March, 2025 | Arizona Capitol Times

Rep. Alexander Kolodin announces bid for chief elections officer; refuses to comment on Trump’s election stance

A state lawmaker who wants to be the state’s chief elections officer refused to say Monday whether he believes President Trump is acting illegally in telling states they have to demand proof of citizenship from all voters.

In a press conference to announce his candidacy, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, promised transparency if he is elected secretary of state in 2026. And he accused incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes of ignoring election laws.

But he would not address whether a federal law created by Congress, which allows for voting in federal elections without such proof, precludes what the president has ordered. Instead, he turned the issue into a criticism of Fontes for problems that resulted in the last election when questions were raised about who had and had not provided such proof.

Kolodin, who said in his speech his campaign was about “rebuilding trust” in the election system, also sidestepped a question about whether Republicans, who raised claims of election fraud in several past elections, were responsible for that lack of trust. Yet Kolodin, an attorney, was placed on probation by the State Bar of Arizona for filing a series of lawsuits challenging the 2020 election, after a federal judge in one of those cases tossed the case saying that “gossip and innuendo cannot substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure.”

He had filed another unrelated lawsuit in connection with that election alleging that the use of Sharpie permanent markers on ballots was causing machines to cancel votes on Election Day. He dropped that case after Attorney General Mark Brnovich concluded that everyone’s vote was being counted.

On Monday, Kolodin also refused to answer questions about whether he believes Biden won the vote in Arizona in 2020, despite the official tally showing the Democrat outpolled Trump by more than 10,000 votes.

Kolodin said Fontes is unfit to be the state’s chief elections officer, citing a series of lawsuits over the practices of the secretary of state’s office. That includes a recent ruling that Fontes did not provide the public enough time to provide input into the Elections Procedures Manual which serves as a guidebook for election officials.

But Kolodin, an attorney, made no mention of his own 18-month probation.

Strictly speaking, each county runs its own elections. However, the post of secretary of state is significant because it provides guidance to ensure that the counties comply with the laws.

Potentially more significant, the office becomes the focal point in conversations regarding the legality of election practices, as well as whether laws approved by the Legislature are valid.

One of those cases involves who must provide “documented proof of citizenship” before being able to register.

Arizona voters enacted such a law in 2004. But the National Voter Registration Act says that those who register with a form provided by the federal government can sign up to vote in federal races — president and members of Congress — by instead only avowing they are citizens.

Various challenges to that ability by Arizona lawmakers have been rejected by the courts, saying that Congress created that law and states are unable to override it in federal elections.

Trump last week signed a sweeping executive order declaring that citizenship proof is required. He directed the federal Election Assistance Commission, which created the federal form, to recraft it to now include a requirement to show certain government identification to register.

Fontes threw himself into the fray, calling the president’s order “a power grab.”

That led to Monday’s question to Kolodin about whether he believes Trump can do that unilaterally.

Kolodin responded that Arizona law already requires proof of citizenship — which is true for state and local elections. But rather than answer it, he launched into a criticism of Fontes over the fact that it was discovered shortly before the 2024 election that there was no record of more than 200,000 Arizonans who had already registered to vote in state and local elections who had provided such proof.

He said if Fontes had been doing his job, none of that would have happened.

But that issue proved more complex, with at least some of the blame being shared with the state Motor Vehicle Division which had provided records of who had provided it with such proof, something that has been required to get a license in Arizona since 1996.

Kolodin’s response to the inquiry of the president’s power?

“Next question,” he said.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, by contrast, said there is plenty of reason to question what Trump is attempting to do

“The president has certain executive authority,” she said at a separate, unrelated news conference.

“Other times he’s showing that he thinks he can change the law by saying it’s so,” the governor said. “And that’s not the case.”

Then there’s Kolodin saying he is running to restore public trust in the system.

“When people stop believing that their voice matters or that the process is fair, when they see our election laws being broken and manipulated at will, participation drops, division rises and democracy stops working the way it’s supposed to,” Kolodin said.

But he would not say whether he and other Republicans have played a role in that eroded public confidence.

That included his role in the so-called Kraken lawsuit, a name given to it by Trump attorney Sidney Powell. She said she was going to “release the Kraken,” a mythical sea monster, with her claims that were so enormous that they would overturn the 2020 election.

Filed less than a month after the general election, the lawsuit alleged “massive election fraud” that was done “for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden … and down-ballot Democratic candidates.”

The case was tossed by U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa who said challengers were asking for her to disenfranchise millions of Arizonans and that what was presented was “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence.”

That was one of the cases that led to his discipline by the State Bar.

Kolodin said at the time he was a victim.

“It has been well documented that the people who file these complaints (against lawyers) are political activists,” he said. “It is unfortunate that the bar’s effort to keep lawyers honest is being gamed by political operatives.”

Gov. Hobbs: Arizona faces an “intense” fire season

Gov. Katie Hobbs announced on Monday she believes Arizona faces an “intense” upcoming fire season fueled by an unusually dry winter.

And John Truett, the state’s fire management officer, said the impact is already being felt.

Truett pointed out that 18 separate fires were set just this past week along a 20 mile stretch of State Route 79 north of Oracle Junction. The cause, he said, appears to have been someone who was towing a trailer and let the chains dangle from the hitch, creating sparks.

“So that tells us that the probability of ignition is way up,” Truett said.

With the brush and grasses as dry as they are — and this early in the season — the governor said that makes it all the more important for individuals to recognize their role in preventing wildfires.

“Most fires are human caused, not maliciously,” the governor said.

It’s not just chains that can cause fires.

Car catalytic converters can get extremely hot, with operating temperatures that exceed 500 degrees. And that means a vehicle that drives onto grasses can easily start a blaze.

Truett said keeping the number of fires under control this year will involve public education.

Truett expressed concern about the devastating wildfires that erupted earlier this year in California, destroying more than 11,000 homes. He noted that while conditions are different there — the blazes were driven by strong seasonal winds — there is the potential for similar destruction in Arizona.

“We have that vegetation growing very close to the outside of the communities,” Truett said. Then, there is the prevalence of tract homes in developments that are close to each other.

“Once (a fire) gets established in those rows of homes, and you’re driving it with the wind, that becomes the fuel driver,” he said. “It’s no longer the vegetation. It’s the homes.”

Truett said his agency is not simply waiting around for the next fire to fight.

“We have our wildfire mitigation plan,” he said.

“What that plan is is to go out and look at potential high-risk areas and go out and do what we call a fuel reduction,” he explained, removing some of the dried and flammable materials so that if a blaze does erupt it will be easier to manage and avoid homes in the community.

What that means, Truett said, is “trying to get the forest and the vegetation back to its natural fire regime.”

Hobbs said about 23,000 acres of land at risk for wildfires has been “treated” since last July. That includes removing dry grasses and other fuels. The state expects to get that figure to 30,000 by the end of June.

Tom Torres, the state forester, said that, to date, the feds have not asked for any of their grant money back — and that’s at least one piece of good news for fire management officials in the state.

He also said that the agency is nearly staffed for the upcoming fire season.

Still, Arizona officials are concerned about protecting the home front.

“National resources are at a draw down right now,” Torres said. “So we have to be very cautious on how we’re going to aid our partners out west … We need to maintain our staffing here at home.”

Right to remain silent challenged in Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the decision to remain silent, a constitutional right, can, in certain circumstances, be held against someone accused of a crime.

And the key to those who want to protect that right is to refuse to answer any questions at all.

In a unanimous decision Friday, the justices rejected claims by Giovani Melendez that he was entitled to answer only some questions by police when he was arrested. During an interview, Melendez told police the shooting of someone else was self-defense, but declined to respond to other questions.

More to the point, Justice John Lopez, writing for the unanimous court, said there was nothing wrong with prosecutors not only questioning Melendez on the stand about his decision to not answer some of the questions, but then pointing out that fact to jurors who eventually convicted him.

Lopez acknowledged in Friday’s ruling that the Fifth Amendment protects the rights of individuals to refuse to talk to police.

That is enshrined into practice with the 1966 Miranda ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and their right to an attorney, before questioning them in custody. That precedent also says the decision to invoke that right can’t be used against them at trial.

But in this case, Lopez said, Melendez was “selective” in his silence. And that, he said, entitled prosecutors at his trial to ask him, in front of a jury, about the questions he refused to answer.

Friday’s ruling is significant, and not only because of the precedents it sets for future police questioning and trial tactics that can be used by prosecutors.

It comes more than a year after the state Court of Appeals reached a contrary ruling. There, the judges voided the conviction, pointing out that Melendez repeatedly told the detective he did not want to talk about the shooting, and that the detective, in her responses to him, affirmed that was his right.

The arrest stems from a 2019 incident where Melendez returned to an apartment complex where he used to live, a complex that also hosted church services.

According to court records, he parked his car, walked toward the child of the pastors, and asked “Are you the pastor’s son?” The boy responded affirmatively and began walking toward Melendez.

At that point, Melendez pulled a gun and fired multiple shots at him. Each shot missed and Melendez drove away.

Officers later took him into custody and into a nearby precinct where they informed him of his Miranda rights. He said he didn’t want to talk any more and that interview ended.

Later, at the Phoenix police station, Melendez was again informed of his rights.

At that point, he made some comments. But when asked about why he shot at the child, he said “I want to hold some stuff I want to say” and “I still want to hold myself on some things.”

Only later did he say that he was acting in self-defense.

Melendez offered the same defense at his trial. However, the prosecutor then began questioning him about his decision to pass on some questions, especially since his claim of self-defense came only after he was informed he was going to jail.

And during closing arguments, the prosecutor urged the jury to question Melendez’s self-defense claim because a “reasonable person” would have answered the questions about the motive if he “really shot in self-defense.”

The jury sided with the prosecutor’s version of what happened, found him guilty of aggravated assault, and a judge sentenced him to a presumptive term of 7.5 years in prison.

When Melendez appealed, an attorney for the state argued that he had effectively waived his Fifth Amendment rights because he did not remain completely silent. Appellate Judge Michael Brown said he and his colleagues weren’t buying that.

“Nothing in the Miranda warnings informs a suspect that if he relies on his Fifth Amendment right to be silent, completely or partially, his exercise of that right can be used against him at trial,” wrote Brown in overturning the conviction.

“The warnings required by Miranda would have to be amended to inform a suspect that not only what he says may be used against him, but what he does not say will also be used against him,” Brown wrote.

“The warnings have not been amended,” he said. “And allowing the state to penalize a defendant at trial for his earlier silence when he was not informed of that consequence would improperly relieve the state of its burden to prove waiver.”

Lopez, writing Friday for himself and his colleagues, said that appellate court ruling misunderstands the nature of Miranda warnings.

“Once an individual invokes his right to remain silent, police must cease questioning,” Lopez acknowledged. “Prosecutors may not comment at trial on a defendant’s post-invocation silence.”

But he said all that changed when Melendez agreed to answer some questions at the police station.

“We cannot conclude he unequivocally and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent in his second interview when he stated that he would ‘hold’ and ‘pass’ on answering certain questions ‘for now,”’ Lopez wrote.

“Indeed, Melendez’ mid-interview statement that he was willing to continue the interview buttresses this conclusion,” he said. “Melendez’ statements are more aptly characterized as tactical deferrals to responding to specific questions than unequivocal refusals to answer.”

And what all that means, Lopez said, is that the prosecutor did nothing wrong in asking Melendez about the questions he did not answer.

“Here, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Melendez is more akin to permissible impeachment,” the justice said, where the witness is being asked about any “prior inconsistent statement” in an effort to convince jurors that the testimony is not credible. And that, said Lopez, is different than asking defendants why they refused to answer any questions at all, something that clearly is prohibited.

Anyway, Lopez said, the prosecutor in his statements to the jury was not commenting on his silence but what the court called “wavering tactical deferrals” by Melendez in his interview which he was using “as a ploy to stall his answers until he knew what witnesses had told police about the shooting.”

Senate Republican holds up Hobbs’ nominee for Dept. of Insurance and Financial Institutions

The nomination of Barbara Richardson to lead the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions was held on March 27 after she was subjected to hours of questioning from Republican lawmakers on the Senate Director Nominations Committee.

Richardson is the first of Hobbs’ nominees to be held in committee this session, after several nominees were held and rejected during the 2023 session. The Chair of DINO, Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, directed Richardson to come back in two weeks to address concerns made by members of the public who testified against her nomination.

“This director nominee from Katie Hobbs appears to either be misleading the committee on her views and activism during her time at DIFI, or is demonstrating a pattern of poor judgment and attempting to legislate from the executive branch,” Hoffman said in a statement released after the hearing.

The committee questioned Richardson for nearly two hours, with Hoffman primarily asking questions. He expressed concerns about Richardson’s reluctance to adopt substantive policy statements and her involvement in working groups related to climate and DEI issues in the insurance industry. DIFI regulates insurance companies and financial institutions in Arizona.

Hoffman’s first issue stemmed from Richardson’s use of bulletins within the Systems for Electronic Rates and Forms Filing (SERFF), a website that allows the public to view forms and rules filed by insurance companies with DIFI. Richardson allegedly told insurance stakeholders that she does not like to issue bulletins on SERFF regarding agency policies, which Hoffman took to mean Richardson avoids issuing substantive policy statements in order to circumvent statutory reviews.

She denied that characterization of her usage of the site and said bulletins posted there are meant to provide clarification and warnings to insurance companies regarding existing statutes, not to indicate a change in department policy.

Hoffman and other Republican lawmakers on the committee also questioned Richardson extensively on diversity, equity and inclusion and her involvement in committees exploring those topics. Sens. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, also asked about Richardson’s work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners on issues like race in insurance and climate impacts on insurance policies.

Richardson told lawmakers that her personal views on DEI policies are “not important,” but she said “my view in how it’s used in the regulatory world is — it’s not necessary.”

Hobbs’ office declined to comment on Richardson’s nomination being held. Richardson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The two Democrats on the committee, Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, and Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, attempted to give Richardson a chance to get ahead of those topics by asking about them before Republicans were able to.

“I think you had some blockers and tacklers here on the wings with some of these issues,” Hoffman told Richardson, gesturing to where Bravo and Ortiz were seated on the committee dais.

Hoffman also insinuated that one of the committees Richardson served on related to race in insurance was disbanded on Wednesday to help further her nomination. Richardson said the disbandment had nothing to do with her and was due to the work being completed.

“Seems quite convenient for you,” Hoffman said. “I’m sure there was a call put in on your behalf.”

Ortiz also attempted to get Hoffman to end his line of questioning related to DEI, saying Richardson had already answered questions related to her role on those committees and calling continued questioning “dilatory.” Hoffman denied that characterization and kept on with his questions.

In a statement sent via text to the Arizona Capitol Times, Ortiz said she believes Richardson “deserved an affirmative vote” but is glad she will have another opportunity to come before the committee.

“Her resume is exemplary and it is clear she is respected nationwide for her expertise in insurance regulation,” Ortiz said. “I hope my colleagues will not be distracted by the unfortunate partisan, personal attacks we saw today and focus on the results she’s delivered for Arizonans in her more than two years leading DIFI.”

Hoffman told Richardson to take two weeks to review concerns raised by lawmakers and come back with “a framework for how you surmount those concerns.” He said Richardson should expect to come back before the committee on April 10.

Richardson is not the only nominee to face difficulties this session. Hobbs’ nominee for the Department of Housing was rejected by the full Senate in February, though has stayed on at the department as deputy director.

Tom Cole, the nominee to lead the Registrar of Contractors, also went before DINO on Thursday and was recommended for confirmation to the full Senate, but Hoffman has said he will not support Cole’s confirmation without stipulations. The senator said Cole must withdraw from a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Labor to assuage concerns that he is not “free from influence and bias favoring labor unions.”

Four other Hobbs nominees have been confirmed this session, including nominees for the Department of Economic Security, the Department of Gaming, the State Lottery and the Residential Utility Consumer Office.

Former lawmaker Justine Wadsack alleges police conspiracy to oust her from office in new lawsuit

Defeated state Sen. Justine Wadsack is making a federal case out of being stopped for criminal speeding last year by Tucson police, accusing multiple officers and unnamed city officials of violating her civil rights by stopping her in the first place and then later giving her a citation.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Arizona claims all of that was part of a conspiracy to silence her politically. It also alleges the whole incident, with Wadsack being stopped near the University of Arizona campus, was designed to “target her for prosecution on trumped up and phony charges, chill Ms. Wadsack’s political free speech, and knowingly and wrongfully interfere with her right to hold public office and pursue her chosen occupations.”

And Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, said the negative publicity surrounding all of this amounted to a $9 million gift in free media for Vince Leach, who after Wadsack was stopped and later cited, defeated her in the Republican primary last August in Legislative District 17, which covers portions of eastern and northern Pima County into Pinal County. Leach then went on to win the general election.

But in her lawsuit, Wadsack claims she is able to show more than $8 million in damages directly caused by the city and its officers “not inclusive of emotional distress, psychic trauma and other general damages incurred.”

There was no immediate response Sunday from either the city attorney’s office or the police department.

All this stems from an incident a year ago when she was pulled over on East Speedway after officer Ryder Schrage said he had caught her on radar going 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone. Wadsack said she was “racing to get home” because the battery in her all-electric Tesla was about to run out of charge.

“I was not doing 70,” she is heard telling the officer, who recorded the interaction on his body cameras.

“Yes you were,” he responded. “I was behind you. I had my radar on.”

Wadsack also identified herself as a state lawmaker.

A few minutes later, the audio on the officer’s body camera goes mute, presumably when he was checking with superiors.

She was not ticketed immediately based on a provision in the Arizona Constitution saying that legislators “shall be privileged from arrests in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace” starting 15 days ahead of the legislative session and running until lawmakers adjourn for the year.

Wadsack eventually was cited for criminal speeding – it is a misdemeanor to drive more than 20 miles over the limit in a business or residential district – and failure to provide proof of insurance. The case was dismissed in January after she completed a defensive driving course and proved she had the legally required coverage.

In her new lawsuit, Wilenchik contends it’s irrelevant even if Wadsack were speeding, a point he does not concede.

“She should never have been stopped,” he wrote, presumably because of the legislative identification placard attached to her license plate. And Wilenchik said Wadsack “never believed she would be ticketed after the legislative session ended.”

And then, he said, police never provided any evidence she was speeding, whether in the form of body camera footage or radar.

All that goes to the heart of the claim that Wadsack was “singled out” in being stopped and then charged with a misdemeanor after the session ended.

“It is believed that this was all part of a plan of members of the Tucson Police Department to act in concert with not yet known city officials to ruin plaintiff’s good reputation because she was introducing legislation these members of TPD felt were adverse to their interests,” Wilenchik wrote.

All that, he said, comes because she was investigating Tucson police, was an “outspoken critic” of city government, was a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, and “because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be better controlled than plaintiff.”

As to the city’s problems with her, Wilenchik said they were upset because she was pushing two bills. One would have scrapped voting centers – where anyone can cast a ballot – and instead returned to when people could vote only at their local precincts. The other sought a constitutional amendment to wipe out the ability of cities like Tucson to have home rule through their own charters.

Neither measure was approved.

But all that, her attorney charged was to harm her and her legislative position “by charging her with the bogus traffic crimes, and publicizing it, knowing that by revealing it to media outlets, adverse publicity would ensure and cause her to either drop out, or lose her primary race she otherwise would have won, thus seriously harming her future occupation as a legislator and harming her career as a real estate agent.”

Then there was an incident in June – after she was stopped but before she was issued the citation – where Wilenchik said she was trying to help a constituent who said she had been harassed by Tucson police.

“Shortly thereafter, the Tucson PD endorsed Senator Wadsack’s opponent in the Republican primary, and due to their efforts in besmirching plaintiff’s reputation, her opponent won” he wrote. More likely he meant the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police as the department does not do endorsements.

Wadsack also took exception to a report filed by Lt. Lauren Pettey who said that the senator, in a conversation with her, claimed she was the victim of “political persecution.” Wadsack said she did not say that but that the comment, put in a police report, became part of news reports.

Aside from claiming her civil rights were violated and that she is the victim of law enforcement retaliatory conduct, Wadsack also is complaining that the city has a “policy of inaction” in ensuring and being able to prove the scientific reliability of patrol car radar readouts “and such inaction amounts to a failure to protect constitutional rights.”

ASU school with conservative backing touts broad civic education goals

When former Gov. Doug Ducey and the state Legislature directed Arizona State University to set up an academic department devoted to civic education almost a decade ago, Paul Carrese viewed the move as an unprecedented step toward expanding academic perspectives on campus.

Carrese was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy when ASU officials recruited him to become the founding director of the department, which became the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership (SCETL).

Although the program still faces criticism for its alleged conservative bias, prompted by its inception by GOP legislation and initial funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation of two centers at ASU that merged to form SCETL, Carrese and other faculty and students have credited the school with filling a gap in civic education at the university level while helping to spawn a larger movement of programs teaching similar principles.

“There were centers … at other state universities, private universities, (and) public universities, but there was no separate academic department mandated and funded in this way,” said Carrese, who stepped down as director in 2023 but remains a professor at the school. “So they did an unprecedented thing, and I think the record shows they were right.”

Launched in 2017, the school merged ASU’s Center for the Study of Economic Liberty and its Center for Political Thought and Leadership, with courses emphasizing the country’s political and constitutional history, political philosophies, economic thought, capitalism and free markets.

Class discussions follow the socratic method of teaching where professors ask probing questions to facilitate conversations and challenge ideas. The school also launched its “Civil Discourse” project, a speaker series featuring guests from different sides of the intellectual and political spectrum to discuss a variety of topics ranging from ideological conformity on campus to race, justice and leadership in America.

“We don’t bring in just conservative, intellectually conservative, constitutionalist speakers,” Carrese said. “We bring in a range of speakers, left and right and center. I do think people who would be seen as conservative … have come to campus because we’re around. So that’s bringing some intellectual diversity to campus.”

Some have questioned whether the school has actually promoted intellectual diversity or if it’s only pushing a singular viewpoint.

In 2018, former ASU faculty member Matthew Garcia, who served as director of the university’s School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, wrote an op-ed published in The Washington Post that criticized the process that led to the creation of the school and developing a program that would serve as an “alternative” to similar departments while maintaining a conservative bias.

Carrese acknowledged that the criticism still exists, although it’s not as intense as it was when the school opened.

“I think there might be some residual presence of the view back from 2016, 2017 that … SCETL is not legitimate. It’s a political project. It’s only for conservative thinking, it’s not for healthy intellectual discourse,” he said.

Carrese pointed to increased bipartisan support from lawmakers throughout the years, crediting Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, with continuing funding for the school when she took office. The school has also continued to add degree programs and one of its courses, American Institutions, meets ASU’s general studies requirement.

In addition, several universities across the country have launched similar schools in recent years, including the University of Texas at Austin School of Civic Leadership and the University of Florida Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education.

“I think that it really addresses one of the greatest needs in our society today,” said SCETL student Hannah Falvey.

Falvey is set to graduate in May with a bachelor’s degree of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, and received a certificate in philosophy, politics and economics. She credited SCETL with teaching her to respectfully debate and challenge ideas, which she says is a lost skill in society.

“I think if we don’t learn how to have these conversations again, what’s going to happen is … these questions won’t be asked and the conversations won’t be had,” she said.

Lea Márquez Peterson: Bringing southern Arizona to the Capitol

Lea Márquez Peterson is the longest serving member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, having been appointed in 2019 and elected in 2020 and reelected in 2024. As the only statewide elected official based in southern Arizona, she told the Arizona Capitol Times how she brings a different perspective to the ACC, and what she hopes to accomplish in her last four years.

What led you to become a corporation commissioner?

I had won the primary in my congressional race [in 2018], and worked really hard at it. So I ran a real campaign, raised like a million and a half dollars, was out talking to national media, really working hard to represent. I lost the general election … So, after that, I decided to leave the chamber, and thought, Well, what should I do next? I wanted to stay in the Tucson area, though I could work anywhere. So I was in that space where I was starting to think about taking on clients or doing consulting, and I got a call from Governor Ducey’s office. He’d endorsed my race for Congress, so he knew me, and knew how hard I was working running for office, and his team reached out to me … and I said, absolutely honored to serve, let me do some research. Because I knew the commissioners, but I don’t think anyone fully understands the full scope of the work we do at the commission. I basically called them back within 24 hours and said, I’m in. It’s a very steep learning curve, I feel like now I’ve been at this six years that I have a master’s degree in electricity, water, gas, nuclear, all these different things that we tackle at the commission. I’d say it took me probably about a year to really understand all the acronyms and the players and the lobbying groups and the utilities.

Why did you decide to run for reelection in 2020 and again in 2024?

Running in 2020 was very challenging. I launched my campaign and COVID hit. Someday, I’m going to write a book about that, how to win office in a worldwide pandemic. So I ran then and thought, Gosh, that was interesting. It was challenging, but do I want to continue doing the work? And I ultimately decided, after talking to my family, my husband, my children, my parents and so on, that I really enjoyed the work. I liked the wonkiness, I guess, of the work that we do. I like the analysis. I like knowing that I’m there representing the ratepayers, and I’m very clear when I’m voting on issues that I’m not an electrical engineer or a nuclear engineer. My background is that I’ve been a ratepayer, I’ve been a small-business owner, and that’s truly the opinion and the perspective I’m giving on all these very complex cases that we work on. And I really enjoyed that. I also liked being statewide, talking to folks in Morenci and Yuma and Lake Havasu and all these different places.

What have you learned from your time on the Corporation Commission?

This is my first elected position, so I knew about lobbyists and special interest groups. But I was surprised by how much lobbying happens when you’re in a position like the commission. I was also surprised how little we heard from real people in the public writing me a letter with their own words saying, “please vote this way or that way, Commissioner, because it’ll impact my family or my business.” I do a lot of public speaking now at rotaries and chambers and … I tell them when I speak to them, we need to hear from you. Your elected officials across the state in every role are making decisions that impact your businesses and your lives and your roads and your trash cans, I mean, everything. So you need to weigh in and understand the role we have. And then I give them a little one on one on what the commission is and the key issues in front of us. So I think that was the biggest surprise, is how little people paid attention. I’m thankful when I get 1,000 emails on an issue, which we do now. It’s a little discouraging to get 1,000 form letters. I always tell people, if someone’s soliciting, you get the form letter and put it in your own terms, or attach your bill, or tell me your story. It’ll have more impact than a whole bunch of form letters.

What do you wish people — ratepayers, lawmakers — knew about the commission?

I’d say for ratepayers throughout the state, what I’d like them to know is just how transparent we are. Most people are surprised when I’m speaking to them that you can watch our meetings, you can write an email … you can testify, you can participate via WebEx or Zoom. We’re very open, and we very much want to hear from ratepayers. On the legislative side or the elected side, I really wish they had a basic understanding of what the commission does. Every legislative cycle we will have hundreds of bills that impact the work we do at the commission, and not a lot of understanding of the depth of the work we do or our constitutional role. We’re trying to meet and speak with all the legislators, mayors and councils, and county board of supervisors, or whoever we can get to explain the role of the commission and how we want to work collaboratively. We can do so much more together than fighting over bills.

You’re the only commissioner based in southern Arizona. What has that been like?

I’m proud to be, I think, the only statewide (elected) official in Arizona from southern Arizona. It does give me a different perspective. I live in Tucson. I drive up usually on a Tuesday, come back on a Thursday. I was lucky enough to get a little condo up there so that I don’t have to drive back and forth every single night, which I did do at the beginning. And that’s tough. We have a little office in Tucson, not a building like we do in Phoenix, but we have an office so that if you live in Graham County or Morenci or Nogales, you don’t have to meet every commissioner in Phoenix. You can Zoom, certainly, now, but I could just meet you in Tucson. I tend to pay a lot of attention to our retail electric co-ops. We have seven of them that we regulate. They’re based in rural parts of Arizona, and I pay a lot of attention to those. So much of the growth is happening in Maricopa County, I mean, there’s so much happening whether it’s data centers or semiconductor industry and other manufacturing, so much population growth. But I tend to spend a lot of time focused on coal impacted communities in the future, and spreading the love. As we grow and see economic development, how do we reach the other counties across the state?

What do you listen to when you drive between Tucson and Phoenix?

I do audio books. So I got into those because I have several hours (to drive). I got tired very quickly listening to political talk shows and political podcasts. I do still listen to that periodically, or I’ll catch up on the radio that I’ve missed. But I like to focus on audio books. Maybe a thriller, like Sandra Brown. She was just at the Tucson Festival of Books, actually, which is incredible.

You’re term-limited at the ACC. Have you thought about what will come next for you when your current term is up?

I would be honored to continue to serve and be in a public service role, but I don’t know where there’ll be an opportunity or the right timing for something like that, so I’m just going to keep my options open. I have four years, not two years, like so many other offices. So probably, in two years, I’ll start putting feelers out and understanding what other options there might be, or whether I do some other line of work. It’s been a great education in this field. So I would like to, if I’m not going into a different public service role, continue in the work, not necessarily for a utility, but there are lots of other ways to engage in the energy and water and nuclear space.

What do Arizona voters want on election reform? We asked.

The debate over election reform in Arizona is active, ongoing and likely headed to the ballot. As policymakers and voters alike weigh in, it’s critical that we ground the conversation in what Arizona voters think.

That’s why Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA) asked voters directly through our nonpartisan public opinion research.

Here’s what we asked:

Dr. Sybil Francis

Here are two statements regarding the timing of election results:

Voter A believes we need to have election results sooner even if it means limiting convenient voting options. We should stop early ballot drop-off a few days before Election Day to speed up results.

Voter B believes it should be easy and convenient for eligible citizens to vote. We should continue allowing voters to drop off their early ballots up to and including on Election Day. It’s worth it to ensure every voter has a chance to vote even if it means waiting longer for final election results.

Which of the two best represents your opinion? (Response options: Voter A, Voter B, Not sure)

Here’s what Arizona voters told us:

69% chose Voter B, supporting continued access to drop off early ballots up to and on Election Day, even if it means waiting longer for results. This position crossed party lines:
- 56% Republicans
- 72% independent and unaffiliated voters
- 82% Democrats
25% chose Voter A, prioritizing faster results even if it means limiting voting options:
- 38% Republicans
- 21% independent and unaffiliated voters
- 14% Democrats

In other words, the vast majority of voters like the current rules and are not calling for change that would speed up results. That’s a meaningful consensus in a politically diverse state like ours.

Voters want pragmatic solutions, not false choices.

Of course, we’d all welcome faster election results, but not at the cost of convenience. The debate has often been framed as a binary choice: speed or access. Voters are rejecting that premise.

The fact that voters across the political spectrum value the convenience of dropping off ballots through Election Day does not mean they wouldn’t like results sooner. What they’re rejecting is the idea that faster results must come at the expense of accessibility and convenience.

The challenge for policymakers isn’t to pick one side of the equation. The real question to answer is: What would it look like to improve how quickly we finalize results while maintaining the ease and security that voters expect? That’s the conversation worth having.

Trust is the real issue at stake

Election reform is about more than policy, it’s about trust. CFA’s polling also shows that 70% of Arizonans believe democracy is at risk, yet a majority — 58% to 34% — say they trust local election officials to run elections fairly. That trust is reinforced or eroded by whether voters feel their voices are reflected in the decisions being made.

For nearly 20 years, CFA has listened to Arizonans through public opinion research. One of the seven shared public values we’ve consistently found among Arizonans of all demographics, geography and ideology is a belief in civic engagement and a democracy that works for all. That includes a secure, fair and accessible election process.

In addition to the timing of election results, our research consistently shows majority support across party lines for:

Offering early in-person voting over multiple weeks leading up to Election Day.
Ensuring it remains easy to vote while prioritizing election security — and not creating barriers to participation that disproportionately hurt certain communities.
Ensuring that all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, have the same signature requirements to qualify for a particular elected office.
Ensuring that all voters-Democrats, Republicans, independents and non-affiliated have equal access to voting.
Making changes to our primary system so we elect leaders who represent more than just a small segment of voters.

These are areas where there is broad agreement. Of course, we ask about many issues, and some generate more debate, but these are priorities on which the vast majority of Arizona voters find common ground.

What comes next?

Arizonans are also asking for collaborative leadership. Two-thirds say they want elected leaders to work across the aisle to solve problems. They’re not looking for ideological battles, they want common-sense collaboration.

This moment presents an opportunity. The data are clear: voters have told us what they value most. As the Legislature debates the next steps — and the issue potentially referred to the ballot — the question isn’t what voters think. We know that now. The question is: will they be heard?

Sybil Francis, Ph.D., is chair, president & CEO of Center for the Future of Arizona, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that brings Arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.

School board legislation sparks opposition after financially troubled district faces closure

Following nearly 5,000 west Phoenix students being at risk of seeing their school district close amid financial turmoil, lawmakers at the state Capitol are attempting to exert their influence over school boards across the state.

One of the main priorities for Republicans is House Bill 2610. The GOP proposal from Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, is a direct response to the Isaac School District’s placement into receivership after overspending its budget by more than $28 million and falsifying financial records.

HB2610 originally proposed requiring the superintendent and school board members of any district to be removed from their positions if their district is placed into receivership, but it has been amended to remove the required resignation of school board members.

After House Republicans called for an investigation into the matter, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, said in a press release, “The falsification of financial records and the mismanagement of public funds are a betrayal of trust and must be investigated immediately. The people of Arizona deserve to know how this happened, and those responsible must be held accountable.”

Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, represents the district where Isaac is located. He said while he’s concerned about how leadership at the district allowed its financial crisis, he voted against the measure because he said he’s skeptical the bill would prevent similar behavior at other school districts from happening.

Democrats, too, have called on the school board’s leadership to resign, but would rather see the issue be handled by Attorney General Kris Mayes’ ongoing investigation of the district.

“House Bill 2610 is absolutely overbroad,” said House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen. “The only reason that we are aware of this problem is because of the transparency requirements that public schools have that the ESA program does not have.”

There is a bill that some Democrats support intended to prevent a situation like Isaac’s from happening again, but the measure has been halted in the House after lawmakers became aware of a potential conflict of interest from the bill’s sponsor with an amendment to the bill.

House Bill 2883 from Rep. Lydia Hernandez, D-Phoenix, would establish biennial training requirements for school board members related to school finance.

That measure failed on the House floor on March 10 after drawing up controversy with an amendment that would allow immediate family members to serve on the same school board if they live in the same household and the younger family member is under 20 years old.

Hernandez and her daughter are members of the Cartwright School District and are being sued for serving on the board together.

Several Republicans and nearly all Democrats voted against Hernandez’s bill, defeating it 21-35. Rep. Junelle Cavero, D-Phoenix, said she supported the training requirements of the bill but could not support the measure with the amendment.

The House has since removed the amendment language from the bill, but it has not yet received another floor vote.

Another school board measure from Sen. Carine Werner, R-Scottsdale, would make school district governing board elections partisan, listing candidates’ political party affiliation on the ballot.

“The voters deserve transparency to know which party the candidate aligns with,” Werner said.

Werner’s measure, Senate Bill 1441, is waiting for a vote on the House floor, and has faced opposition from Democrats.

House Assistant Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, said she doesn’t believe school board members should be viewed in a partisan light.

“Adding this on is just asking for more political fodder, not less,” Gutierrez said.

Gress said he’s been subject to partisan attacks when he was a candidate for the Madison Elementary School District in 2020, and he feels school board races have become increasingly organized and partisan.

“(The state is) putting this facade of nonpartisanship on these school board positions, and that’s what it is – a façade,” Gress said. “These are big political positions that both parties would like to have influence on, and they do,”

Lawmakers can enable pharmacists to fill health care gap

Arizona ranks 42nd in the country for access to health care services. Nearly two-thirds of the state (65%) is considered medically underserved, and large portions have no primary care physician at all. A mere 35% of primary care needs are being met in Arizona, and according to projections, the state’s health care workforce shortage will worsen.

How often have you or a loved one been sick with the flu, Covid, or strep throat, only to be told there aren’t appointments available? Your options are likely to either head to an urgent care center, where you could wait for hours, or go to the emergency room, where bills can easily exceed $1,000. What if I told you there was a better option?

Pharmacists can help.

That is why I am asking legislators to support Senate Bill 1214, which would allow licensed pharmacists to administer FDA-approved tests that are waived under the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and initiate the treatments necessary to treat these common conditions. These tests cover common illnesses like the flu, Covid, and strep throat, and if positive, the pharmacists can prescribe the right medication.

As a founder of the Kingman Regional Medical Center Disease Management Clinic in Kingman, I’ve seen how difficult it is for patients to access even the most basic health care. As one of the few health care resources available to patients in Mohave County, my clinic sees an average of 450 patients each month. We assist with chronic disease management, and since opening in 2015, established an initiative to eliminate Hepatitis C and increase screening rates to get timely treatment to patients. Collectively we’ve helped to cure 175 patients of Hepatitis C.

Yet despite our robust training and experience, current Arizona law prevents pharmacists from initiating treatments for common, non-chronic conditions from test results on the same equipment doctors would use. For example, patients frequently show up to my clinic displaying flu-like symptoms that I am trained and capable of testing for and treating. However, I’m forced to tell the patient I can’t do anything for them and can only direct them somewhere else. If urgent care is full, same day visits with local primary care providers are limited, and new patient appointment wait times can be as long as six months.

SB1214 would remove these barriers to ensure pharmacists can provide the care they are already trained and educated to provide. It isn’t about making pharmacists physicians. I don’t want to be a physician. I want to help patients in my community by using my education and training to the fullest extent.

These changes aren’t unfounded or untested. To date, 30 states authorize pharmacists to administer CLIA-waived tests, and 13 states allow pharmacists to prescribe treatment based on those tests. In these states, patient safety hasn’t been diminished and quality of care hasn’t been hindered.

Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to help address ongoing workforce shortages and access to care challenges, while freeing up physicians to focus their time on treating more complex cases.

An estimated 89 percent of Americans live within five miles of a community pharmacy. Local pharmacists are even more important for rural communities where healthcare providers are few and far between.

I love being able to serve the Kingman community because I care so deeply for my patients. But the truth is there is more that we as pharmacists can do — changes that can only be made by those elected to represent Arizonians.

With more than 6-years of education and thousands of clinical hours of experience, the more than 7,500 Arizona pharmacists stand ready to address some of the most pressing healthcare challenges while we continue supporting our local communities. We urge legislators to support SB1214 so that we can collectively improve patient outcomes and access to high-quality healthcare.

Linda P. Williams has been an Arizona pharmacist for 13 years and currently serves as the pharmacy clinical manager for ambulatory care at Kingman Regional Medical Center.

Striker aims to bypass Scottsdale voters for Axon zoning

A Republican lawmaker has introduced a striker bill that would clear the path for Axon to build a new global headquarters in north Scottsdale and bypass a ballot initiative calling for voters to approve zoning for the project.

Rep. Tony Rivero, R-Peoria, introduced Senate Bill 1543, which would require cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 to allow hotels and multifamily residential housing to be built in areas zoned for light industrial use without needing an application that would require a public hearing.

The House International Trade Committee on Wednesday approved the bill 8-0 with two members absent.

The hotels and housing units would have to be constructed on the campus of an “international headquarters” that would employ more than 2,000 employees who make more than 125% of the median wage of the county where the complex is located.

The bill is the latest measure crafted to aid Axon in its quest to build the sprawling headquarters near Loop 101 and Hayden Road. The campus would include 1,900 apartments and condominiums, a hotel and retail integrated into the company’s headquarters. About 20% of the apartments would be allocated for workers.

Axon officials say the campus would be an economic boon that could create 5,500 high-wage jobs and generate $3.6 billion a year in economic activity. Company officials also warn that it would have to move to another state if the rezoning isn’t approved for the site, which would result in the loss of 1,000 jobs in Arizona.

Those who oppose the project say the size of the proposed campus is not complementary with Scottsdale’s quality of life. Opponents have also criticized the company and bill sponsors for using the legislative process to circumvent the will of Scottsdale voters.

“This is an election bill designed to negate the voters’ voice at the ballot box,” said former Republican lawmaker Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who is now working with Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, a group that opposes the project. “It’s one of the worst election bills I’ve ever seen in my entire life as a politician.”

The Scottsdale City Council originally approved rezoning for the project in November, but the taxpayer group collected signatures to send the measure to the ballot after some residents expressed opposition to the headquarters.

Axon CEO Rick Smith told the committee the company had been planning the headquarters for a decade and has been working with Scottsdale officials for about six years. However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the company to adjust its plans and its board of directors wanted Smith to find a solution in an environment where more people were working remotely, he said.

“We looked at what makes sense in this new world,” he said. “I don’t have to order people to come back to the office, but a campus could be a major role in luring (workers).”

Scottsdale officials said Axon has been a “good partner” and they’re open to growth, but the proposed apartment complex on its property is one of the main concerns of the city’s residents.

“Nobody has any issues with those things but, my God, 1,900 apartments,” said Scottsdale Vice Mayor Jan Dubauskas. “Please do not silence the voices of these people.”

Earlier this session, Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, and Rep. Michael Carbone, R-Buckeye, introduced twin bills, Senate Bill 1352 and House Bill 2925, that would prevent an application for rezoning from being subject to a referendum petition.

The Senate bill passed the Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency and Rules committees but has not advanced further. A Senate Republican spokeswoman said earlier this month that the bill had support from the majority of Republican senators but not enough votes to overcome any opposition from Democrats.

The House legislation hasn’t received a committee hearing.

Rivero’s striker amendment was introduced on March 24. Sen. Frank Carroll, R-Sun City West, ran the original bill.

Although the House International Trade Committee voted unanimously to approve the bill, some members expressed hope that Axon and the city could work together for a compromise.

“Axon is an amazing organization, and I’m hoping from this committee that there will be room for compromise and negotiation, consensus,” Rivero said.

Proposed per diem pay increase could double yearly pay for legislators in Maricopa County

A veteran state lawmaker is pushing a late-session maneuver that would double his own pay and that of more than half of his colleagues.

The proposal by Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, set to be heard in the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, would entitle lawmakers who live in Maricopa County to a daily allowance of 80% of what the General Services Administration allows in hotel and meal expenses for federal employees who are traveling. That comes out to close to $200 a day.

The only thing is, Maricopa county lawmakers, unlike their rural counterparts, are simply driving to their own offices each day.

In fact, they already are getting $35 a day just for that — and getting it seven days a week — even though lawmakers generally are in session only four days most weeks.

And that’s on top of the $24,000 annual salary, something that a separate measure — also set for debate on Monday — seeks to double, though that one is subject to voter approval.

But Livingston told Capitol Media Services that it’s wrong to look at what is called the “per diem” allowance simply as covering expenses. He said it should instead be seen as part of a lawmaker’s overall compensation.

If all this seems familiar, it should.

Lawmakers tried a similar maneuver in 2019, tying their allowance to the GSA rate.

Then-Gov. Doug Ducey was willing to support an increase for out-county lawmakers.

“There is a strong case to be made for ensuring we are appropriately recognizing what is required for them to be here at the state Capitol in Phoenix during session,” he wrote. But he vetoed the bill because of the attempted increase for in-county lawmakers.

A separate measure for those living in the other 14 counties eventually was approved and signed by Ducey, giving them the full GSA rate. That equates out to $249 a day for the first 120 days of the session, or $29,880, on top of that $24,000 salary.

The actual allowance is greater given that lawmakers also can collect it any day they act “on a legislative matter” after the session is over, which could mean meetings with others at the Capitol or in their home districts.

Livingston’s measure using the 80% figure would come out to close to $24,000 in allowance plus the salary for 120 days.

And there’s even a provision to get 40% of the GSA rate when the session runs longer.

That’s not unusual. In fact, one year the session extended into August.

Livingston said he understands that asking lawmakers to approve such a sharp boost in their own compensation without seeking voter input — particularly for lawmakers who live in Maricopa County who don’t have the same living expenses — comes with a certain amount of political risk.

But, he said that an increase for himself and other Maricopa County lawmakers is appropriate. And Livingston said he believes that voters will understand.

As proof, he cited the recent resignation of former Sen. Eva Burch.

“I have been struggling to make ends meet and to find balance with my legislative work and my job as a healthcare provider,” said the Mesa Democrat, calling herself “a casualty of legislative pay.”

And Livingston conceded that something else may help convince colleagues to bite the potentially politically unpopular bullet and go along — if they act now: It will be another year before lawmakers need to face voters and run for reelection.

“I think the timing is right,” he said.

Livingston also has another argument about why in-county lawmakers should be paid more — even if it is in the form of an allowance.

“I think it’s discrimination against the members that live in Maricopa County versus the members that live outside of the county in the discrepancy in pay,” he said.

And what of the fact that those who live in the county don’t have the same expenses like hotels and having to take all their meals away from home?

“I understand all that,” Livingston said. But it comes back to his argument that per diem is not really an allowance for expenses but another part of their compensation.

“You can’t have members paid to do the same job being one-and-a-half, two times, three times the other members,” he said. “It’s not fair. It’s discrimination. We do the same work. We need to be paid the same, no matter what it is and how you divide it up.”

But even if Livingston can convince a majority of lawmakers to go along, that doesn’t end his battle.

Just like what happened in 2019, a change in allowance still goes to the governor. And Katie Hobbs appears no more inclined to go along than did her predecessor.

“Pay raises for politicians is the height of budget mismanagement,” Hobbs press aide Christian Slater told Capitol Media Services.

And then there’s the timing.

He noted that the plan comes as Livingston has been publicly critical of the governor, accusing her of overspending the money she had been allocated for foster care programs and services for the developmentally disabled. In fact, House Speaker Steve Montenegro formed a new panel specifically to investigate Hobbs’ fiscal practices.

Slater said if that panel is interested in looking at “mismanagement” perhaps it should widen its focus.

“We look forward to the new ad hoc committee investigating Rep. Livingston’s disastrous proposed spending spree,” he said.

Upcoming Event

Month: March 2025