Adrian Fontes | Arizona Capitol Times

Election integrity: Review flags 28 of Arizona’s 2024 election ballots for possible fraud

Key Points:

Arizona’s 2024 presidential election review finds minimal fraud
Only 28 of 3.6 million ballots cast were possibly fraudulent
Maricopa County Recorder refers 207 non-citizen voting cases for investigation

Amid renewed suspicions of election fraud as the midterm elections near, a review of voting in Arizona’s 2024 presidential election found only a sliver of the votes cast were possibly fraudulent.

Only 28 of the 3.6 million ballots cast were flagged as potentially illegal by an organization that crosschecks Arizona voter data with other states. That works out to 0.0000083% of total ballots.

In 25 cases, individuals were found to have first voted in Arizona’s November 2024 election and later cast a 2024 ballot in another state. Because it’s the second vote that makes the practice illegal, no one is being charged in Arizona.

Another three cases are still under investigation by the state Attorney General’s Office, including one instance where an individual appears to have voted the ballot of a dead person.

The numbers show it’s rare that people vote illegally, a finding that is consistent with past crosschecks that compared Arizona voting practices with those of other states.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said the results should quiet “the conspiracy theorists and liars” who stoke fears about election fraud.

“The message will get through if people are paying attention,” Fontes told Capitol Media Services. “It shows we have a system that works because these folks were caught.”

Shane Hamlin, executive director of the Electronic Registration Information Center, echoed that view.

“A far smaller number of people want to commit voter fraud than what people suspect,” he said. The center crosschecked Arizona’s 2024 voter information with that of 18 other states — mostly states controlled by Democrats — that belong to the nonprofit organization.

Although the match involved fewer than half the states, Hamlin said the results are a “good sample” and reflect the fact that member states have strong election programs.

“All states have made massive improvements in administration of elections in recent years,” he said, adding he hopes the organization’s work reassures the public that the system works.

ERIC came under fire from election skeptics in the wake of the 2020 election, causing its membership to drop, including the populous Republican states of Florida and Texas. But the numbers are ticking back up, with 26 states participating and New York and Virginia expected to join, Hamlin said.

States that join ERIC share voter registration data as well as identification data from their motor vehicle divisions. They mask details such as the last four digits of a person’s Social Security number but provide enough data to pinpoint a voter.

The center’s staff uses that information to create reports on voters who have moved from one state to another; voters who moved within their state; voters with duplicate registrations in the same state; and voters who died as reported to the Social Security Administration. These reports are cross checked with participating states to identify voting issues.

ERIC’s initial comparison identified 316 cases of possible illegal voting in Arizona. Those cases were then reviewed by the Arizona Secretary of State and the 15 county recorders, resulting in the 28 referrals to the attorney general for review.

All but two of the investigations involved Maricopa County voters; the others were from Apache and Mohave counties, according to data provided by the Attorney General’s Office. Of the 28 referrals, 15 were Republican voters, eight were independents, four were Democrats and one voter’s party affiliation was not discerned, records showed.

One voter, who was flagged for voting in both Arizona and Washington in 2024, said she was flummoxed when she received a letter from the Attorney General’s Office stating she appeared to have voted twice in the 2024 election.

The letter directed her to cancel her voter registration in Washington if Arizona is indeed her primary residence, and warned that any potential future violations could result in possible prosecution.

The woman, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution but emphasized that she was 76, said she hasn’t lived in Washington for more than a decade. She has called the Attorney General’s Office to better understand the situation, and said she may contact authorities in her former state to find out why her name would still be on that state’s voter rolls — and how a ballot got cast under her name.

There are varied reasons for double voting, from the accidental to the intentional.

“Historically, when double voting has occurred it is usually an innocent mistake,” said Richie Taylor, communications director for Attorney General Kris Mayes.

One example is a snowbird who mistakenly voted in two states, believing that was legitimate because they pay property taxes in both states. However, the law is clear: A person can only vote once in an election.

A Green Valley couple admitted to double voting in the 2008 election. They voted by mail in their previous home state of Kansas, but later cast ballots in Arizona in the same election. James and Karen Marshall pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and were sentenced to a year of probation.

A Bullhead City woman was found guilty of voting in Colorado’s 2010 general election by mailing her ballot from her Arizona address. She then cast a ballot in Arizona’s general election. She lost her voting privileges and was sentenced to three years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

Taylor said the 25 individuals investigated for double voting in 2024 were given a warning. The ballots they cast in Arizona were counted; any violation would have happened in the second state where they are suspected of having voted.

Other cases of illegal voting involve voting a dead person’s ballot.

In 2020, Krista Michelle Conner of Sierra Vista was sentenced to three years’ probation for voting her dead mother’s ballot in the 2020 election. She also was required to pay a $890 fine and complete 100 hours of community service.

The cases are interesting, but uncommon. The Heritage Foundation tracks election fraud cases nationwide. It lists 17 cases of double voting that were prosecuted in Arizona over the 43-year period their database covers; there were three instances of voting a dead person’s ballot.

One area not covered by the crosscheck process is non-citizen voting, a key concern of Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap. He recently referred 207 cases of voting by people suspected of not being U.S. citizens to the county attorney for investigation.

Heap relied on a federal database called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE system, to identify these potential illegal voters. That database was updated during the current Trump administration but even before that, it was viewed skeptically by many election officials because it has been found to rely on outdated immigration information.

Hamlin said ERIC does not use the system, citing its shortcomings.

Heap’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the 28 suspected cases of illegal voting. All but two of the cases involve Maricopa County voters.

Fontes lacked authority to OK Arizona Independent Party name change, judge rules

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes erred when he approved a political party name change
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como said Fontes allowed a “political bait and switch”
Fontes will not participate in an appeal, given fast-approaching election season

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes did not have the authority to grant the Arizona Independent Party name change, according to a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.

In a decision handed down March 25, Judge Greg Como said Fontes permitted a “political bait and switch” when he approved a name change request from the No Labels Party, which attempted to rebrand itself as the Arizona Independent Party. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Arizona Republican Party sued Fontes and the Arizona Independent Party over the name change in December.

Como ruled that parties should have to go through the same petition gathering process used to get a party on the ballot to change the party’s name. Otherwise, voters who sign petitions to get one party on the ballot could suddenly find themselves registered members of the “Arizona Nazi Party” or the “Arizona Anarchists.”

“A party can gather signatures using an innocuous sounding name and then change it to something completely different,” Como wrote. “If the Secretary is to have such power, it must be prescribed by the Arizona Constitution or state statutes. It is not.”

Additionally, Como took issue with Fontes directing county recorders to designate No Labels voters as AIP voters. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants acknowledged during a hearing on March 18 that none of the county recorders had updated their records to reflect the AIP name.

In a post on X, Fontes capitulated to the ruling and said his office will not participate in an appeal considering “the fast approach of the election and the challenging job election administrators have before them.”

“In this case, without any statutory guidance, I acted in favor of the law as I saw it,” Fontes wrote. “And while I believe the Party organization has particular technical authority to act, the Court ruled with the voters as a whole.”

The name change dispute began when Paul Johnson, a former mayor of Phoenix and current AIP chair, struck a deal with the national leadership behind the No Labels Party to take over the group in 2025. In October, Fontes approved the party’s name change, arguing that the move was lawful because state statute does not explicitly outline procedures for party renames.

Johnson has said on multiple occasions that the takeover of No Labels and the name change were designed specifically to give independent candidates a leg up in a system designed to shut them out. Under state law, candidates running with Arizona’s traditional designation for independent voters, “no party affiliated,” would have to gather at least 44,539 valid petition signatures to qualify for the ballot, while an AIP candidate would only have to gather 1,771 signatures.

Attorneys for the Clean Elections Commission and the two state parties argued the name change would cause confusion between AIP and the “no party affiliated” designation. Most notably, voters who register without party affiliation get to choose which party’s primary ballot to fill out, while a voter registered with AIP would only be able to vote in an AIP primary.

The state parties also accused Johnson and other AIP leaders of effectively taking No Labels voters hostage, as the nearly 40,000 voters registered with the party at the time did not vote on Johnson’s chairmanship or the rename. Attorneys for AIP and party leaders have argued that the political entity at the center of the dispute is made up of the same people who just want a name that more accurately reflects their ideology.

It is unclear how the ruling will impact AIP candidates like Hugh Lytle, who filed over 6,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot in his bid for governor. Teri Hourihan, who is running for governor as an AIP candidate but without a blessing from Johnson, also filed enough signatures to qualify.

Como did not go so far as to knock those candidates off the ballot, but they will not be listed under their preferred party name. In a statement, Lytle said. “Nothing about this ruling changes what matters.”

“Today’s ruling is a reminder of how far the political parties will go to protect their grip on power. But we are still on the ballot and on a path to victory,” Lytle said.

Fontes lacked authority to approve Arizona Independent Party name change, judge rules

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes erred when he approved a party name change
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como said Fontes allowed a “political bait and switch”
Fontes will not participate in an appeal, given fast approaching election season

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes did not have the authority to grant the Arizona Independent Party name change, according to a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.

Como argued that parties should have to go through the same petition gathering process used to get a party on the ballot to change the party’s name. Otherwise, voters who sign petitions to get one party on the ballot could suddenly find themselves registered members of the “Arizona Nazi Party” or the “Arizona Anarchists.”

Additionally, Como took issue with Fontes directing county recorders to designate No Labels voters as AIP voters. Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants acknowledged during a hearing on March 18 that none of the county recorders had updated their records to reflect the AIP name, however.

The name change dispute began when Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix and current AIP chair, struck a deal with the national leadership behind the No Labels Party to take over the group in 2025. In October, Fontes approved the party’s name change, arguing that the move was lawful because state statute does not explicitly outline procedures for party renames.

Johnson has said on multiple occasions that the takeover of No Labels and the name change were designed specifically to give independent candidates a leg up in a system designed to shut them out. Under state law, candidates running with Arizona’s traditional designation for independent voters, “no party affiliated,” would have to gather at least 44,539 petition signatures to qualify for the ballot, while an AIP candidate would only have to gather 1,771 signatures.

Como did not go so far as to knock those candidates off the ballot, but they will not be listed under their preferred party name. In a statement, Lytle said “nothing about this ruling changes what matters.”

“Today’s ruling is a reminder of how far the political parties will go to protect their grip on power. But we are still on the ballot and on a path to victory,” Lytle said.

Arizona officials urge counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records

Key Points:

Arizona officials tell counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records
Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cite ongoing federal lawsuit
Arizona officials released documents contradicting claims of widespread election fraud

Fearing an end-run around the courts, two top state officials are telling counties to refuse to comply with any grand jury subpoenas for their voter records.

In a joint letter to county recorders, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes remind them that there is already a lawsuit in federal court over whether the Department of Justice is entitled to a full, unredacted list of voter information. There is no date set for a hearing.

But what has changed since the lawsuit was filed, they said, is that Senate President Warren Petersen, responding to a grand jury subpoena, turned over records related to the Senate’s audit of the conduct and results of the 2020 election. And that, they warned, appears to be part of an end-run around the federal court for the Trump administration to get the documents it wants — regardless of what a federal judge rules.

That’s not all. It also comes as the Department of Homeland Security, apparently conducting its own probe, has asked Mayes’ office for some documents it has related to the 2020 election.

Richie Taylor, a spokesman for Mayes, said it surrendered both a report that was done reviewing the audit by her predecessor, Mark Brnovich, as well as some documents that Brnovich did not make public before he left office at the end of 2022.

Taylor said there was no subpoena, as all those documents are public records. But he said that nothing else has been provided to Homeland Security.

All that, according to Mayes and Fontes, leads them to believe that federal agencies will use the grand jury process — and the ability of prosecutors to subpoena documents — to circumvent the question before the federal judge of whether the agencies have a legal right to demand what they are seeking. And the two Arizona officials said they want to be sure that county recorders do not play a role in letting that happen.

“We reiterate our offices’ position here just in case you may be contemplating disclosure,” the pair wrote. “We write to inform you that doing so would violate both federal and state law.”

The disclosure of the Homeland Security inquiry drew a sharp response from Gov. Katie Hobbs who was the secretary of state in 2020.

“Arizona’s 2020 election has been investigated and verified in Republican-led audits,” she said in a comment March 10 night posted on social media. “Pulling agents off serious work like combating human trafficking to chase debunked election conspiracies is irresponsible and a threat to public safety.”

This all comes as the Trump administration has shown renewed interest in revisiting the 2020 election, particularly in states where he was outpolled by Joe Biden. That occurred in enough states, including in Arizona, to deny him the electoral votes needed at that time for a second term.

Now back in office, Trump has expressed frustration that Attorney General Pam Bondi has not done more to investigate his claim that the election was stolen from him.

Arizona is among 29 states and the District of Columbia where the Department of Justice has filed suit to demand full voter files after state officials refused to comply. That includes not just things that are public like name and party registration, but also what Fontes said is legally protected private information like birth dates, driver license numbers, signatures and the last four digits of Social Security numbers.

The agency, however, has said it is not investigating any particular violations of law but simply fulfilling its mission to be sure that states are keeping voter rolls updated.

Fontes, however, told a federal judge it appears the real goal is for the federal government to amass a national centralized database on millions of Americans. And he said that appears to be part of a plan to check the immigration status of those on the voter rolls.

And now there is the request by Homeland Security to Mayes for information about the 2020 race.

Taylor said that Mayes did turn over some findings released in 2022 by Brnovich in which he claimed his office had “uncovered instances of election fraud by individuals who have been or will be prosecuted for various election crimes.”

That, however, wasn’t all Mayes turned over to Homeland Security. Taylor said they also got a follow-up report she released after taking office in 2023, a report that included evidence that Brnovich and his top aide had been told by their own staffers, even before releasing the 2022 report, that there was no basis for such claims of fraud.

And Taylor said that, in response to further requests from Homeland Security, the Attorney General’s Office last week even prepared a Power Point presentation. But he said that there has been no further cooperation with Homeland Security since then.

Now Mayes and Fontes want to be sure that county recorders aren’t providing anything that is not already a public record — even if they are served with a subpoena.

“I implore you to fulfill your oath by declining any such illegal demands,” the letter to the recorders says.

“If your office receives a federal grand jury subpoena demanding that you turn over voters’ private data, we urge you to notify our offices immediately,” they wrote. “The grand jury should not serve to circumvent Arizona’s ongoing lawsuit, and our offices will pursue all legal actions available to prevent the Department of Justice from misusing the grand jury process.”

What makes the information Mayes turned over to Homeland Security significant is that it represents two different views of what did and did not happen in the 2020 election — views that Homeland Security could choose to use or ignore as it pursues any investigation.

Brnovich, a Republican, was running in 2022 for U.S. Senate. And his report included various allegations that signatures may not have been properly verified on early ballot envelopes and that “there are problematic systemwide issues that related to early ballot handling and verification.”

But Mayes, a Democrat who won her 2022 election to replace Brnovich, disclosed in her 2023 report information she said Brnovich had withheld from the public, including a memo from the agency’s Special Investigations Section — information she said showed that her predecessor knew there was no basis for what the attorney general was reporting in 2022,

That 2022 memo said that agents and support staff had spent more than 10,000 hours investigating and reviewing alleged instances of illegal voting submitted by various private parties. Those came not only from Cyber Ninjas, the private firm without any election auditing experience hired by Senate President Karen Fann to conduct the audit, but also True the Vote which has been at the forefront of denying the results of the 2020 election.

“In each instance and in each matter, the aforementioned parties did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” that memo stated. “The information that was provided was speculated in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”

And there was something else in the memo.

The investigators said that there were elected officials who had made public statements asserting that voting fraud had occurred and that fraud was a factor in the outcome of the 2020 election.

Yet when actually questioned by investigators — under circumstances where they were told they could be prosecuted for making false reports to law enforcement agencies — “the elected officials did not repeat or make such assertions.”

That included Mark Finchem, at the time a Republican representative from Oro Valley and now a state senator from Prescott. Finchem had publicly stated he had a source reporting that more than 30,000 fraudulent or fictitious votes were registered in Pima County during the 2020 general election. Investigators then requested to speak with him.

“During that meeting, Mr. Finchem did not repeat those allegations, specifically stating he did not have any evidence of fraud and he did not wish to take up our time,” the investigators reported.

What he did provide were four ballots he said was evidence of a flawed process for mailing and counting ballots.

The investigators, however, said they found the ballots had been mailed to prior residents of the address on file, the residents had moved, the ballots cannot be forward and they were unopened and not counted.

They also said that Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, who had alleged widespread fraud in the 2020 election “refused to meet with us, saying she was waiting to see the ‘perp walk’ of those who committed fraud during the election.”

Arizona’s top election official challenges federal bid for voter registration data

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes wants a federal judge to throw out efforts by the Trump administration to force him to turn over voter registration and election records
Fontes says much of the information demanded by the Department of Justice is protected by state privacy laws
He also argues that the federal government hasn’t appropriately justified the reason behind the demand

Saying the demand is illegal, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes wants a federal judge to throw out efforts by the Trump administration to force him to turn over voter registration and election records.

In a new court filing, Fontes argued that while some of what is in those records is already public, things like names, addresses, and party affiliation, other information demanded by the Department of Justice is protected under state privacy law. That includes any part of a voter’s social security number, driver’s license number, mother’s maiden name, the state or county of birth, an email address or signature.

And that’s just for ordinary residents. He said there is an entirely separate and more comprehensive law covering those in the state’s confidentiality program — people like prosecutors and judges — who have obtained a court order shielding anything in the records, like their home address, from public view.

But even if that were not the case, Fontes believes there’s no basis for the demand.

He said Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the agency’s civil rights division, is claiming she is entitled to the records to see if Arizona is complying with the 1960 Civil Rights Act. That law is designed to prevent race discrimination in voting.

The caveat, Fontes said, is that Dhillon has never explained how the records would help the Department of Justice investigate civil rights violations. In fact, in a lawsuit filed last month in federal court, she claimed her agency needs the information to monitor adherence to federal law that requires state officials to conduct “list maintenance” to keep voter registration records current and accurate.

And Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a prepared statement when she sued Arizona, said these legal actions are necessary “to protect American elections.”

In his new filing, however, Fontes claimed the real goal is a national and centralized database on millions of Americans for the sake of immigration screening the voter rolls.

He’s not the only one questioning what’s behind the actions of the Department of Justice.

Last month, a federal judge in California threw out a similar bid to get that state’s voter database, calling the claim by the agency of why it needed it “lacking in depth” and “contrived.”

“If the DOJ wants to instead use (the) statutes for more than their stated purpose, circumventing the authority granted to them by Congress, it cannot do so under the guise of pretextual investigative purpose,” wrote the judge handling that case.

Now, Fontes wants U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich, who is hearing Dhillon’s demand on Fontes, to reach a similar conclusion and dismiss the case.

The challenge follows years of President Trump arguing, since losing his first reelection bid in 2020, that American elections are rampant with cheating and fraud. The president even used a social media post last year to publicly pressure Bondi to investigate.

Importantly, Fontes said that even if the Department of Justice had a legal basis to demand the voter registration records to find people who are not citizens — and he is not conceding that it does — what’s in those records won’t help.

“As this court is surely aware, for more than 20 years, Arizona has required that a voter registration application for one registering to vote for the first time or re-registering when moving from one Arizona county to another be accompanied by ‘satisfactory’ evidence of United States citizenship,” he told U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich, who is hearing the case.

And a more recent state law, Fontes said, requires county officials who do not get such proof to check federal databases for evidence of citizenship.

“Simply put, any person who makes it onto Arizona’s voter rolls has already demonstrated United States citizenship,” he said. “Accordingly, if the purpose for plaintiff’s demand is to find noncitizens on Arizona’s voter rolls, the state has already done that and access to Arizona’s voter record database will not further plaintiff’s purpose.”

Fontes told Capitol Media Services that none of that is undermined by the fact that it actually is possible for those who don’t provide things like a birth certificate or other documents to register to vote.

That’s because they are entitled under federal law to sign up by signing a form designed by the federal Election Assistance Commission. And that form includes a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all the legal requirements to vote, including being citizens.

They can, however, vote only in federal elections.

Fontes said that specific federal law means their signature on the affidavit provides all the proof of citizenship needed to vote.

The legality of that also was affirmed in 2024 when U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments by those who said that it is illegal for these “federal only” voters to cast ballots in presidential races.

Challengers pointed out that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden by 10,457 votes in Arizona. And at the time there were about 21,000 Arizonans who registered using the federally designed form.

All that, they argued, means those federal only voters could have affected the election, though no proof was provided that those using the federal form were not citizens.

Bolton rejected arguments that Arizona can keep those who sign up using that federal form from voting in the presidential race.

“The plain language of the National Voter Registration Act reflects an intent to regulate all elections for federal offices, including for president or vice president,” she wrote. “And binding precedent indicates that Congress has the power to control registration for presidential elections.”

Her ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are currently more than 44,600 of these federal only voters.

Election officials have said most of these appear to be from people who do not have easy access to birth certificates, like students going to college in Arizona and military voters who are overseas.

Fontes talks GOP election efforts, federal data demands

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes denies federal requests for sensitive voter data
Gives opinion and official perspective on GOP voting measures
Comments highlight tension between state and federal election officials ahead of 2026

Arizona’s top election official isn’t giving in to federal requests for state voter data, standing by his decision to tell federal officials to “pound sand.”

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes spoke at an event hosted by the League of Women Voters of Arizona on federal administrative overreach for sensitive voter roll data and several bills that would affect how Arizona runs its elections.

Fontes recapped the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for Arizona’s voter roll information, which started last summer. The request was repeated three times and denied three times by Fontes, who at one point, told the department to “pound sand.”

Publicly available voter data exists and includes information such as name, street address, birth year, political affiliation and the elections they voted in. However, the DOJ never made a request for that data, he said.

They requested sensitive information that includes month and date of birth, Social Security Number, driver’s license number or non-operating identification number, Indian census number, father’s name or mother’s maiden name, state or county of birth, voter signatures and email addresses, he said. The department did not disclose how the data would be used, Fontes added.

The department cannot obtain the information from other federal agencies either, due to the Privacy Act of 1974, he said, and each agency has restrictions on how it can obtain and use data.

“I can’t justify handing over, to an administration that’s careless, Arizona’s voter data, particularly the sensitive stuff that I’m barred from turning over,” Fontes said. “I kept saying no, because as you can see through the list, that’s some pretty sensitive information, and if it got out, your identity could be subject to being stolen, and that’s not something that I really want to happen to Arizona’s voters.”

Under Arizona law section 16-168, subsection F, sensitive data is not permissible to be disclosed. It reads in part, “… shall not be accessible or reproduced by any person other than the voter by an authorized government official in the scope of the official’s duties for any purpose by any designated entity of the Secretary of State.”

At first, the department said they wanted to make sure Arizona complied with several congressional acts, including the Voter Registration Act, Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the Help America Vote Act to get the data, but Fontes said it wasn’t a legitimate request and he wasn’t going to subject himself to a potential felony.

In January, the department filed a lawsuit against Arizona and cited all three congressional acts to turn over voting records. Fontes said he expects to hear something about the case within 30 to 60 days. Several similar cases in five states have been dismissed based on merit or procedural grounds. Those include West Virginia, Georgia, California, Oregon and Michigan.

Eleven states did turn over their voter rolls, and Fontes said he’s worried about what will happen to those voters, but Arizona will continue to refuse the request under his leadership.

Fontes talks about recent state legislation on elections

The secretary of state also discussed two bills that have recently moved through the state Legislature.

The first is the striker amendment to Senate Bill 1570 (diversity; equity; inclusion; training; prohibition), which would have allowed federal agents into polling locations under an agreement with a county recorder and county board of supervisors and with federal immigration agencies.

The bill is effectively dead because Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, who filed the amendment, did not hear it in the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee before the deadline on Feb. 20. It could come back as a striker amendment to another bill. The original bill was filed by Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, but Rogers said they couldn’t hear it because Hoffman was ill and unavailable to present it, though many bills are heard in committee without the sponsor present.

“Some people are saying, ‘Oh it’s just political.’ Some people are saying ‘Oh, it’s just a fundraising thing,’” Fontes said. “I think it’s an absolute acknowledgement that ICE agents are not allowed into polling places in Arizona.”

Fontes did not elaborate but said his office, the Governor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office are working on scenarios in case those issues, among others, arise. Later on Feb. 25, Fontes said in a statement that according to a call with federal election officials, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents would not be at polling locations.

“I think we have to understand the fact that we are having this conversation tells us that we are not living in a regular democracy that we would understand 18 months ago,” he said.

He also alleged that the Trump administration was using ICE “as a cudgel against this weird fantasy that they have that the illegals are taking over the world.”

He pointed to a study by the Heritage Foundation that found a ballot has been cast by non-citizens 68 times since the 1980s. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

“Think about the billions of votes that have been cast,” he said. “You’re talking about all the municipalities, all the county courts, of all the county commissions and boards of supervisors, all of the state legislatures, all of the presidential races, all of the congressional races.”

Other bills that have caught Fontes’ attention include ones that would dismantle or alter the state’s mail-in voting system. About 80% of Arizonans send their ballots by mail, according to the Clean Elections Commission.

“That means only 20% of your voters are voting in person right now,” he said. “That means you would have to increase by five-fold all of the resources that you spend, all of the spaces where people vote because you’re basically relegating everybody to standing in line in one day and having to show their ID. But nobody’s done the fiscal analysis on that.”

Each location would need a minimum of seven non-volunteer employees to staff each polling location, he said.

“Take the number of polling places and the amount of money that you spend per ballot for in-person voting and multiply that by five. We don’t have the money for that,” he said. “We literally don’t have the ability to pay for them. The counties aren’t going to absorb that cost.”

Another bill, SCR 1001, filed by Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, proposed to end early voting no later than 7 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day and prohibit contributions to candidates or ballot measures from foreign nationals. If passed by lawmakers, it would send the decision to voters.

Fontes concluded his comments and said, “I’m going to do everything that I can within the law so that I can make sure that we kind of preserve and protect the systems that we’ve got.”

Gina Swoboda considers run for Arizona secretary of state

Key Points:

Ex- Republican Party chair files to run for Arizona secretary of state
Gina Swoboda may face state Rep. Alexander Kolodin in GOP primary
Swoboda’s congressional bid for CD 1 has drawn multiple Republican challengers

A potentially heated race is shaping up among Republicans who want to take on incumbent Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

Gina Swoboda, who just stepped down as chair of the Arizona Republican Party, filed a “statement of interest” on Feb. 3 to be the GOP nominee to become the state’s chief elections officer. That filing allows Swoboda to begin gathering signatures to have her name on the Aug. 4 primary ballot.

But whether Swoboda intends to take on state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, remains in question.

“Exploring my options,” she said in a statement to Capitol Media Services.

“Elections have always been a passion for me,” Swoboda said. “I love that office.”

Swoboda actually worked in the Secretary of State’s Office under both Republican Michele Reagan and Democrat Katie Hobbs.

Aside from running the state party for two years before quitting last month, Swoboda was also a policy adviser for the state House.

In October, she announced plans to run for the U.S. House after Republican Congressman David Schweikert said he was vacating that seat in a bid to run for governor. That district includes parts of north Phoenix, Scottsdale and Fountain Hills.

Swoboda also got the backing of President Trump in that bid.

Kolodin, for his part, dismissed the possibility of having to wage a primary race. He even said that Swoboda, before her latest move, endorsed his bid for secretary of state.

“I’m the most qualified candidate in the race and the voters know it,” Kolodin told Capitol Media Services. And he said there’s a good reason for her not to abandon her congressional bid.

“Gina should focus on her CD 1 primary so that she isn’t the reason Republicans lose the (U.S.) House majority,” Kolodin said.

The move also drew the ire of Sen. Jake Hoffman. The Queen Creek Republican is chair of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, of which Kolodin is a member.

“Gina Swoboda is a Democrat,” he said.

Hoffman also accused her of attacking “school choice.”

That stems from the fact that Swoboda, as chair of the Arizona Republic Party, said there need to be more “guardrails” around the voucher program which provides tax dollars for parents to send their children to private and parochial schools and to home school their children. Swoboda cited reports of parents buying items like lingerie, jewelry and home appliances and said there need to be protections against abuse.

More recently, Swoboda drew ire from Republicans after saying that Trump had lost the political argument about immigration enforcement, not because of the deportations, which she said remain popular, but because of the increased reports of tactics being used.

With Schweikert not seeking reelection, that race for CD 1 has become crowded.

Also in the hunt is former Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely. He, too, was endorsed by Trump.

So is state Rep. Joseph Chaplik of Scottsdale.

Other Republicans who have filed statements of interest include Jason Duey, Dusko Jovicic, Kaitlin Purrington, Paul Reeves, Brandon Sowers, Brandon Sproles and John Trobough.

AG race heats up with candidates reporting millions in campaign funds

Key Points:

Republican Rodney Glassman claims to have most cash on hand in Arizona attorney general race
Glassman’s $3.3 million includes $1 million of his own money, campaign finance report shows
Democrat Kris Mayes, the incumbent, has raised over $3.7 million for reelection

Rodney Glassman, a Republican contender for attorney general, is boasting that he has more cash on hand than anyone else in the race. What Glassman does not say — and what his latest campaign finance report does not make clear — is that his $3.3 million war chest includes $1 million of his own money.

Still, that still leaves him more than both of his other GOP foes in the race combined.

But incumbent Attorney General Kris Mayes reports more than $2.8 million cash on hand from contributions alone, with no reported self-funding spent for another four years in office.

In broader strokes, Glassman has collected $2.3 million — not counting his personal loan — in the race, with about $268,000 in expenses so far.

Senate President Warren Petersen, in his own bid to be the Republican nominee, listed total contributions of more than $1.2 million. He, too, self-funded by providing $123,500 in loans to his campaign.

With expenses of about $106,000, that leaves him with $1.3 million in the bank — including his own money.

Also in the hunt for the GOP nomination is Greg Roeberg.

His latest campaign finance report lists more than $426,000 in donations, but $400,000 of that is a loan he made to his campaign on the last day of 2025.

He has about $416,000 cash on hand.

Mayes got to her $2.8 million in the bank with total contributions so far of $3.7 million. But she already has spent more than $1 million of that on her reelection bid.

The race for secretary of state is shaping up to be nowhere near as expensive.

Incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes has collected more than $780,000 in donations against nearly $380,000 in expenses, leaving him with about $461,000 the bank.

Republican Alexander Kolodin, currently a state lawmaker, has collected about $249,000 against expenses of less than $22,000, with about $252,000 cash on hand.

In the contest for state treasurer, Republican Elijah Norton listed his total donations at $2.3 million. But of that, $2.1 million came out of his own pocket. And, after expenses, the amount he has listed in the bank pretty much matches that $2.1 million figure.

Democrat Nick Mansour has about $245,000 cash on hand after donations of more than $410,000 and expenses approaching $148,000.

Incumbent Republican Kimberly Yee, having served two terms, cannot run for reelection. But Yee now has her sights set on another office – that of state superintendent of public instruction.

Yee reported having collected more than $287,000 since entering the race against just $26,295 in expenses, leaving her with more than $257,000.

She hopes to beat incumbent Tom Horne in the Republican primary.

His donations so far are listed at about $416,000 against less than $20,000 in expenses, resulting in cash on hand of about $396,000.

Several Democrats have lined up to take on who survives the GOP primary.

The one with the most money in the bank is Brett Newby with $162,000, but only about $4,000 of that comes from donors, with the balance being his own money.

Teresa Ruiz lists donations of more than $117,000. She, too, has put her own money into the campaign, but just $10,000.

With expenses of about $68,000, that leaves her close to $49,000.

Also in the Democratic race is Michael Butts.

But he is taking only limited campaign donations in hopes of qualifying for public financing. If he gets 1,500 $5 donations he will be entitled to $147,836 for his primary campaign.

There also is a candidate from the Arizona Independent Party running for state schools chief.

Stephen Neal, who has put more than $1,000 of his own money into the race, has just $304 in the bank after listing receipts totaling $4,200.

Arizona officials fight DOJ demand for voter data, citing privacy concerns

Key Points:

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces lawsuit over voter registration records
DOJ demands access to nearly 5 million Arizonans’ voter registration records for “election protection”
A California judge recently dismissed a similar DOJ request as “unprecedented and illegal”

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is going to get some legal help in his battle with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi over the state’s voter registration records.

Both the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Common Cause have filed legal papers asking U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich to allow them to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice demanding access to the full and unredacted records of nearly 5 million Arizonans who are signed up to vote.

Fontes has already vowed to fight the demand by the Department of Justice, contending that what it wants is illegal under federal and state privacy laws.

He even told Capitol Media Services he is “willing to go to jail” to protect the information, saying that a top official in Bondi’s office who has been pushing the demand “can pound sand.”

Attorneys for both organizations, in their filing in federal court here, acknowledge what Fontes is doing.

But they also say that they and their members have their own unique and legally protectable interests in preserving the privacy of those records. More to the point, they contend that if Fontes is ordered to surrender the records, the information could be used to try to remove people, including their members, from the voter rolls.

Central to the case — and similar ones filed in nearly two dozen other states — is the argument by the Department of Justice that it needs the information to “protect American elections.”

It also contends that Congress has empowered the attorney general to enforce various federal laws designed to ensure that voter registration lists are accurate and properly maintained.

The lawyers for the two groups that have intervened in the case have a different perspective.

“In 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act which charges states — not the federal government — with the administration of voter registration for elections for federal offices,” wrote Sambo Dul.

She is the lawyer for the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, a group which has aligned itself in the past with Democratic interests. And in her legal papers she said the Department of Justice, which now has sued 24 states, has an ulterior motive.

“It reportedly seeks to use the data to create a national voter database in an attempt to substantiate unfounded accusations that millions of non-citizens have voted illegally in recent elections,” Dul wrote. “In recent public statements, moreover, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon made clear that DOJ also intends to use the information to attempt to compel removal of hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls.”

Victoria Lopez, an attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, which represents Common Cause in its own motion to intervene in the case, has a similar take.

She pointed out that the Department of Justice wants all information on registered voters, including their full name, date of birth, residential address, and either the driver’s license number or the last four digits of the person’s social security number. And Lopez said state law prohibits that information from being publicly released.

“(The) DOJ’s request for private, sensitive voter data appears to be in connection with never-before-seen efforts by the United States to construct a national voter database, and to otherwise use untested forms of database matching to scrutinize voter rolls,” she told the judge. And that, Lopez said, includes comparing it to records of the Department of Homeland Security.

Lopez also pointed out that a federal judge in California dismissed a nearly identical bid by the Department of Justice to access that state’s 23 million voter registration records just last week. U.S. District Court Judge David Carter called the government’s request not only “extraordinary,” but also “unprecedented and illegal.”

“The DOJ’s request for sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used,” he said.

“There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all election power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate,” Carter wrote in his 34-page ruling. “This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders died for.”

And the judge rejected claims by the Department of Justice that various federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act, intended to allow it to have the information it needs.

“Congress’ intent was clear — ensuring that all Americans, regardless of race, are able to vote without fear or distress,” he wrote of those statutes.

“The DOJ cannot go beyond the boundaries provided by Congress and use these legislative tools in a manner that wholly disregards the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution,” Carter said. “Should Congress want to enable the Executive to centralize the private information of all Americans within the Executive Branch, Congress will have to clearly say so.”

Finally, the judge rejected arguments that the National Voter Registration Act preempts California’s own privacy laws. That is significant because Fontes has cited Arizona’s own privacy laws in his refusal to surrender the information sought.

Legislature scrutinizes new elections manual, potential for litigation looms

Key Points:

Elections Procedures Manual get executive approval
Changes reflect court rulings, public comments and executive edits
Legislature undertaking a close review to ensure compliance with state law

With the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual in effect, the Legislature is now taking a fine-toothed comb to each provision, potentially teeing up another round of litigation.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Gov. Katie Hobbs all signed off on the 2025 Elections Procedures Manual on Dec. 23, bringing to a close the odd-year process of promulgating a playbook for election workers and officials.

But as the 2025 EPM takes effect, ongoing litigation over the prior draft puts some provisions in limbo, and a new set of eyes could spark another round of legal challenges.

“While the Elections Procedures Manual has been approved, that does not mean it is beyond scrutiny,” Senate President Warren Petersen said.

Per state law, the secretary of state, in consultation with county election officials, must draft a new manual every odd-numbered year and seal it with a final sign-off from the governor and attorney general.

The Secretary of State’s Office, in consultation with election officials from all 15 counties, conducted a section-by-section review of the prior manual and publicly unveiled the first draft of the 2025 manual on August 1.

What they found was a departure from the 2023 manual in a few respects.

For example, the new manual no longer contains a provision delineating voter intimidation and harassment, following two parties successfully arguing that there was a potential for chilled speech in the state and federal courts.

Fontes also struck a provision requiring the state to move forward without the votes of a county that fails to certify on time, similarly in response to successful litigation.

And during the drafting process, the courts weighed a legal challenge from the Republican Party of Arizona and the Republican National Committee on whether the manual had to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and thus, was required to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 30 days.

The Arizona Court of Appeals found the EPM had to comply with the APA, though the decision was later overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

But, in yielding to the momentarily successful court challenge, and in the name of best practice, Fontes solicited public comment for 30 days.

On Oct. 2, Fontes posted a second draft, with notes of the changes responsive to public input.

The office took into account one legislative recommendation, clarifying a footnote on petition circulators, but did not include a number of other requested changes, particularly those pertaining to proof of citizenship.

Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro took issue with a provision they said purportedly allows county recorders to cure registrations when they have found evidence that an applicant is not a citizen.

The legislative leaders instead recommend the EPM require county recorders to cancel registrations and refer applications to the attorney general and county attorney for further investigation.

And in a similar vein, the two also flagged a provision empowering recorders to attempt to secure proof of citizenship on a registrant’s behalf and wanted to strike a provision that made a lack of proof of citizenship an “invalid ground” to challenge an early ballot.

With select edits, Fontes then sent the manual to Hobbs and Mayes in early October for the final round of executive edits.

According to a transmittal letter from the Secretary of State’s Office, Hobbs and Mayes requested a footnote detailing the pending litigation regarding the Arizona Independent Party’s name change.

Per the letter, the secretary of state’s guidance to counties instructing them to honor the name change remains valid but is not included in the manual due to the ongoing lawsuit.

Mayes and Hobbs also requested slight tweaks to the observer section to align with state law, which requires observers at voting and central count locations and allows county election officers the discretion to admit observation elsewhere.

The prior draft listed places such as “early voting locations, emergency voting centers, and County Recorder processing procedures, where permitted by the County Recorder or other officer in charge of elections,” while the final EPM allows observation “at any other location where observation is permitted.”

Mayes and Hobbs also added a section instructing counties to develop a process to accept documentary proof of citizenship and residency at voting locations.

The manual now requires voters providing proof of citizenship or residency to provide photocopies and complete a form to be sent to recorders with the voter’s provisional ballots, either on the spot or by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Though final, the manual still has some provisions in limbo.

Ongoing challenges by the Legislature, as well as the state and national Republican parties, are still pending a final say from the court, leaving issues of documentary proof of citizenship, non-resident juror questionnaire responses, county canvassing and active early voting list removal subject to change.

Litigation against the 2025 EPM could materialize as well, as the new draft did not accommodate every requested edit submitted in public comment by past litigants, including the Legislature, the Republican Party of Arizona, and the Republican National Committee.

The Legislature is actively reviewing the manual, according to Petersen, the Senate president.

Arizona Democrats sue to block No Labels Party rebranding

Key Points:

Arizona Democratic Party sues to block No Labels Party renaming
Democrats claim renaming could harm their candidates in upcoming elections
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces a separate lawsuit from Citizens Clean Elections

The Arizona Democratic Party is going to court to block the renaming of the No Labels Party, admitting in its legal filings that it believes the name change could harm its own candidates.

Attorney Roy Herrera contends that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes lacked the legal authority to allow the No Labels Party to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party.

“If permitted, this last-minute rebrand will sow chaos for Arizona’s upcoming elections,” Herrera said.

He added that Fontes, a Democrat, is telling county recorders that would-be voters who write “IND Party” must be registered as members of the Arizona Independent Party. But those who write “IND” or “Independent” will be logged in as “Party Not Designated,” meaning they are true unaffiliated voters.

“In other words, in some cases, the only distinction between voters who will be registered as Arizona Independent Party members and those who will be registered as unaffiliated is the lone word ‘Party,’ ” Herrera said.

One thing that makes that critical is that actual independent voters can cast ballots in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. But that’s not true for those who might accidentally find themselves registered as members of the Arizona Independent Party, who will only be able to choose among candidates from that party.

What that also means for the Democratic Party, Herrera said, is that some people who really wanted to be true independents will no longer be able to sign petitions for Democratic candidates to get on the ballot or vote for them in the primary.

And there’s something else.

Paul Johnson, who chairs the Arizona Independent Party, has acknowledged he wants the name change to make it easier for independent candidates to qualify for the ballot. That’s because it takes only 1,288 signatures for them to qualify for a statewide race; true unaffiliated candidates need 42,303 to have their names listed in the general election on equal parity with traditional party nominees.

And the Arizona Democratic Party, which will have its own slate of candidates on the 2026 ballot, clearly wants to keep in place that higher burden which will limit the number of competitors.

“This distinction reflects a deliberate policy choice: Such laws are designed to weed out the cranks, the publicity seekers and the frivolous candidates yet not to keep out those who are serious in their efforts and have a reasonable number of supporters,” Herrera wrote.

But Charlene Fernandez, who chairs the Arizona Democratic Party — and signed the legal complaint — insists that it has nothing to do with culling out opposition.

She said it’s about the confusing name. And Fernandez said there wouldn’t be the same objection if No Labels chose some different name, like the “Blue-Red Party.”

That, however, ignores the fact that the Arizona Democratic Party filed suit in 2023 when Fontes first granted recognition to the No Labels Party. Democrats contended that No Labels was not following the rules, including by failing to disclose donors behind the effort to have it certified in Arizona.

“Arizonans deserve better and voters deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and what potentially nefarious agenda they are pushing,” said Morgan Dick, who was the spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party at the time.

A judge rejected that effort. And Fernandez, a former legislator who was working at the time in the Biden administration, said Monday she was unaware of that lawsuit.

The Democrats are not alone in challenging Fontes’s decision to approve the name change.

He already is facing a lawsuit by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. It also contends that the name change is illegal and confusing, and that the secretary lacks the authority to simply allow the No Labels Party to call itself something else.

Johnson, a former Phoenix mayor who ran unsuccessfully for governor as a Democrat in 1998, has repeatedly said his former political party has been openly hostile to efforts to open the election process. He noted that Herrera filed suit in 2024 to keep an “open primaries” measure off the ballot.

That measure would have required all candidates for all offices to run in a primary, with anyone registered to vote entitled to cast a ballot. Then, at least the top two vote-getters would face off in the general election, regardless of party, something that could put two Democrats, two Republicans or even two political independents — or any combination thereof — on the November ballot.

But opposition to putting Proposition 140 on the ballot was bipartisan, with a separate lawsuit filed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which generally aligns with Republican and business interests at the Capitol.

Both lawsuits failed. But so did the ballot measure, which went down to defeat by a 2-1 margin.

There was no immediate response from Fontes to the latest lawsuit.

But he has previously said that the name change is legal and that he is working with local election officials to minimize confusion.

Meet Arizona’s Power 50

Welcome to the inaugural Power 50.

These are the state’s most important people — those who hold the power and wield the influence to shape the landscape of Arizona now and in the future. From legislative leaders and behind-the-scenes strategists to business moguls and grassroots changemakers, this inaugural list goes beyond titles to spotlight the individuals who make things happen. Whether they wield power from the Capitol, a courtroom, the halls of higher education — or sometimes from the shadows — these are the players to watch.

While this is by no means an exhaustive ranking of Arizona’s most impactful leaders, this list serves as a reference point and highlights those actively steering the political agenda. We hope it sparks discussion about Arizona’s future.

But you shouldn’t get too caught up in the rankings. The difference between No. 14 and No. 35 probably isn’t really that great.

This list will evolve annually. As a reader, you can be a part of it. Liked the direction we went in? Let us know. Didn’t see someone you believe should be on the list? Tell us about them.

We look forward to continuing to engage with you on these and other key players — and issues — shaping the state.

Thank you for reading the Arizona Capitol Times.

Teri Hayt, Managing Editor.

(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Gov. Katie Hobbs: As the first Democrat elected governor of Arizona in nearly two decades, Hobbs has ushered the state through a new era of divided government. While sparring with the Republican-controlled Legislature over the last three years, she broke the state’s veto record twice, narrowly avoided a historic government shutdown and managed to see a few of her own priorities cross the finish line. Hobbs, a frequent punching bag for Republicans, is celebrated by fellow Democrats for signing a repeal of the state’s near-total abortion ban, quashing the most extreme Republican legislation and increasing access to health care and other essential services. The governor will lead the top of the ticket for Democrats in the state in 2026 when she seeks a second and final term on the ninth floor.

Attorney General Kris Mayes: As the state’s chief law enforcement officer, Mayes stands as a Democratic bastion and counterweight to state and federal Republican policy. Since taking office in 2023, her focus has remained steady on enforcing stronger consumer protections, combating the fentanyl crisis, and targeting fraud in the state school choice program. Mayes has waded into, or decidedly stepped out of, political battles. After she refused to defend the state’s 15-week abortion law, the courts struck it down as unconstitutional. She also initiated the prosecution of the 2020 “alternate” presidential electors and is pursuing novel water litigation using public nuisance law. At the federal level, her office joined more than two dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration and saved the state an estimated $1.5 billion in federal funds. She is seeking reelection in 2026.

President Donald Trump: When Trump returned to the White House last November, Arizona was one of the key states to deliver him a victory. His influence was evident in the policies proposed by state Republican lawmakers, who reiterated their support for the president throughout the last legislative session. And Republican lawmakers have shaped much of their policies around his agenda, including bills calling for state law enforcement agencies to support federal immigration enforcement efforts, ending diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at universities and government agencies and reducing the size of government.

Sen. Warren Petersen: Petersen, R-Gilbert, is preparing for his last legislative session as Senate president before he embarks on his campaign for state attorney general. On the campaign trail, he has touted his conservative bona fides and involvement in more than 80 lawsuits, prompting some to refer to him as the “de facto” attorney general. Petersen has either led or joined legal action in numerous issues, including the drafting of the state’s Election Procedures Manual, the Arizona Motion Picture Production Program and litigation over Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act. Petersen has also helped lead the Republican effort to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda at the state Legislature and has met with members of the president’s administration in the last session.

Rep. Steve Montenegro: As one of the most experienced members of the Arizona Legislature, Rep. Montenegro, R-Goodyear, was elected by his Republican colleagues as House Speaker for the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions. Montenegro was first elected to the Arizona House in 2008 and served in the chamber until 2017, when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress in a special election in 2018. He returned to the Legislature in 2023 and became the state’s first Latino speaker. Despite some close calls in his first session as speaker, Montenegro has led the chamber to a bipartisan budget and ensured Arizona’s Division of Developmental Disabilities received emergency funding to keep services available for about 60,000 Arizonans.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes: Fontes rode in on a blue wave in 2022 to continue a legacy of Democratic control at the Secretary of State’s Office that began with Gov. Katie Hobbs’ in 2019. A widely-respected elections expert, having steered Arizona’s largest county through the contentious and unprecedented 2020 election cycle during his time as Maricopa County recorder, Fontes uses his unapologetic air and commanding voice to fend off challenges to the security and effectiveness of Arizona’s election system. Known for his political ambitions, he has contemplated runs for governor and Congress in the last year, but will run for reelection in 2026 alongside the other top Democrats in the state.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne: A seasoned politician, Horne returned to the Arizona Department of Education in 2023 as superintendent after serving in the same position from 2003 to 2011 and serving as attorney general between 2010 and 2015. He took the helm at the dawn of the universal expansion of the Empowerment Scholarship Account program — the state’s school choice program, which has grown to more than 90,000 enrollees from around 12,000. Horne has trained the department to focus on ensuring greater academic outcomes and stronger school safety — chiefly by deploying more armed police officers on school campuses. He’s come back to familiar crusades from his first term, too. He litigated to ensure that students learning English are taught in English and serves as the current presidential administration’s muscle in enforcing the ban on diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory. As he looks ahead to his next term, Horne will face Republican Treasurer Kimberly Yee to keep his seat.

Michael Crow: While many see the president of Arizona State University since 2002 as simply the leader of the state’s largest public university, some see him for what he really is — the unofficial king of Tempe, Arizona. Under his leadership, ASU campuses in Tempe and beyond have evolved into some of the most innovative public universities in the United States. His vision has not only significantly expanded ASU’s enrollment but also increased its impact on Arizona’s economy, workforce development and global reputation. Crow has championed university partnerships with local industries and governments, aligning ASU’s programs with Arizona’s economic needs in its technology, sustainability and health care sectors. In 2024 alone, the university reported a $6.1 billion impact on the Arizona economy. Beyond academia, Crow has been an influential voice in Arizona’s public policy, science and education reform. His forward-thinking leadership continues to shape the state’s educational and economic landscape, making him a key figure for the state’s continued growth and progress.

U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego: Gallego became the first Latino to represent Arizona in the Senate after he was elected in November 2024. Gallego has sought to make a national impact since taking office and he spent considerable portions of 2025 travelling to Pennsylvania, Iowa and New Hampshire to support other Democratic candidates, engage with voters and discuss the issues facing the Democratic Party. The national spotlight has fueled rumors of a 2028 presidential run. His high-profile Senate committee assignments reflect his commitment to border security, energy, housing and Arizona’s veterans, ensuring he remains an influential voice within the national conversation on these important state and national issues. A U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran, he has advocated for Medicaid expansion, veterans’ issues and protecting the state’s water supply throughout his legislative career.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly: Not to be confused with his twin brother and astronaut Scott Kelly, Arizona’s senior senator has made his own meteoric rise through the Democratic Party after first being elected to the Senate in 2020. Briefly rumored to be Kamala Harris’s 2024 running mate, Kelly was a key bipartisan voice in the $52 billion CHIPS and Science Act in 2022 that brought many microchip manufacturing jobs to Arizona. He has now set his sights on congressional reforms, including banning stock trading by members of Congress and ending corporate political action committees.

Erika Kirk (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Erika Kirk: Kirk has emerged as an influential figure in Arizona following the death of her husband, Charlie Kirk. After his assassination, she was unanimously appointed CEO and chair of Turning Point USA, one of the most influential conservative youth organizations in the country. Her leadership now carries not only political significance but also emotional and symbolic weight as she steps into the public eye amid national attention and personal loss. A former Miss Arizona USA raised in Scottsdale, Erika Kirk has long-standing ties to the state. Her influence is rooted not just in politics, but in faith-based media, where she has built a platform around Christian values and conservative messaging. With Turning Point’s national headquarters based in Phoenix, her leadership places Arizona at the center of a growing youth political movement. She is now seen as a unifying and strategic voice for a major segment of conservative America.

Charlie Kirk (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Charlie Kirk (posthumously): Republican candidates and conservative activists in Arizona who align with the youth-MAGA/Turning Point ecosystem still benefit from the network that Charlie Kirk helped build. Kirk’s work, as founder of Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college and university campuses, helped propel young conservative and Christian students at Arizona’s universities to mobilize, register and debate in favor of conservative politics and has played an undeniable role in solidifying Arizona as an important battleground state for national political debate. That influence has forced Democrat and moderate campaigns across the state to rethink their political strategy to account for this new, highly mobilized Republican base. And while the dynamic has changed since Kirk’s passing, the institutional momentum he created through youth chapters, activist culture and voter registration drives has only been emboldened by a new symbolic memorialization of his politics and character among his supporters.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Kimberley Yee: Approaching eight years as head of the Treasurer’s office, Yee has maintained steadfast control while growing the state’s cash reserves. Since being elected in 2018, she has doubled assets under management to $30.2 billion from $15.4 billion. She oversaw a record high in total distributions, boasting $6 billion since taking office. Under her tenure, she’s also seen the Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund increase by about $4 billion. Yee was the first Chinese American Republican woman to win statewide office, the first Asian American woman elected to the Arizona Legislature and the second woman to serve as Senate Majority Leader. Now, Yee looks to lodge a challenge against incumbent Superintendent Tom Horne.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Sen. T.J. Shope: Shope, R-Coolidge, sponsored one of the few bills passed into law on June 30 that sought to address two of the state’s biggest issues — water conservation and housing development. The Ag-to-Urban legislation, which garnered bipartisan support, will allow farmers to sell agricultural land and the accompanying water rights to developers to boost the state’s housing supply and preserve groundwater. Shope, who serves as chair of the Senate Natural Resources committee, has been a vocal advocate for the Colorado River negotiations and for ensuring Arizona isn’t shortchanged during the discussions.

Sen. Jake Hoffman: As chairman of the Senate Director Nominations Committee and the Arizona Freedom Caucus, Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, has emerged as one of the most influential Republicans in the Legislature. Hoffman’s leadership of the nominations committee has put him at odds with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. The committee has rejected several of Hobbs’ agency director nominees, although more were approved this past session. As Freedom Caucus chair, Hoffman has recruited and endorsed a number of Republican candidates for state and national offices and wields considerable influence within the party.

Rep. Julie Willoughby: After being appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to the Statehouse to replace expelled lawmaker Liz Harris in 2023, Willoughby, R-Chandler, has quickly climbed the ranks of the House GOP caucus. When House lawmakers were running out of time to address a funding shortfall for the Division of Developmental Disabilities this year, Willoughby was among the lawmakers advocating for Arizonans who depended on the program, going against a House GOP proposal that was vetoed by the governor and working with House Democrats to find a solution just days before funding expired. Willoughby is now running for the state Senate next year and has positioned herself as one of the most influential lawmakers at the Legislature.

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs: With eight-years of experience in a deep-red Congressional District 5, Biggs officially jumped into Arizona’s gubernatorial race earlier this year. The congressman quickly picked up an endorsement from Trump and the late leader of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk. Biggs is a former leader of the Congressional Freedom Caucus and a member of the powerful House Judiciary and Oversight Committee. He also brings state legislative chops to the table, having served in the Legislature for 14 years, including as Senate President for four of those years.

U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari: Arizona’s youngest representative in Congress is already having an impact in D.C. Ansari was named the president of the House Democratic freshman class at the beginning of the 119th U.S. Congress after she narrowly emerged from Arizona’s 2024 Democratic primary race for its third Congressional district by just more than 40 votes. The former Phoenix vice mayor is the youngest woman in Congress and the first Iranian American Democrat in the U.S. House. Ansari, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Oversight Committee, has stood staunchly opposed to the Trump administration’s immigration policy with surprise oversight visits to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities, calling for better living conditions for detained individuals.

Rep. Gail Griffin: One of the Capitol’s worst-kept secrets is that no water policy gets through the Legislature without Griffin’s seal of approval. The chairwoman of the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee has held the role in various forms since her career as a state lawmaker began in 1997 and she has frustrated both Democrats and Republicans seeking a bipartisan update to Arizona’s rural groundwater law. Griffin, R-Hereford, has long opposed Active Management Areas in the state and has advocated for alternative solutions, which she says give rural communities greater local control and flexibility over groundwater management, but she has presented a roadblock to the governor’s efforts to regulate groundwater pumping in rural parts of the state.

Terry Goddard: Goddard serves as president of the Central Arizona Project board, which sets taxes and policies for the canal system that brings Colorado River water to homes throughout the state. A power player in negotiations over future use of the Colorado River, Goddard — a former Phoenix mayor, two-term attorney general and three-time gubernatorial candidate, is an unwavering advocate for Arizona’s future.

Gina Swoboda: Swoboda stepped into the role of Republican Party chair in 2024 to help deliver the state to President Donald Trump and increase GOP seats in the Arizona House and Senate. The party turned out to be the greatest swing state margin for Trump and raised $20 million, with the majority of the money used to directly contact voters. Trump endorsed Swoboda in her original bid for party chair and in her reelection, and she also received support from state and federal lawmakers. In July, Swoboda was hired by the state House of Representatives to help craft elections policy after working in the Arizona Senate as an elections consultant, where she served for three legislative sessions.

Regina Romero: Tucson’s first Latina mayor may have started her mayoral career in 2019, but she is no amateur. She spent nearly 20 years on the Tucson City Council — the first woman to ever hold the position. She has been an advocate for progressive policies in Tucson, supporting affordable housing projects and serving as the co-chair of Mayors against Illegal Guns. Having won reelection in 2023, Romero has gained traction within the Democratic Party and was the only mayor invited by the White House in 2024 during former President Joe Biden’s administration to join a federal delegation in Mexico for the inauguration of Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum.

Kate Gallego: Gallego, the mayor of Phoenix, has represented city residents for more than a decade. After first being sworn in to the city council in 2014, she became the city’s second female mayor in 2019 and has served in the position for more than half a decade. Gallego has set a goal to make Phoenix the most sustainable desert city in the U.S. She has led efforts to build electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout the city and established an Office of Heat Response and Mitigation to address the extreme summer temperatures that residents face. Gallego pushed back this year against lawmakers who wanted to fund renovations at Chase Field to keep the Arizona Diamondbacks in town and helped negotiate the final version of the bill.

Thomas Galvin: The new chairman of Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has made his mark as the leader of the nation’s fourth most populous county. Elected chairman in January, Galvin announced ambitious goals, including bringing back the Arizona Coyotes after the NHL team left for Utah in 2024. Fed up with the nation routinely waiting for word on the county’s vote tally on presidential election nights, Galvin has also helped lead Republican efforts to change state law to deliver faster election results. He also spearheaded a nearly $500,000 independent review of the county’s election processes and procedures to address complaints of recent election administration from 2020 and 2022.

Tom Buschatzke: As director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Buschatzke serves as the state’s chief negotiator on Colorado River guidelines and the protector of its water supply. Buschatzke started his career in water as an intern in the department he would eventually lead, and is now a widely-respected policy expert who can be found taking part in every meaningful conversation about Arizona water. Most recently, Buschatzke has used his authority to enact groundwater pumping restrictions in rural areas, create new active management areas in dwindling basins and usher in new state laws allowing farmland to be converted for residential use.

John Boelts: As president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, Boelts is a leading voice in groundwater management policy discussions for rural areas. Last session, he supported a measure from Sen. Tim Dunn that would’ve imposed a series of restrictions intended to preserve groundwater in Gila Bend, Hualapai Valley and the Willcox Groundwater Basin. Boelts has advocated for policies that strike a balance between establishing conservation measures to preserve groundwater and ensuring property owners’ water-use rights. He is also a generational farmer who owns Desert Premium Farms in Yuma.

Lea Márquez Peterson: Márquez Peterson is the longest-serving member of the Arizona Corporation Commission and the only statewide elected official who resides in southern Arizona. She became the first Hispanic woman in a statewide position after Gov. Doug Ducey appointed her to the commission in 2019. Now in her final term, Márquez Peterson wants to increase transparency and awareness of the commission’s work, which primarily revolves around regulating the state’s major public utility companies. When she finishes her tenure, Márquez Peterson will no doubt be recruited by Republicans to run for any number of high-profile seats at the state or federal level.

Nick Ponder: Ponder, the senior vice president for governmental affairs at HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, has emerged as an authority on two of the state’s most pressing issues — groundwater and affordable housing. As a lobbyist representing the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, he testified on the proposed Arizona Starter Homes Act. Ponder also represented rural counties and cities in discussions on groundwater management policy.

Danny Seiden: As president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Seiden has tirelessly worked to bolster the state’s economy and businesses. Seiden brings a public policy background to the role, having served as former Gov. Doug Ducey’s deputy chief of staff after helping run his 2014 gubernatorial campaign. Seiden is a familiar face at the Arizona Capitol, where he can often be found chatting with lawmakers and testifying on legislation impacting the business community. Most recently, Seiden and his team at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce helped ink a deal for stadium upgrades to the Arizona Diamondbacks’ Chase Field.

Stephen Roe Lewis: A strong voice for Arizona’s tribal communities, the Gila River Indian Community governor has helped find solutions for long-standing issues facing the community. Lewis helped organize the opening of a managed aquifer recharge site, which has helped the community secure access to water and serves as a key cultural identity achievement. He’s prioritized youth educational opportunities and veteran support, and he was one of Arizona’s 2020 presidential electors. Lewis is in his third term as governor and serves as the National Congress of American Indians’ secretary.

Brenda Burman: Burman leads the Central Arizona Project as its first female general manager where she is tasked with sustainably managing the 336-mile canal system that distributes Colorado River water to Arizonans. In 2017, Burman became the first female commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation after previous water policy roles in the U.S. Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy and U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl’s office. She is also an attorney with experience in Native American water rights, making her a strong asset for Arizona’s water policy community.

Sandra Watson: Watson is the president and CEO of the Arizona Commerce Authority, a state agency dedicated to bringing companies, jobs and capital to the state. She is one of the state’s longest-serving agency heads, having been appointed to her role when the ACA was created in 2011. Watson and the ACA have been credited with helping Arizona become a semiconductor manufacturing hub, bringing countless jobs and investments to the state.

Tom Savage: Lawmakers have grown accustomed to seeing Savage in the halls of the House and Senate for nearly a decade. Savage, who joined the League of Arizona Cities and Towns as a legislative associate in 2016, now serves as the League’s legislative director and represents cities at the Capitol for a wide range of issues. Before joining the League, Savage worked as a House staffer and helped research policy issues for the Agriculture, Water and Lands, and Energy, Environment and Natural Resources committees.

Jen Marson: As executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, Marson’s expertise encompasses property taxes, elections, public records, criminal justice, law enforcement, justice, superior courts, education and then some. Her experience working in multiple government jurisdictions makes her the go-to person to take the stand at any number of committee hearings for counties across the state. As a certified election office, Marson has fought against election mistrust and misinformation for years. She continues to be recognized for her work, having won the Arizona Capitol Times’ Best Government Lobbyist award two years in a row.

Buu Nygren: A self-described carpenter, public servant and father, Nygren has spent the past two years constructing a better future for Arizona’s tribal communities as the president of the Navajo Nation. But his tenure has not been without problems, he faced a recall petition but a Navajo Nation investigation cleared Nygren of the accusations. Despite the investigation, his long term vision and steady commitment to his people did not falter. He is one of the more powerful and influential cultural and political leaders in the state. His priorities include access to water, modern infrastructure, affordable housing, and a thriving economy for tribal lands. To that end, Nygren was instrumental in negotiating with Hopi and San Juan Paiute leaders to secure a historic water rights settlement between the tribes. He also made clever use of the American Rescue Plan Act to secure more than $500 million in funding for infrastructure projects. A steadfast defender of Navajo sovereignty, he has worked to protect tribal lands from the transportation of uranium from the Pinyon Plain Mine south of the Grand Canyon.

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick: Bolick, first appointed to the court in 2016 by Gov. Doug Ducey, fought an effort to remove him from the bench over his vote to keep a statewide abortion ban in place. Despite a coordinated and funded campaign against his candidacy, Bolick kept his seat with 58% of the vote. He continues to advocate for an independent judiciary and further civic education on the state’s judicial retention system, especially as the race attracts more political and campaign interest each year. Before ascending to the state’s high court, Bolick served as the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute and as the president and general counsel for the Alliance for School Choice, where he advocated for school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and federalism.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Maria Elena Cruz: Cruz, the newest member of the Arizona Supreme Court, brings a wealth of experience from rural Arizona and is the first Latina and Black justice to serve on the court. Cruz started her career as a prosecutor at the Yuma County Attorney’s Office, pivoted to criminal defense, and then worked in family and criminal law as a solo practitioner. She has worked as a judge pro tem for the Cocopah Indian Tribe, as a superior court judge and as a presiding judge in Yuma County. Before her ascent to the state high court, she served on the Arizona Court of Appeals for eight years. Hobbs chose Cruz in January after a lengthy nomination process, slotting her to fill the vacancy left by former Chief Justice Robert Brutinel.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Karrin Taylor Robson: After a loss in the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary, Robson has continued her fight to become Arizona’s governor. Robson is an attorney and land use consultant who has dabbled in lobbying and public service, including a stint on the Arizona Board of Regents. For the 2026 gubernatorial primary, she rebranded from an old-guard Republican backed by critics of President Donald Trump to a “MAGA” darling with the president’s endorsement. Robson is hoping her self-funded campaign war chest and lifelong conservative values are enough to make her Gov. Katie Hobbs’ challenger next year.

Andy Gaona: As the governor’s go-to outside counsel and a leading election attorney in the state, Gaona has sparred in court over election contests in 2020 and 2022, served as the go-to voice on campaign finance, ballot access and the inner workings of elections, and drafted and defended a host of voter initiatives over the past 10 years. He waded into and successfully defended the statewide initiative to enshrine a right to abortion, a measure to legalize marijuana and the funding fix for Arizona schools under Proposition 123. He continues to serve as a partner at Coppersmith Brockelman, where he co-leads the election and political practice with the governor’s former general counsel, Sambo “Bo” Dul.

(Photo by Jon Willey/Arizona Diamondbacks)

Ken Kendrick: Kendrick, a Paradise Valley resident, is more than just a baseball fan, he’s Arizona’s MVP for anything related to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Kendrick has played a pivotal role in intergovernmental relations between the state’s premier professional baseball team and its government. He was pivotal in negotiating a bill that authorized up to $500 million in public funding for stadium renovations, effectively securing the team’s future in the state and establishing an enormous tax base for Phoenix residents. Moreover, through the Ken Kendrick Grand Slam Awards and the Arizona Diamondbacks Foundation, Kendrick has contributed significantly to Arizona philanthropy, providing nearly $2 million in funding to Arizona nonprofits between 2024 and 2025. His work to renovate youth sports fields in places like Arcadia and South Mountain, and his work in the Give Back Jersey Program to supply Diamondbacks-themed apparel and uniforms to thousands of young athletes in Arizona, have both contributed significantly to the health and well-being of Arizona’s youth sports leagues.

Rick Smith: Smith, the founder and CEO of Axon, has solidified his status as an influential leader of one of Arizona’s most prominent companies. Axon is known for developing the Taser, body cameras and other safety technology. The homegrown company flexed its lobbying muscles last session when a ballot referendum threatened to derail the construction of its global headquarters in north Scottsdale. Smith rallied with dozens of employees and worked with lawmakers to garner support for a bill that would allow the company to complete the project. He accomplished his goal when Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a law that cleared a path for the company to proceed with its plans.

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Michael Bidwill: Following the death of his father in 2019, Bidwill has worked to keep ownership of the Arizona Cardinals in the Bidwill family. He took over as the team’s president in 2006 and helped create State Farm Stadium in Glendale, which has brought an economic surge to the area and hosted multiple Super Bowls and large events, including the 2025 Memorial for Charlie Kirk and Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in 2023. With an estimated net worth of $1.4 billion, Bidwill has taken an interest in engagement with the NFL and has held various committee roles, including the league’s Conduct Committee and the Player-Owner Committee. In 2016, he was inducted into the National Football Foundation Leadership Hall of Fame.

Jenny Clark: As founder of Love Your School, a multi-state school choice advocacy and support organization, Clark continues to be the first line of defense in strengthening, growing and defending school choice options in the state. Her main focus continues to be the Empowerment Scholarship Account program, with resources and one-on-one support for families to sign up, obtain disability diagnoses, and secure funding for the child to attend private school or create a tailored homeschool option. But her work does not end there. She’s assisted families with disabilities in navigating the public school system and in obtaining tax credit scholarships through School Tuition Organizations. She served on the State Board of Education from 2022 to 2025, appointed by former Gov. Doug Ducey.

Marisol Garcia: Garcia leads the premier labor union for more than 22,000 Arizona public school educators and has continually gone to the mat for all school employees at the local, state and federal levels. During her tenure as president of the Arizona Education Association, Garcia has transformed the union into a more visible, organized presence in political battles and public school education advocacy. Garcia has pushed for paying all school employees through the continuation of Proposition 123, a school funding measure relying on the state land trust fund. She’s fought for educators in her own district, the Isaac Elementary School District, amid a financial crisis. And she, of course, leads the charge in securing additional funding for schools across the state while fighting against what she calls “unfunded mandates”— education policies without a proper fiscal note. Garcia was first elected as Arizona Education Association president in 2022 and was reelected in May 2025.

John Ward: Ward, executive director of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts at the Arizona Department of Education, assumed responsibility for a program hurtling toward a $1 billion price tag, with 91,000 enrollees and growing. Prior to his current role, Ward served as the chief auditor for the department and a manager at the Arizona Auditor General’s office. He’s continued to walk a tightrope, ensuring no misspending of state funds while maintaining enough flexibility for families — a dance that continues to bring him equal doses of praise and criticism from state school choice advocates and program participants.

Tammy McLeod: While some plant seeds to grow trees, McLeod, through her leadership of the Flinn Foundation, plants seeds that grow industries. She has remained a mobilizing and industrious philanthropist in Arizona’s higher education community for almost a decade. McLeod has led Arizona’s bioscience sector to tremendous growth in funding, wages and jobs. Her work on the Flinn Foundation’s Arizona Bioscience Roadmap, which sets the state’s strategy for fostering growth in the industry, created the blueprint for the last decade of growth in Arizona’s bioscience community. Moreover, her work to update that roadmap for implementation in 2025 will set the course for the billion-dollar industry through the next decade.

Elizabeth S. Chatham: While some make their names by who they attack, others make theirs for who they protect. The latter is the case for Chatham, Arizona’s premier immigration attorney, community leader and diversity advocate. Named one of the “Most Influential Women in Arizona Business” by AZ Big Media in 2025, Chatham has built a legacy in Arizona through her legal work for Fortune 500 companies, startups, universities and more. She has dedicated herself to helping the state’s at-risk populations navigate complex U.S. immigration laws, including visa card applications, green card strategies, naturalization and more. Chatham’s work bridges the gap between Arizona’s government and its immigrant communities, and her legal expertise has made her an influential figure in Arizona’s business and political communities.

Jessica Nuñez (Via Facebook.com)

Jessica Nuñez: While many would crumble and fall in the face of family tragedy, Nuñez proves that some are still willing to stand up and fight for what they know is right for their family. Nuñez rose to prominence in Arizona in 2024 and 2025 through her advocacy work after her teenage daughter, Alicia Navarro, went missing in 2019. While Navarro resurfaced four years later, her disappearance lit a fire under her mother. Even after their reunion, Nuñez’s powerful message of “never lose hope and always fight” resonated widely across the nation, prompting new calls for support for neurodivergent youth, missing children, online safety and mothers in advocacy.

Monica Villalobos: Villalobos brings people, data and power together. As CEO of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, she’s a strong advocate for Hispanics across the state. And she’s not just a figurehead. Villalobos is actively shaping Arizona’s economic landscape by working with government leaders and co-chairing key committees, like the one that helped Gov. Katie Hobbs build her administration. Through the Chamber’s annual DATOS report, she gives business and political leaders clear insight into the growing power of Arizona’s Hispanic market. She’s also a connector, building bridges between communities, companies and policymakers. With deep roots in both business and academia, she’s actively using her platform to open doors for others.

Robin Reed (posthumously): Reed earned his reputation by who he elevated. As CEO of the Black Chamber of Arizona, he worked tirelessly to open doors for Black-owned businesses, pushing for real access to funding, partnerships and opportunity across Arizona. He didn’t just talk about equity — he rolled up his sleeves and worked to build it. Reed’s influence reached far beyond business. He mentored leaders, advised nonprofits, and sat on boards that shaped Arizona’s education and community development. He was a key figure in bringing the state together across racial, class and industry lines. He always focused on how to make Arizona stronger and more inclusive. What made him truly powerful wasn’t just his resume — it was his character. People listened to Reed because he spoke with wisdom, led with heart, and always followed through.

Key Points:

Arizona’s 2024 presidential election review finds minimal fraud

Only 28 of 3.6 million ballots cast were possibly fraudulent

Maricopa County Recorder refers 207 non-citizen voting cases for investigation

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes erred when he approved a party name change

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como said Fontes allowed a “political bait and switch”

Fontes will not participate in an appeal, given fast approaching election season

Key Points:

Arizona officials tell counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records

Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cite ongoing federal lawsuit

Arizona officials released documents contradicting claims of widespread election fraud

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes wants a federal judge to throw out efforts by the Trump administration to force him to turn over voter registration and election records

Fontes says much of the information demanded by the Department of Justice is protected by state privacy laws

He also argues that the federal government hasn’t appropriately justified the reason behind the demand

Key Points:

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes denies federal requests for sensitive voter data

Gives opinion and official perspective on GOP voting measures

Comments highlight tension between state and federal election officials ahead of 2026

Key Points:

Republican Rodney Glassman claims to have most cash on hand in Arizona attorney general race

Glassman’s $3.3 million includes $1 million of his own money, campaign finance report shows

Democrat Kris Mayes, the incumbent, has raised over $3.7 million for reelection

Key Points:

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces lawsuit over voter registration records

DOJ demands access to nearly 5 million Arizonans’ voter registration records for “election protection”

A California judge recently dismissed a similar DOJ request as “unprecedented and illegal”

Key Points:

Elections Procedures Manual get executive approval

Changes reflect court rulings, public comments and executive edits

Legislature undertaking a close review to ensure compliance with state law

Key Points:

Arizona Democratic Party sues to block No Labels Party renaming

Democrats claim renaming could harm their candidates in upcoming elections

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces a separate lawsuit from Citizens Clean Elections

Welcome to the inaugural Power 50.