gila County GOP Vice Chair Samuel Moorhead; GOP activist Lorraine Pelegrino, former Arizona GOP Executive Director Gregory Safsten; former Trump lawyer John Eastman; former Trump aide and current Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn; RNC senior counsel for election integrity and former Trump campaign attorney Christina Bobb; former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis; and former Trump campaign aide Michael Roman. 

On Tuesday, eleven of the aforementioned defendants—Giuliani, Kern, both Ward’s, Bowyer, Cottle, Montgomery, Moorhead, Pelegrino, Safsten, and Eastman—pleaded not guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court. Giuliani was the lone defendant required to post bond, most likely due to the “dodgy” behaviors previously highlighted by AG Mayes. According to reports, Meadows, Hoffman, Lamon, and Ellis will be among the next group of defendants to appear in court in June. 

• John Eastman: “I, of course, plead not guilty. I’m confident that, with the laws faithfully applied, I will be exonerated at the end of this process.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “I will not allow American democracy to be undermined…We're here because justice demands an answer to the efforts that the defendants and other unindicted co-conspirators allegedly took to undermine the will of Arizona's voters during the 2020 presidential election. Arizona's election was free and fair. The people of Arizona elected President Biden. Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the State Grand Jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the Presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for, and I was elected to uphold the law of this state.”

AG Mayes Files Multiple Suits Against Amazon

Image credit: AZ Big Media

Last Wednesday, Attorney General Mayes announced that the State had sued Amazon over alleged “unfair and deceptive business practices.” In two separate lawsuits, AG Mayes calls for the e-commerce giant to be “held accountable” for multiple “violations of [Arizona] state laws.” Specifically, Mayes’ lawsuits chastize Amazon for “keeping prices for Arizona consumers artificially high,” and also for “harm[ing] smaller third-party retailers.”

In the first lawsuit, Mayes labels Amazon Prime’s cancellation process as “intentionally confusing and misleading.” Mayes argues that Amazon employs tactics intended to cause misdirection, such as using “misleading wording and graphics,” as well as “emphasizing the benefits lost upon cancellation to dissuade users from leaving the service.” Further, AG Mayes cites Amazon’s use of “dark patterns” to “influence and manipulate consumer choices.” According to Mayes, these methods allegedly include “requir[ing] users to navigate a complicated and manipulative interface with skewed wording, confusing choices, and repeated nudging.”

The Attorney General’s second lawsuit focuses on Amazon’s Buy Box algorithm, which determines what offers are made available to customers via the “Buy Now” or “Add to Cart” buttons. While Mayes noted that the algorithm is supposed to “choose the offer that most consumers would prefer,” her lawsuit asserts that Amazon’s system is “biased toward offers that maximize [the company’s] profits.” Mayes went on to argue that the algorithm actively “mislead[s] consumers,” and also “unfairly impact[s] smaller third-party sellers.”

In response to Mayes, Amazon cited the Attorney General’s lack of engagement with the company ahead of levying the lawsuits. An Amazon spokesperson called the allegedly illegal practices “clear and simple,” before adding that any changes could lead to “higher prices.” 

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “Amazon's anti-competitive and monopolistic practices have artificially inflated prices for Arizona consumers and harmed smaller third-party retailers that rely on its platform…No matter how big and powerful, all businesses must play by the same rules and follow the same laws as everyone else…Arizona consumers deserve to be treated fairly and without deception by big corporations like Amazon, and small businesses deserve a level playing field. Amazon should change its business practices to comply with Arizona law.”

• Amazon Spokesperson Tim Doyle: “We are surprised and disappointed by these cases, which the Arizona Attorney General initiated without reviewing a single document from Amazon, resulting in a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of how Amazon’s businesses work. Prime’s sign-up and cancellation processes are clear and simple by design, meeting a high bar for customer satisfaction well above legal requirements. Customers sign up for Prime because it’s an incredible service and a great value, and they can cancel their Prime membership with a few clicks from the home page. These suits would force Amazon to engage in practices that actually harm consumers and the many businesses that sell in our store—such as having to feature higher prices.”

AZ Republicans Sue EPA, California Over EV Rules

Image credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Last week, Republicans filed multiple lawsuits intended to block the Biden Administration’s recently-released electric vehicle (EV) rules. In their press release, Arizona Senate Republicans criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for “overstepp[ing] its authority” after issuing multiple “mandates that promise to dramatically hurt the wallets of hardworking Arizonans and threaten our state's power supply.” After calling Democrat-supported EV mandates “radical and costly,” the Republicans emphasized the importance of blocking the “massive federal government overreach.”

The first two lawsuits were filed by Senate President Petersen, House Speaker Ben Toma, and the Arizona Trucking Association in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Specifically, these lawsuits aim to prevent the “hasty transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles” propagated by the Biden EPA. In emphasizing their opposition to the administration’s climate change agenda, Petersen, Toma, and the Arizona Trucking Association wrote that the EPA rules  “guarantee[] to raise the costs of everything Arizonans purchase, and without adequate charging infrastructure in place or the necessary power grid capacity.”

In a separate lawsuit filed last week, the Arizona State Legislature joined sixteen other states in suing the State of California over EV-related rules. Their lawsuit seeks to prevent implementation of another slate of rules “​​requiring trucking operators to buy expensive electric trucks and retire their diesel-fueled models, which can cost well over $100,000 more per electric truck.” According to the GOP’s release, the rulemaking would apply to trucking fleets based in Arizona and operating in California, and would subsequently “create dire impacts to the supply chain and dramatically raise costs for Arizona trucking companies that will inevitably be passed onto their customers.” 

• Senate President Warren Petersen (R-AZ): “These rules exceed the EPA's statutory authority, are arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. In the absence of our Attorney General holding the Biden Administration accountable, the Legislature will gladly protect our citizens from this egregious abuse of power.”

• Senator Frank Carroll (R-AZ): “The climate change agenda from Democrats imposes expensive and unattainable goals on the automotive and trucking industries, which will undoubtedly lead to soaring consumer prices. We don't have the infrastructure to power these vehicles, and the average working-class citizen or trucking business can't afford to purchase them.”

• President & CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association Tony Bradley: “The EPA's tailpipe emissions rules prioritize politics over science, posing a greater threat to public health by inflating the cost of essential and everyday goods. Despite the trucking industry's remarkable progress — already reducing 98.5% of emissions — we're dedicated to further advancements through innovation and investment. Yet, the EPA's impractical mandates, targeting a mere 1.5% of remaining emissions, burden us with unrealistic expectations and exorbitant costs. We proudly join the Arizona Legislature in challenging these detrimental regulations.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Gov. Hobbs signs bills that expands backyard casitas, chickens, among other legislation (May 21, 2024) - “Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a handful of bills into law on Tuesday, including several that allow homeowners to do more with their backyards. Hobbs signed HB 2720, which requires cities with a population of more than 75,000 people to allow accessory dwelling units, or casitas, on properties zoned for single-family homes. The bill received bipartisan support in the Legislature, but cities voiced concerns about the expansion of casitas as short-term rentals. The measure was part of a package deal with HB 2721, which changes zoning in certain cities to allow more housing…Hobbs also signed HB 2325, which prevents a city from banning backyard chickens at a single-family home.”

• Gilbert Council approves ordinance changes targeting teen violence (May 21, 2024) - “The Gilbert Town Council Tuesday approved two ordinance changes that target teen violence. The Gilbert Town Council Tuesday approved two ordinance changes that target teen violence. One ordinance bans the sale or possession of brass knuckles to minors, while the other targets unruly gatherings…The council ultimately unanimously approved both. Similar ordinance changes have already passed through a first vote in nearby Chandler.”

• Arizona Attorney General sues health care facility over illegal secrecy clause, elder abuse (May 22, 2024) - “Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing an organization that operates dozens of facilities in the state over its illegal secrecy clauses, officials announced on Monday. Mayes said she is suing to help the family of a man who died from neglect in a long-term care facility…The facility, Sun West Choice Health & Rehab Facility, is near R H Johnson and Meeker boulevards in Sun City West. t’s operated by The Ensign Group, Inc. which has more than 5,000 total beds across its dozens of Arizona facilities, Mayes said.”

• Donald Trump leads in Arizona as Joe Biden support wanes, poll says (May 22, 2024) - “Donald Trump is garnering more support in Arizona than Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a poll released Wednesday. The poll from Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) has Trump at 44% and Biden at 41%, with 15% of likely voters undecided… A pair of national websites that track polls and publish updated averages — FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics — have Trump with about a 4% lead over Biden.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

In today’s round-up: Continuing a trend of recent weeks, Republican state leaders are advancing border-focused legislation that could ultimately appear in the form of a November ballot referendum. Modeled after the controversial Texas law SB 4, the resolution was delayed in the Arizona Senate yesterday (Governor Katie Hobbs previously vetoed similar legislation in March). Building on the immigration theme, a delegation of U.S. House Republicans — including Arizona Representatives Andy Biggs, Juan Ciscomani, and Eli Crane — visited the southern border last week in Cochise County. With the national spotlight on Arizona, the lawmakers criticized the Biden administration over its failure to secure the border. 

As with immigration, abortion has been top of mind of late for state leaders. Earlier this week, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a stay order delaying the effective date of the State’s 1864 territorial abortion ban. Following a request from Attorney General Kris Mayes, the Court’s decision would potentially grant the AG’s office enough time to seek a U.S. Supreme Court review.

U.S. House Hearing in Arizona 

Last Friday, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held an immigration-focused field hearing titled “The Biden Border Crisis: Arizona Perspectives” in Sahuarita, AZ. The focus of the GOP-led forum was to examine the increased levels of illegal immigration, as well as the spread of fentanyl and other drugs that are allegedly driven by Biden administration policies. The following witnesses testified at the field hearing: Chris Clem, retired chief border patrol agent; Jim Chilton, rancher in Arivaca, Arizona; Jacob Kartchner, retired Cochise County sheriff’s deputy, 5th generation Arizona rancher; and Jill Fagan Alexander, mother of fentanyl poisoning victim. 

During the roughly 90-minute public hearing, committee Republicans emphasized their dissatisfaction with policies advanced by the Biden administration. Arizona Representative Juan Ciscomani noted that he believes in the “American Dream,” but emphasized that the “abuse” at the border is “not a reflection of that.” Similarly, fellow Arizona Representative Andy Biggs highlighted the strain on small communities when they “have all of those people coming” illegally across the southwest border. While not a member of the Judiciary Committee, the hearing’s third Arizona representative, Eli Crane, went so far as to call President Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s inaction at the border “treasonous.”

After the hearing, several members of the Judiciary Committee participated in a short press conference. Republicans on the committee were accused of “politicizing” the immigration debate by a Green Valley News journalist, who noted that “drugs come over regardless of who’s in the White House.” Chairman Jordan responded that he and other Republicans were “just talking about the facts” as the U.S. “went in three years and four months from a secure border to no border.” Representative Ciscomani responded to the politicization question by emphasizing that immigration “has bipartisan attention.” Specifically, Representative Ciscomani referenced a recent visit he took to Nogales, Mexico, alongside Representative Greg Stanton (D-AZ) and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also, Ciscomani touched on his bipartisan legislation aimed at “crack[ing] down” on individuals fleeing immigration enforcement officials. 

Last week’s hearing follows several previous visits from Congressional Republicans to southern Arizona over the last year. In February, 11 members of the Congressional Western Caucus — including Representative Ciscomani — received separate immigration briefings from both the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Shortly thereafter, the lawmakers took part in a field hearing of the Federal Lands Subcommittee, part of the House Natural Resources Committee, to “examine the environmental consequences and national security implications of President Biden’s failure to secure our southern federal border lands.” Six months prior, Ciscomani and Representative Biggs participated in a joint subcommittee field hearing on “Biden’s Border Crisis and its Effect on American Communities.”

What U.S. leaders are saying: 

• House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH): “We are back in Arizona where the residents feel the effects of Biden’s open border policies each and every day. . . . Illegal immigration is such a problem [in Arizona] that last year, the Department of Homeland Security closed the Lukeville port of entry for more than a month during the holiday season when legitimate travel crossed the borders at its peak so that CBP officers could help process the huge number of illegal aliens entering the country. . . . [The witnesses] all agree that the border has never been as much of a dangerous disaster as it is today. It went from the most secure border in recent history, to the most unsecure border in recent history in just a matter of days. And ultimately, only Joe Biden is responsible for that.”

• Immigration Subcommittee Chairman McClintock (R-CA): “On Inauguration Day [in 2021], our borders were pretty much secure. The Remain in Mexico policy of the Trump Administration did slow phony asylum claims to a trickle. The border wall was nearing completion. We were actually enforcing court-ordered deportations, returning illegals to their own communities. . . . The laws didn’t change on Inauguration Day, the Presidency did. And on that first day, Joe Biden rescinded the Executive Orders that Trump had issued to enforce our laws.”

• Representative Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ): “The testimonies you’ll hear today will highlight something that we know quite well here in Southern Arizona, and that’s [that] the border is broken. . . . It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, and we can see that with the numbers. . . . The tragic results of what fentanyl has done to our community is something that we never even imagined. From public safety to trade and commerce as well, to other industries like agriculture, no aspect of life in Arizona is untouched by this border crisis. . . . Our local communities feel abandoned by the federal government, and this White House and this Administration are paying the price for their inaction.”

• Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ): “I want to give you some startling figures. From 2018 to 2020, the encounters averaged 60,000 a year in th[e] Tucson sector…In 2021, that number was 190,000. In 2022, it was 250,000 encounters. In 2023, it was 373,000 encounters, and year to date it exceeds 350,000 . . . [T]hey anticipate that it will exceed 700,000 encounters in the Tucson sector by the end of the fiscal year. . . . What does that do to communities?”

• Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ): “I’ve talked to enough families that have lost their loved ones to fentanyl, MS-13 gang members, individuals on the terror watch list. We’ve talked to hospital administrators . . . about how overrun their facilities are. I’ve seen enough of the data, enough of the evidence. Do you guys think that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas don’t know what’s going on? Do you think they haven’t heard enough information yet? I said I’m not going to mince words. I think it’s treasonous.”

Republicans Move on Secure the Border Act

Last Wednesday, Arizona Republicans held a joint press conference to officially announce their intention to refer the Secure the Border Act to voters this fall. Attended by prominent GOP figures including Senate President Warren Petersen, Senate Border Security Committee Chairman David Gowan, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Quang Nguyen, the presser came the same day as the Senate’s hearing on HCR 2060. The Senate Military Affairs, Public Safety, and Border Security Committee approved the resolution with a 4-3 vote last week.. HCR 2060 was stalled in the Senate yesterday however, with State Senator Ken Bennett (R-Prescott) expressing concerns about what the bill would do to DACA recipients (“Dreamers”). 

According to bill sponsor House Speaker Ben Toma, the Secure the Border Act: (i) “creates two new class 6 felonies for illegal aliens who try to submit false documents or information to evade Arizona’s strong E-Verify laws or obtain taxpayer-funded public benefits”; (ii) “requires state and local agencies to verify a noncitizen’s documents and eligibility for benefits through a federal database, known as the SAVE program, whenever noncitizens apply for public benefits”; (iii) “establishes a new class 2 felony with enhanced prison sentences for drug dealers of illicit and deadly fentanyl”; and (iv) “incorporates legislation from Senate Bill 1231 . . . making it a crime for an illegal alien to enter or attempt to enter Arizona at any location other than a lawful point of entry.”

In response to state Republicans’ plans for a border ballot measure, Democratic leaders have been emphatic in their disapproval. Despite the “federal government’s blatant failure to secure Arizona’s border,” Attorney General Kris Mayes commented that she was “also well aware of the funding and workforce shortages already facing law enforcement agencies across [the] state.” Subsequently, Mayes argued that HCR 2060 will create too many “unintended consequences” that will “negatively impact our law enforcement agencies and our communities.” In addition to labeling the potential ballot referral “a political distraction that will sow seeds of bias and fear,” Mayes stated the Republican plan would fail to “fix[] the issues it claims to address.” Similarly, the Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus called the proposal an “unconstitutional, legally unnecessary, intensely divisive, xenophobic measure” pushed by Republicans as an “election-year dog whistle.” Just ahead of Tuesday’s Senate vote, Governor Katie Hobbs joined Democratic members of the Latino caucus in “denouncing” HCR 2060.

What Arizona leaders are saying: 

• Senate President Warren Petersen (R-AZ): “The Biden Administration and our Governor have abandoned their duties to protect our citizens from the border crisis and the heinous crimes infiltrating our state. Soon, the people of Arizona will have the opportunity to take matters into their own hands with the Secure the Border Act, HCR 2060. We’re sending this measure to the ballot so you can make your voices heard in November to safeguard your communities, by classifying illegal border crossings as a state crime that local law enforcement will be able to take action against. We hosted a press conference highlighting our plan, with support from House Republicans, county sheriffs, county prosecutors, and border patrol. HCR 2060 passed out of committee with Democrat legislators irresponsibly voting against it.”

• Senate Border Security Committee Chairman David Gowan (R-AZ): “The Secure the Border Act is in an effort to protect our citizens in Arizona’s communities. This policy was crafted with input from our sheriffs, from our police, from our troopers, from our law enforcement entities. . . . The plan is to adopt a strike everything amendment, which you guys know as HCR 2060. . . . This measure has several elements that once it passes out of this legislature, voters will have the opportunity to consider. . . . [S]ince the Texas law we’re basing this policy off of is currently on hold while it’s being litigated in federal court, these provisions will only take effect in Arizona if we have a court ruling.”

• House Judiciary Chairman Quang Nguyen (R-AZ): “I don’t even recognize the country I immigrated to 49 years ago. Our southern border is wide open, out of control. . . . HCR 2060 is thoughtful and is a comprehensive approach to combating illegal immigration, which is top priority for Republicans in both Houses. . . . [T]his bill is designed to protect the Arizona workforce and strengthen Arizona criminal laws.” 

• House Speaker Ben Toma (R-AZ): “It’s been incredibly disappointing that Governor Katie Hobbs has repeatedly vetoed well-crafted bills passed by the Legislature, designed to secure our southern border and protect Arizonans. The Democrats’ deliberate open-border policies have inflicted devastating, long-lasting harm to Arizona’s communities. People have had enough, and it’s time for their voices to be heard. By listening to our sheriffs, law enforcement officers, and citizens, we have crafted a ballot referral with meaningful reforms to protect the integrity of Arizona’s workforce, strengthen criminal laws, and reinforce the rule of law in this state.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “Yes, we have a fentanyl crisis along with human smuggling and exploitation issues in our state. The Attorney General’s Office alone has confiscated nearly 22 million fentanyl pills and more than 175 lbs. of lethal fentanyl powder just since I took office in January 2023. . . . But further straining law enforcement resources while implementing a measure that could very well lead to racial profiling is not the answer to creating safer communities, not to mention the havoc and harm it would do to our economy, as we saw fourteen years ago with the passage of SB 1070. . . . As Attorney General, I will keep pushing for federal funding for border security, continue targeting the drug cartels, and work closely with other law enforcement agencies to stop the flow of fentanyl into our communities and keep Arizonans safe.”

• Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus: “It will only make our Latino community and other communities of color a target for unconstitutional policing and community harassment based on the color of our skin. If Republicans were serious about addressing the issues at the border, they would encourage Congress to pass the bipartisan federal border security bill that had the votes but was stopped when the MAGA former president decided he could campaign on the issue. . . . Mexico is our largest trading partner, and our economies are intrinsically connected and aligned. This measure shows that Republicans are willing to sacrifice that progress and reverse our economic growth just to divide our state and hold onto power. We cannot, and will not, let hate win.”

• Governor Katie Hobbs and Democratic members of Latino Caucus: “[T]his referral will not secure our border, and it will not make Arizonans safe. . . . We agree more needs to be done to secure the border. Earlier this year, Congress could have passed a border deal that supported law enforcement and helped manage the large influx of migrants, but it was stopped so extremists can leverage the issue for partisan attacks. Businesses, law enforcement, and Arizonans are paying the price for federal inaction and partisan politics. Now, radicals in the state legislature continue to play the same political games in our state. We have worked tirelessly to ensure a safe, secure and humane environment at the border to fix the crisis on our hands, but this extremist referral is not the answer.”

AZ Supreme Court Delays Abortion Ban

On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court granted Attorney General Mayes’ request from late April to delay enforcement of the state’s 1864 abortion ban. The state court’s stay order grants Mayes time to potentially bring a case to the U.S. Supreme Court before the ban is able to take effect. While the stay order says the 1864 territorial ban could be enforced as soon as August 12, Attorney General Mayes stated that the actual enforcement date would be September 26 because of a pending court case. While the Arizona court explicitly granted 90 days for the Attorney General to “potentially file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,” Mayes explained that the separate, ongoing Isaacson v. Arizona case “stipulate[s]” an additional 45 days. Further, Mayes wrote that she will do “everything” in her role to “ensure that doctors can provide medical care for their patients according to their best judgment,” rather than following laws enacted by “men elected to the territorial legislature 160 years ago.”

What Arizona leaders are saying: 

• Attorney General Kris Mayes (D-AZ): “I am grateful that the Arizona Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the 1864 law and granted our motion to stay the mandate in this case for another 90 days. During this period, my office will consider the best legal course of action to take from here, including a potential petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the relevant court orders, the earliest the 1864 law can take effect is now September 26, 2024, counting the 90 days granted by the Court today plus the 45 days stipulated in the separate Isaacson v. Arizona case. I continue to believe this case was wrongly decided, and there are issues that merit additional judicial review.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• ASU PD Chief on paid leave following actions during protests in recent weeks (May 10, 2024) - “Arizona State University’s police chief has been placed on paid administrative leave pending a review of complaints filed against him. The announcement was posted to the school’s website stating Chief Michael Thompson is on leave as officials look into his actions during protests on campus on April 26-27. . . . ABC15 cameras captured Chief Thompson removing tents from the protest area.”

• Public hearing set for ADOT’s $7.9B 5-year construction plan (May 12, 2024) - “A public hearing will be held Friday by the Arizona Department of Transportation on the agency’s recommended statewide program of construction projects over the next five years. . . .  According to ADOT, the 2025–2029 Tentative Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program is a nearly $8 billion program that will invest in Arizona pavement and bridge preservation projects. More than $2.4 billion for these improvements would be funded via the plan during the next five years.”

• Arizona health authorities launch new efforts to prevent suicide (May 12, 2024) - “The Arizona Department of Health Services is launching a new three-year suicide prevention plan, authorities announced last week. . . . The 2024–2026 suicide prevention action plan is the first of its kind in Arizona due to its collaborative approach. . . . Essentially, ADHS wants to fight the issue through partnerships with various local organizations.”

• ​​Hamadeh makes last-ditch effort to fight 2022 Arizona election loss (May 13, 2024) - “Abe Hamadeh is making a last-ditch effort to get a new trial so he can argue that he really didn’t lose the 2022 race for attorney general. In a new legal filing, Hamadeh through his legal team is telling the Arizona Supreme Court he was denied the opportunity to look for and present evidence when he first challenged his loss to Democrat Kris Mayes right after the election. And when he finally did get some of those materials, Hamadeh said, Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen refused to grant him a new trial so he could present all that.”

  This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

In this round up: This past week saw a great deal of action with regard to immigration policy, as Senate Republicans announced plans to revive legislation previously vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs. If passed, the bill – which establishes “border-related crimes with subsequent punishments” in Arizona law – would lead to a potential November ballot initiative determined by voters. Also last week, the Biden Administration announced that DACA recipients will be eligible for health-care coverage under the Affordable Care Act. 

Abortion has remained a priority for state leaders since the Supreme Court’s decision last month to allow an 1864 near-total ban to take effect, and last week was no different. In fact, a two-day stretch during the first week of May saw the Senate passage and the Governor’s prompt signing of legislation that would repeal the abortion ban. Until the recently-passed law takes effect, Attorney General Kris Mayes is likely to continue pursuing certain pathways in court, including requesting stay. 

Abortion Remains Top Priority

Following House passage of HB 2677 on April 24th, the state Senate a week later voted to send the legislation repealing the 1864 abortion ban to the Governor’s desk. The bipartisan 16-14 vote included the support of Republican Senators T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick, both of whom had previously supported a measure providing for the introduction of the repeal bill earlier in April. Just as in the House, Senate Democrats unanimously supported the legislation. 

The next day, Governor Katie Hobbs held a press conference to sign HB 2677 alongside several members of the Democratic Caucus. Joined by bill sponsor Representative Stahl Hamilton among others, Hobbs announced that she was “officially repealing the state’s 1864 abortion ban.” Hobbs first called for the law’s repeal after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (JWHO), and subsequently reiterated calls in her “State of the State” address at the beginning of this year. 

Because the new law will not take effect until 90 days after the state legislature’s adjournment, Attorney General Kris Mayes recently explained that the 1864 near-total abortion ban may temporarily become law beginning June 27. In an “Arizona Abortion Laws” summary released shortly after Governor Hobbs’ signing of HB 2677, Mayes noted that her office is “evaluating all legal options” to prevent the 1864 ban from going into effect. In an interview, Attorney General Kris Mayes echoed calls for the Arizona Supreme Court to “put a stay on” the 1864 law until a repeal “can go into place.” 

In response to these steps taken by the state government regarding abortion, Republican Senate hopeful Kari Lake “officially challeng[ed]” her Democrat opponent U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego to a debate. At a recent campaign event, Lake emphasized that she “want[s] to save as many babies as possible,” before asserting that she will be “the most pro-family U.S. senator in the country.” Lake went on to argue that Gallego has “the most extreme abortion stance of any politician” running for office in the United States. Just hours after Lake’s remarks, a spokesperson for Gallego’s campaign was quoted as saying,“[t]here’s nothing to debate. Kari Lake’s record is clear: she supports the 1864 abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and called on sheriffs to enforce it.” 

What Arizona leaders are saying:

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “This total abortion ban would have jailed doctors, threatened the lives of women across our state and stripped millions of Arizonans of their bodily autonomy. The devastating consequences of this archaic ban are why I’ve called for it to be repealed since day one of my administration. Thank you to Democratic members of the House and Senate for working tirelessly with me to repeal this draconian law…While this repeal is essential for protecting women’s lives, it is just the beginning of our fight to protect reproductive healthcare in Arizona. I will continue to call on the legislature to pass the Arizona Right to Contraception Act and protect IVF from ongoing attacks. And I encourage every Arizonan to make their voices heard this November when abortion rights will be on the ballot.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes: “Today’s vote by the Arizona Senate to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state. I look forward to Governor Hobbs signing the repeal into law as soon as possible. However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year. Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect.”

• Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton: “I’m grateful to sponsor the bill and proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues to repeal the 1864 total abortion ban because it means the people of Arizona will not have their lives and private medical decisions subjected to this brutal and archaic law. The 15-week ban that remains is still a ban, and we have important work ahead to fully restore reproductive freedom in Arizona, but this repeal was the right thing to do and it will save lives.”

• House Democratic Leader Lupe Contreras: “The job’s been done, and it's a proud day for our state and our Democratic team. This repeal is what the people want. The vast majority of Arizonans and the majority of Americans have asked for this. We know this is not the finish line, but this is a step in the right direction, and a step that will save lives.”

• Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Lela Alston: “The 1864 language criminalizing abortion is the language that was reinstated by the Court, and it is the language we repealed today – language written at a time when women could not vote, own property in their own name, hold elected office, enter into a contract and were not welcomed into professional occupations. Republicans are peddling a false narrative that the law passed in 1977 was some sort of a milestone in Arizona history. The milestone in Arizona history was enacted in 1864 and the false narrative being pushed today is because they are aware that their stance on abortion is not supported by voters and more importantly, that subjecting women and doctors to 1864 standards is indefensible.”

• Senator Anna Hernandez: “While I celebrate the community’s work to achieve this repeal and my Democratic colleagues for their continued unity and commitment to responsible leadership in Arizona, our fight for a better collective future is just beginning. The Republican leadership in Arizona has shown that they are unwavering in their desire to strip us of our rights, our voices, and our vote. Our state has lived under their consistent lack of accountability and transparency for too long—the fight for abortion rights has simply shown a bright light on how corrupt they have truly become. Democrats are committed to protecting every Arizonans’ right to decide what their future looks like.”

• Senator Eve Burch: “This is one step toward protecting pregnant patients in Arizona and ensuring that the will of the people is the most important driving force in our proceedings. We are facing a new challenge now. Republican leaders have already begun to spread disinformation about the efforts being made to protect abortion rights in Arizona. Voters will make their own decision, and they deserve to have a clear and honest understanding of their options once this total ban is repealed. We must remember that when laws are put in place to protect abortion access in Arizona, they will be challenged. Those challenges will go right back to the same Arizona Supreme Court that upheld this dangerous Civil War era ban.”

  1912 is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

AZ Republicans Announce Border Ballot Initiative

Last week, Republican Senate President Warren Petersen revealed his intention to put forward a ballot initiative that would give voters increased say over the state’s border policy. In response to Governor Hobbs’ veto of the Arizona Border Invasion Act last month, Petersen is seeking to bypass the need for executive approval with an amended version of HCR 2060. According to the Senate GOP’s release, passage of HCR 2060 would give voters the chance to consider legislation similar to the bill previously vetoed by Hobbs. Now called the Secure the Border Act, the measure would “establishin Arizona law several border-related crimes with punishments,  empowering local law enforcement to protect [the state’s] citizens.” 

Based on Texas’ SB 4, the Secure the Border Act would grant local, county, and state law enforcement officers the authority to “arrest any non-US citizen who illegally enter[s] Arizona outside of a port of entry,” in addition to “those who have previously been ordered to leave but are refusing to comply.” While the Texas law is currently being litigated in federal court, Arizona Republicans are seeking to advance nearly identical provisions. HCR 2060 was read for the first time in the Senate last week, and is now being followed with a joint Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Public Safety and Border Security, and House Judiciary Committee hearing today. 

What Arizona leaders are saying:

• Senate President Warren Petersen: “Arizona Democrats in power have shown us time after time, with every 'no' vote and veto of our border security legislation, that they are not concerned for the safety and well-being of our citizens, nor have any care for the wasted taxpayer dollars being used to mitigate the fallout from Biden's border invasion. Their priorities are tone deaf to the realities Arizonans are facing, and this will be confirmed when voters have the chance to take matters into their own hands this November. Republicans are committed to securing the border and returning sanity to our state after the chaos Democrats have willfully perpetuated with our current Governor leading the charge.”

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “I think this is [Republicans] not being focused on the issues that matter or real solutions to the issues that we're facing. Certainly the border is a critical issue, which is why I've been working from day one to work with communities on the border about what we can do to help solve the issues they're facing because of the federal government's failure on this issue. I understand the frustration that leads to legislation like this, but this is the same bill that they sent to me and I vetoed, and it's not going to solve the problem. In fact, many of the law enforcement in those communities were not supportive of this legislation.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Arizona State University won’t tolerate disruptions at graduation ceremonies (May 3, 2024) - “Disruptions won’t be tolerated at Arizona State University’s spring 2024 graduation ceremonies, the school said. ‘Individuals who engage in inappropriate or disruptive behavior will be removed from events and venues. This has been the message for decades of graduations at ASU,’ Veronica Sanchez, the school’s director of media relations, said in a video distributed to local media outlets…While there have been concerns about pro-Palestine campus protests across the nation potentially disrupting graduation events, ASU said its usual security policies will be enforced.”

• DACA recipients in Arizona will be eligible for ACA coverage starting in November (May 3, 2024) - “On Friday morning, the Biden administration announced DACA recipients will be eligible for health-care coverage under the Affordable Care Act. A press release from the White House estimates that 100,000 people stand to benefit. The latest estimates, from last year, showed there were nearly 580,000 people with DACA status in the United States. About 22,000 were in Arizona.”

• Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen defends 'Bidenomics' during Mesa visit (May 4, 2024) - “Janet Yellen, President Joe Biden’s Treasury secretary, made the case for her boss’s economic agenda, dubbed ‘Bidenomics,’ and responded to criticism of the policy program as its key projects start to take shape on the ground in Arizona. The Grand Canyon State is ground zero for some of the president's big economic priorities. Accelerated by Biden-signed laws, the state is on track to become a hub for semiconductor or ‘chips’ manufacturing and has seen widespread investment in green technologies.”

• Maricopa County Attorney emphasizes that the fentanyl crisis in Arizona remains prevalent  (May 7, 2024) - “Despite advancements in fentanyl education, Arizona still grapples with a significant issue, as noted by Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell on Fentanyl Awareness Day…In addition to a surge in the influx of fentanyl entering the state, 2023 saw a record number of prosecutions related to the synthetic opioid with over 7,800 submittals, a nearly 20% increase from the year prior. As of April, over 2,200 fentanyl cases have been filed, prompting the county attorney’s office to anticipate surpassing last year’s figures.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

In this round up: Continuing a trend in recent weeks, leaders in both parties have prioritized abortion policy following the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision allowing the state to enforce an 1864 ban. Potential policy solutions are beginning to take shape, with measures currently advancing in both chambers of the state legislature. Given the partisan makeup of both houses, Democrats will likely need to gain the support of two to three Republicans for any abortion legislation to have a shot at passing.

After a years-long investigation, Attorney General Kris Mayes officially indicted nearly twenty people associated with President Trump’s 2020 campaign in Arizona. Following Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada, Arizona became the fourth state to levy charges against electors who falsely cast ballots for former-President Trump during the last Presidential election. With another election just over six months away — likely featuring the same two major candidates as last time — Arizona will remain in the national spotlight for the foreseeable future.

Arizona Abortion Votes

Last Wednesday, the Arizona House voted in favor of legislation that would repeal the state’s 1864 abortion ban. Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton’s HB 2677 passed with a 32-28 vote and has since been transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Three House Republicans — Representatives Matt Gress, Tim Dunn, and Justin Wilmeth — joined with Democrats to ensure the bill’s passage. 

The following day, Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes jointly announced the launch of a website to “educate Arizona women about their healthcare rights and resources” following the Supreme Court’s decision. ReproductiveHealth.az.gov includes information on “where to find reproductive healthcare providers and resources” and a “Frequently Asked Questions” section. Additionally, the website notes that the “[...] earliest the 1864 near-total abortion ban could take effect is June 27, 2024.”

Today, it is likely that HB 2677 will receive a vote in the Senate. While the Senate version of the legislation — which was sponsored by Senator Anna Hernandez — has received its first and second reading on the floor, a third reading is necessary for passage. Senate Democrats will need to secure votes from at least two Republicans for the repeal to pass. Republican Senators Shawnna Bolick and T.J. Shope stand out as two potential flip candidates, especially given their support of a measure providing for the introduction of the repeal bill earlier this month.

What Arizona lawmakers are saying:

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “I am glad to see the House follow my calls to repeal the archaic 1864 total abortion ban that could jail doctors and endanger the lives of women in Arizona. I’m thankful to House Democrats who worked relentlessly for years to repeal this draconian ban. Now, the Senate must do the right thing and send this repeal to my desk. Make no mistake about it, radical legislators got what they wanted with the 1864 total abortion ban. I have had to veto legislation attacking women’s rights and threatening access to IVF, and this legislature still refuses to take action to guarantee access to contraceptives. As long as I am Governor, I will do everything in my power to protect and expand reproductive freedom, and I will continue to serve as a backstop to the harmful legislation being pushed by extremists in an attempt to control women’s bodies. But there is more that needs to be done. I encourage every Arizonan to make their voice heard at the ballot box this November as Arizonans decide on enshrining reproductive freedoms in our state’s constitution.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes: “I am grateful that sanity prevailed in the Arizona House today with the repeal of the draconian, near-total 1864 abortion ban. That 160 year-old-law that criminalizes doctors and nurses for caring for their patients and endangers the lives and health of woman [sic] across our state has no place in [sic] the 21st century. I call on the Senate to quickly follow suit and join the House in repealing this law. Unfortunately, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect quickly, we may still be looking at a period of time when the 1864 law could potentially take effect. My office continues to look at every legal option available to prevent that from ever happening.”

• House Speaker Ben Toma: “It would have been prudent and responsible to allow the courts to decide the constitutionality of the pre-Roe law. Instead, we are rushing to judgment for reasons I simply cannot understand. I fervently disagree with my Democrat colleagues who advocate for extremism through unlimited, unrestricted, and unregulated abortions. Abortions are not healthcare. Abortion kills life. Abortion kills the most vulnerable members of our society. Just because the mother of that child may not want that child, does not mean that the child is not precious and have inherent value…I feel compelled to reiterate my personal view that this decision to repeal the abortion ban in Arizona effectively means that we are allowing the murder of unborn children up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. I call on Governor Hobbs to rescind her executive order stripping county attorneys of their authority to prosecute abortion-related crimes.”

• House Democratic Leader Lupe Contreras: “We did what the people wanted us to do. The vast majority of Arizonans want this cruel and out-of-step ban repealed, and that’s where we are now headed. I am proud of our caucus for staying focused, staying disciplined and sticking together to make the vote on our bill happen. Now we wait for the Senate to do the right thing and get this to the Governor's desk. If this ban is repealed, it gives our allies on this issue an excellent opportunity to argue in court for an injunction to keep the ban from ever taking effect, even temporarily, until the repeal officially becomes law 90 days after we adjourn the session.”

• Representative Matt Gress: “Today, the Arizona House acted on a bipartisan basis to repeal our state’s territorial abortion law that is unworkable and out of line with the values of Arizonans. As someone who is both Pro-Life and the product of strong women in my life, I refuse to buy into the false notion pushed by the extremes on both sides of this issue that we cannot respect and protect women and defend new life at the same time. I urge my Senate colleagues to take up this matter quickly.”

Mayes Hands Down Indictments

Last week, Mayes announced two waves of indictments related to the “fake elector scheme” conducted by supporters of former President Trump during the 2020 presidential election. On Wednesday, Mayes announced charges — including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy — against a total of 11 Arizona Republicans. Just two days later, Mayes announced that the state’s grand jury had returned additional indictments against five people associated with the former president. Between the two sets of indictments, the following individuals were implicated: State Senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern; former state GOP chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael Ward; RNC Committeeman Tyler Bowyer; GOP activist Nancy Cottle; former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon; former Cochise County Republican Committee Chair Robert Montgomery; former Gila County GOP Vice Chair Samuel Moorhead; GOP activist Lorraine Pellegrino, former Arizona GOP Executive Director Gregory Safsten; former Trump lawyer John Eastman; former Trump aide and current Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn; RNC senior counsel for election integrity and former Trump campaign attorney Christina Bobb; former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis; and former Trump campaign aide Michael Roman. According to Mayes’ office, additional defendants have been indicted, but they “have not yet been served their indictment.” 

Following the indictments, Democrat State Senator Brian Fernandez sent a letter to Senate President Warren Petersen requesting disciplinary action against Senators Hoffman and Kern. In the letter, Fernandez wrote that their joint indictment “profoundly challenges the integrity and trust that serves as the bedrock of our esteemed institution.” Noting the “gravity of the charges,” Fernandez urged Petersen to remove Hoffman and Kern “from all committee assignments […] pending the resolution of their legal proceedings.” In response to Fernandez, Petersen commented that Arizona Democrats “seem to have forgotten our citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they have the right to due process.” Further, Petersen emphasized that “[...] there must be a conviction from a court of law or recommendation from the Senate Ethics Committee before taking any rash action.” 

What Arizona lawmakers are saying: 

• Senator Brian Fernandez: “This moment demands our utmost attention because the world is watching us. Attorney General Kris Mayes announced yesterday that the State Grand Jury returned indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona, including State Senators Jacob Hoffman and Anthony Kern. The charges include fraud, forgery, and conspiracy — class 2, 4, and 5 felonies. In the letter sent to President Petersen, I express that we must uphold the presumption of innocence afforded to every American; however, the potential repercussions of these accusations on the public’s perception of the legislative legitimacy are too consequential to overlook. I look forward to the President’s response and will continue to update the people of Arizona on this ongoing matter.”

• Senate President Warren Petersen: “[State Senator Brian Fernandez] and his colleagues in the Democrat party seem to have forgotten our citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they have the right to due process. Not one of our members has been convicted of any crimes, nor any ethics violations, prompting the necessity of any punishment. I believe in upholding the Constitution, and I believe in the rule of law, and that means I will not infringe on anyone’s fundamental right to a fair and impartial trial or hearing. There must be a conviction from a court of law or recommendation from the Senate Ethics Committee before taking any rash action. It wasn’t that long ago that there were accusations at the Capitol about Senator Fernandez harassing someone. Fortunately for Senator Fernandez, we allowed for due process without making knee jerk decisions on punishment. Unlike some people, we will not base questions of justice on political party.” 

• House Democratic Leader Lupe Contreras: “The 2020 election was free and fair, and won squarely by President Joe Biden. The effort to send fake alternative electors to Washington, D.C., in the midst of an orchestrated and violent insurrection was a desperate, shameful and blatantly illegal attempt to hold onto power despite the will of the American people. An empaneled Grand Jury of Arizona citizens agreed with this assessment, and we appreciate Attorney General Kris Mayes for bringing forward these indictments and for her efforts to hold accountable those who would illegally undermine our democracy and American institutions. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that two of those indicted are currently serving in the Arizona Senate. If they had any integrity, they would resign immediately.”

• Senate Democratic Leader Mitzi Epstein: “I appreciate Attorney General Mayes’ leadership in ensuring that Arizona’s fake electors are held accountable. The individuals who played into and spread the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump are dangerous to our nation’s democracy. The only way to prevent these types of future assaults on our republic is to send a clear message to those attempting to derail peaceful transfers of power: if you attempt to subvert the will of the voters and undermine our state or federal elections, there will be legal consequences.” 

• Senate Democratic Assistant Leader Juan Mendez: “Fake electors and insurrectionists have no place in our legislature. Today, the State Grand Jury and Attorney General Mayes did the right thing by holding the defendants who were involved in this conspiracy accountable for their actions. This is a strong first step in preventing future attacks on our democracy and ensuring that Arizonans are represented by people who will give them a voice at our Capitol, safeguard the basic integrity of [our] state legislature, and protect the rights of every eligible voter in Arizona.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Arizonans Celebrate Colorado River Tribes’ Landmark Water Agreement (April 26, 2024) - “Arizona’s Governor and [Arizona Department of Water Resources] Director joined with the Colorado River Indian Tribes and top federal officials on Friday in signing documents implementing an agreement allowing the tribes to market portions of their Colorado River allocation to water users off-reservation. The signing event represents a critical step to implement the Colorado River Indian Tribes Water Resiliency Act of 2022. Present at the event to execute the agreements at the Bluewater Resort on the CRIT reservation near Parker were Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, as well as Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton and Tom Buschatzke, Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources.”

• 72 people arrested during pro-Palestinian protests on ASU campus (April 26, 2024) - “72 people were arrested early Saturday morning amid a pro-Palestinian protest at Arizona State University that started Friday over the Israel-Hamas conflict. ASU confirmed the arrests Saturday morning, saying the group set up an unauthorized encampment in violation of university policy. The protesters are asking for ASU to cut ties with Israel and for ASU President Michael Crow to resign among other things…At colleges across the United States, students are leading protests against the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as well as institutional ties between universities and Israel. These protests have prompted the deployment of law enforcement in many cases, resulting in the arrests of hundreds of students and some injured officers on campuses.”

• Apache Stronghold stakeholders ask 9th Circuit to revisit Oak Flat case (April 29, 2024) - “The [9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] upheld a ruling last month that the site of the planned Resolution Copper mine is not subject to laws protecting religious freedom. At the heart of the case lies the sacred site of Oak Flat in the Tonto National Forest that the court authorized the transfer of to a foreign mining company last month. The Tohono O’odham Nation and Native American rights groups asked the court to rehear the case. Last March, a panel voted 6-5 to uphold a decision in favor of the mine. The tribe argues the ruling propagates a legacy of injustice and control of tribes’ sacred places. And it argues that the 9th Circuit holds a disproportionate authority over tribes because more tribes are subject to the court’s decisions than any other appeals court in the country. The sacred site is also on top of the world’s third largest deposit of copper ore.”

• Gilbert seeks members for advisory task force to tackle teen violence (April 29, 2024) - “As Gilbert continues to grapple with teen violence, the town is seeking members of the public to serve on an advisory task force. The 11-member group will be a mix of adults and teens, including at least four current high school students. Town Councilmember Kathy Tilque said the council will review applications and help choose finalists, who will then be interviewed…Applications must be submitted by May 6.”

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.

A note to our readers: Today, we are joined by Tom Simplot, former Director of the Arizona Department of Housing and former member of the Phoenix City Council. Simplot argues that despite Arizona’s significant investment in combating homelessness, the crisis continues to worsen, demonstrating the complexity of resource allocation. He highlights the findings from a Common Sense Institute report which reveals both the growing homeless population and the escalating costs associated with addressing this issue.

As a reminder, opinion columns like this differ from our weekly round-ups, which are straight news. We hope you enjoy!

Arizonans desperately want action to solve our homelessness crises.

That’s one of the big takeaways from a recent report by the Common Sense Institute (CSI) that takes a deep and comprehensive look at homelessness in Arizona. After all, if we didn’t care, our state wouldn’t be collectively spending more than $1 billion fighting this humanitarian public health and public safety crises.

But as the report also illustrates, how we take action and how we best deploy this massive amount of resources is much more complex and challenging than meets the eye.

I’ve been involved in this issue for more than two decades, first as a member of the Phoenix City Council and more recently as Director of the Department of Housing. I’ve worked with both parties and with myriad stakeholders who intersect with this issue. And I was grateful to serve as an expert reviewer of this new CSI report, the first of its kind in Arizona.

For those of us with a passion for helping those in dire situations, this report shows that there is much work to be done. Despite record investments, the problem is getting worse – not better.

Among CSI’s findings:

• A Massive and Growing Investment: Arizona’s annual spending on homelessness now ranges between $933 million and $1.1 billion. Despite this, the state’s population of individuals experiencing homelessness has increased disproportionately more than the state’s overall population growth.

• Increasing Homeless Population: The number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Arizona exceeds 14,000, and this population has surged by nearly 30 percent over the past three years.

• Disproportionate Spending: Spending per individual experiencing homelessness far exceeds the median annual rent in Greater Phoenix, yet the number of homeless individuals without shelter has nearly tripled in the last decade.

• Mortality Rates: Tragically, the rate of deaths among individuals experiencing homelessness is increasing at a faster pace in Arizona than the rate of homelessness itself. An estimated 81 percent of deaths in people experiencing homelessness were drug-related, versus approximately 21 percent of overall deaths.

• A Growing Sector of Employment: The homelessness sector in Arizona is comparable in workforce size to the state’s mining and logging sector and spends about $44,300 annually per homeless person. In fact, CSI identified at least 167 nonprofit organizations – staffed by 52,000 employees and volunteers – and 25 local governments providing homelessness services in Arizona today.

So where do we go from here? How can we help Arizona cities from making the same mistakes that have been made by Portland, Seattle, San Francisco or Los Angeles? How can we lift those experiencing homelessness out of their plight and help them find a better life?

Again, the data in the report offers a path forward.

Based on medical examiner data, CSI estimates that 81 percent of deaths in people experiencing homelessness were drug-related, versus approximately 21 percent of overall deaths. Homeless individuals are more often the victims of violent crime, including homicide. For example, studies suggest the rate of violence victimization among people experiencing homelessness ranges from 14 percent to 21 percent, versus an estimated 2.3 percent for the population overall.

The homelessness crisis isn’t going away. It’s a national problem and Arizona is grappling with it like never before. CSI’s report is our first look at where the dollars are going. Unfortunately, Arizona has work to do.

Lawmakers would be wise to read this report, work to create a better system tracking the flow of money, tie investments to benchmarks and metrics, and add a dose of tough love to our approach. At the end of the day, this is about the lives of our fellow citizens. Arizonans would surely invest even more dollars, but they also want transparency and progress.

Tom Simplot is former director of the Arizona Department of Housing and a longtime member of the Phoenix City Council. Tom’s career in housing has spanned several decades as an attorney, former real estate agent and former owner of affordable rental properties in Arizona. Tom is also past president of the Maricopa County Board of Health and the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority. 

Good morning, and thanks for opening this week’s Round Up. If you haven’t already, subscribe to our newsletter here so that you can receive all of our context directly in your inbox. 

If you’ve been enjoying our work so far, please consider donating—your donation is tax-deductible, and all of our revenue goes toward building the future of local journalism in Arizona and the broader Southwest.

As always, please reach out if you’re interested in publishing a column or think there’s a story that deserves covering. We’ll see you around soon.

— The 1912 Team

In this week’s Round Up: Over the last month, both abortion and the status of the Arizona Coyotes have served as two of the biggest stories in the state. While the Coyotes have officially moved north to Utah, the potential for an NHL replacement expansion team by 2029 makes it likely that hockey will remain a main area of focus for local leaders for some time. Similarly, abortion is likely to remain a highly prevalent issue as policymakers are working to find solutions following the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling. 

At the federal level, Arizona Republican lawmakers — notably Representatives Gosar, Biggs, and Crane — have disagreed with continuing to fund allies such as Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Citing concerns over both the southern border and government finances, the Arizona lawmakers have been vocal in opposing the policies of the Biden Administration, as well as Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Signaling his displeasure with Johnson, Representative Gosar recently went so far as to join a resolution that would remove the Speaker from office. While the resolution will likely go nowhere, it symbolizes an existing — and perhaps even growing — rift in the Republican party regarding the role of the U.S. in global affairs. 

Arizona Lawmakers Oppose Foreign Aid Package

In response to ongoing wars involving American allies Ukraine and Israel, the U.S. House of Representatives voted last week on a $95 billion foreign aid package. In addition to providing assistance to Taiwan, the aid package — which was advanced with the support of 165 Democrats and 151 Republicans — provides over $60 billion for Ukraine and $26 billion for Israel. The Senate will most likely vote on the aid package this week.

The aid package includes separate bills for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific — a deliberate move to gain votes on individual packages from the hard-line Republicans in the House with concerns about funding Ukraine. Even still, Arizona Republicans Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and Eli Crane voted to oppose each measure. Also, Gosar later joined fellow House Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie in supporting a motion to vacate the office of the Speaker of the House. The lawmakers’ House Resolution 1103 comes amid increasing levels of dissatisfaction with Speaker Mike Johnson among House conservatives, primarily due to his handling of foreign aid and border policy.

What Arizona House Republicans are saying:

• Representative Paul Gosar: “Congress cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the consequence of Biden’s disastrous open border policies, nor can it idly wait for Biden to halt this invasion through executive fiat. Congress has the responsibility to solve this crisis. Yet rather than spending the resources to secure our southern border and combating the invasion of 11 million illegals and despite repeated promises there would be no additional money going to Ukraine without first securing our border, the United States House of Representatives, under the direction of the Speaker, is on the verge of sending another $61 billion to further draw America into an endless and purposeless war in Ukraine. I have added my name in support of the motion to vacate the Speaker. Our border cannot be an afterthought. We need a Speaker who puts America first rather than bending to the reckless demands of the warmongers, neo-cons and the military industrial complex making billions from a costly and endless war half a world away.” 

• Representative Eli Crane: “My constituents sent me to D.C. to do everything in my power to stand up to the status quo. As such, I won’t rubber stamp roughly $100 billion more in deficit spending to secure the borders of foreign nations while the swamp refuses to secure our own. It doesn’t get any more America last.”

• Representative Andy Biggs: “In order to get to the Ukraine funding, our speaker has leveraged funding for Israel. And in order to get his Israel package so the Democrats would vote for it, he’s actually giving money to the terrorists who are attacking Israel. …In order to get any of this through, we’re going to provide money to terrorists. That’s what a yes vote is. I don’t know how I can do that, not when we’re borrowing money to give that to the terrorists.”

Lawmakers Consider Abortion Measures

Last week, Arizona House Republicans blocked a potential repeal of the state’s 1864 abortion law. In four votes on procedural motions, the House tied 30-30 and thus prevented a potential repeal bill from reaching the chamber floor. All Republicans in the House — except for Representative Matt Gress — opposed a vote on HB 2677. Last week, a repeal advanced in the Senate with Republican Senators T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick joining Democrats. A vote on that legislation will likely occur in the Senate in the coming weeks. 

In a letter sent last week to Arizona health care leaders, Attorney General Kris Mayes clarified that the state’s “territorial-era ban on abortion” reinstated by the Supreme Court “could become enforceable” no earlier than June 8, 2024. Mayes further emphasized that her “office continues to explore all legal options available to prevent the 1864 near-total abortion ban from taking effect.” Joining Mayes, Governor Katie Hobbs signaled her displeasure with Republican lawmakers in a statement. 

What Arizona lawmakers are saying:

• Governor Katie Hobbs: “Republican extremists in the House have yet again failed to do the right thing. In just one week living under this new reality, women, doctors, and healthcare providers have already begun to feel the devastating effects of living under a total abortion ban. We cannot go on like this. I will continue to call on the Legislature to do its job and repeal this law. In the meantime, I remain committed to protecting the freedoms of every single Arizonan, and I am working to make sure women are able to access the care they need. A law from 1864 written by 27 men cannot be allowed to govern the lives of millions of Arizona women. It’s time to put politics aside and do the right thing.”

• Attorney General Kris Mayes: “Once again, the Legislature has failed to repeal the outrageous 1864 near-total abortion ban. It is abundantly clear that the majority party wants this 160-year-old law to take effect. Complicated or complex decision making is not required to repeal this insane law that doesn’t even include exceptions for rape or incest. Shame on the Republicans for risking the health and lives of women in this state and for criminalizing doctors and nurses for caring for their patients. My office is actively working on our strategy to fight back against this abhorrent law. We will have more to say in the coming days and weeks.”

NHL Confirms Plans for Future Arizona Hockey Team

Soon after the Arizona Coyotes were officially relocated to Salt Lake City, former owner Alex Meruelo was joined at a press conference by National Hockey League (NHL) Commissioner Gary Bettman. Facing questions regarding the Coyotes’ pending move to Utah, Meruelo and Bettman reiterated plans for an expansion team in the desert by 2029. According to reports, the NHL has given Meruelo five years to construct a state-of-the-art arena in metro Phoenix. While Tempe voters rejected ballot propositions paving the way for a new arena last year, Meruelo’s attention has now turned to a piece of land located at Loop 101 west of Scottsdale Road. This 100-acre plot of land in northeast Phoenix is set to be sold at a June 27 public auction, with the initial bid price starting at $68.5 million. 

What hockey insiders are saying:

• NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman: “The NHL’s belief in Arizona has never wavered. We thank Alex Meruelo for his commitment to the franchise and Arizona, and we fully support his ongoing efforts to secure a new home in the desert for the Coyotes. We also want to acknowledge the loyal hockey fans of Arizona, who have supported their team with dedication for nearly three decades while growing the game.”

• Former Coyotes Owner Alex Meruelo: “Moving from Glendale to Tempe was the right decision. Our revenues far exceed what we ever did in Glendale. . . . Given the right location and the new arena I believe [the] Arizona Coyotes could be top ten in team generating revenues. . . . My goal will be to build a first-class sports entertainment district without seeking financial support from the public — no taxpayer dollars, no tax breaks — but I do need the support from the community and its leaders with the processing of the development.”

UArizona Projects Reduced Budget Deficit

Last Thursday, University of Arizona President Robert Robbins announced his outlook for the school’s FY 2025 operating budget. In a statement released shortly ahead of the Arizona Board of Regents’ (ABOR) April meeting, President Robbins relayed a University projection that next year’s budget deficit will see a near $110 million reduction. Robbins called this “preliminary” deficit reduction from $162 million to $52 million “encouraging news” following months of uncertainty regarding the University’s expenses. In his statement, Robbins noted that the “largest portion” of budget savings will be possible due to “reductions in administrative expenses.” The announced deficit reductions come as part of the University’s financial action plan, which was released in response to a $177 million budget shortfall. ABOR will “continue to refine” the FY 2025 budget framework over the summer. 

• UArizona President Robert Robbins: “This anticipated improvement of $110 million in the University’s deficit is preliminary, but marks considerable progress in the implementation of our financial action plan. This is the result of concerted efforts by deans and leaders across the University who worked diligently on their budget plans to address spending trends and to significantly reduce the deficit. . . . As a result of our budget decisions, the University will be in a position to allocate sufficient funds to ensure no college starts FY 2025 in a budget deficit. . . . We remain committed to achieving strong financial health and ensuring the ongoing success of our teaching, research and outreach mission. There is still budget work to do, but we are grateful for everyone’s hard work and the progress to date.”

Other Relevant Headlines

• Violations occurred in Arizona State football program (April 19, 2024) — “Arizona State and four individuals who previously worked for the school’s football program have reached an agreement with the NCAA enforcement staff on recruiting violations that occurred within the program and the appropriate penalties for those violations. A Committee on Infractions panel has approved the agreement. Two individuals are contesting portions of their respective cases via written record hearing. After the written record hearing, the committee will release its full decision. The agreed-upon violations included impermissible in-person recruiting contacts during the COVID-19 dead period, recruiting inducements, impermissible tryouts and tampering.”

• Governor’s Office calls on government agencies to implement hiring freeze, budget reductions (April 22, 2024) — “To help with the budget shortfall, some Arizona government agencies will not hire new employees and will have to cut back on spending by at least 4%. In a letter to state agencies on Friday, Ben Henderson, the Governor’s Office’s director of operations, said all executive agencies, boards and commissions cannot hire new workers starting on Saturday. The hiring freeze will also apply to contractors. . . . Henderson added that if a state agency, board or commission wants to increase the number of employees, the Governor’s Office will have to approve it.”

• Supreme Court denies request by Arizona candidates seeking to ban electronic vote tabulators (April 22, 2024) — “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a request by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake to ban the use of electronic vote-counting machines in Arizona. Lake and former Republican secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem filed suit two years ago, repeating unfounded allegations about the security of machines that count votes. . . . U.S. District Judge John Tuchi in Phoenix ruled that Lake and Finchem lacked standing to sue because they failed to show any realistic likelihood of harm.”

Some of Our Recent Headlines

• Opinion: Arizona is a Test Case for the Post-Roe GOP (Apr. 12, 2024) — “As it stands, the return of abortion policy to the states is pushing many Republican elected officials away from standard pro-life positions. For them, the logic is simple: Most Arizonans oppose a ban from conception onward, and we need to retain political power to have any effect on policy. At the same time, their more stalwart counterparts argue that ceding ground to the pro-choice lobby will forever make life a losing issue. Perhaps they both have a point.”

• Opinion: Arizona’s Semiconductor Boom is Decades in the Making (Mar. 22, 2024) — While domestic manufacturers cannot hope to compete with lower cost of labor in nations like Taiwan, Joe Pitts argues, we can use public policy to lower barriers to project construction and completion. Enabling developers to keep up with housing demand through zoning reform, detaching federal subsidies from onerous and ideologically charged labor requirements, and speeding up the permitting process are a few great places to start. 

• The Round Up: All Eyes on Arizona (Apr. 17, 2024) — “The State of Arizona has entered the national spotlight as it faces high levels of uncertainty regarding the future of its abortion policy, and now its hockey team. As it becomes more likely that the Arizona Coyotes will move north to Utah, the state is simultaneously encountering an intense debate following a recent state Supreme Court decision on abortion.”

• Opinion: ASU SCETL Deserves Continued Funding (Feb. 22, 2024) — As lawmakers at the State Capitol struggle to balance the budget in the face of a looming shortfall, Henry Olsen argues that they should nonetheless prioritize funding for Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

This round-up was written by Jared (JJ) Cichoke. He currently works as a Policy Analyst after previously holding various roles with Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, he recently moved to Arizona after spending nearly his entire life in Portland, Oregon.