Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Alexander Kolodin

Fontes, Kolodin clash over Arizona election security

PHOENIX —  The outcome of the highly contested race for secretary of state could depend on whether voters believe Arizona’s elections are safe and secure.

“They’ve been safe and secure for a long time,” incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes said during a half-hour televised debate Monday on KAET-TV.

But Republican challenger Alexander Kolodin repeatedly sidestepped the question from moderator Ted Simons. Instead, the Scottsdale lawmaker said the issue is voter perception.

“There’s no doubt that confidence in our elections here in Arizona is at an all-time low,” he said. “And the responsibility of that sits squarely on the shoulders of Secretary Fontes.”

Fontes, who is seeking a second four-year term as the state’s chief election officer, disputed that claim. But he told Kolodin that if people have lost faith in election accuracy, he should consider his own role in that.

It starts, Fontes said, with challenging the results of the 2020 election.

In one such case, U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa said what Kolodin presented was “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence.”

“The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections,” Humetewa added. “Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for the earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.”

The State Bar of Arizona placed Kolodin on probation for 18 months for his role in that case and others. He was required to complete five legal programs, most of them relating to the ethical requirements for lawyers, including one on the filing of “meritorious claims” and another on “fairness to opposing parties and counsel.”

“You are one of the folks who was the architect of the ‘Big Lie’ here in Arizona,” Fontes said to Kolodin during the Monday debate.

“You’re the one who has caused the misinformation and distrust,” Fontes continued. “You’re like the arsonist who causes the fire and then says you’re going to come in and cure things.”

Kolodin, for his part, attacked Fontes for his role in fighting various efforts he believes will make elections more secure by ensuring that only citizens are registered.

In one case, Kolodin had to get an order from a federal judge for Fontes to turn over records he is required by law to maintain to ensure accurate voter rolls.

More recently, Fontes has fought efforts by the Trump administration to obtain unredacted state voter rolls. That includes not just public information, like name, address, and party registration, but also the last four digits of someone’s Social Security number.

Kolodin said he didn’t understand why Fontes would object.

“The private information Mr. Fontes said he was trying to protect from the federal government? Social Security numbers,” he said. “You know who issues those Social Security numbers? The federal government.”

And since the feds have that, Kolodin said Fontes “has wasted taxpayer dollars on a court fight.”

Kolodin acknowledged, however, that Fontes actually won that fight, with federal judges rejecting the administration’s bid for that information — not only here but in close to two dozen other states. But he said the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.

Candidates clash on Trump postal order

The two contenders also had different ideas about efforts by the Trump administration to get the U.S. Postal Service to refuse to deliver mail ballots to voters who live in states that refuse to provide information that would go into a federal database.

Fontes has gone to court — along with election officials in other states — to block the regulations. And Kolodin?

“I have a way to make sure our voter rolls are clean without having to give any information whatsoever to the federal government,” he said, without directly responding to the question.

Mail-in voting is extremely popular in Arizona, with upwards of 80% of ballots cast by mail.

The president has repeatedly questioned whether mail voting is subject to fraud, without providing any evidence to the contrary. In fact, he has continued to mail his own ballot, including this year in Florida’s Republican primary.

Kolodin is the sponsor of Proposition 144, which will be on the November ballot. One key provision would require people to produce identification before casting a ballot. He insisted, however, it wouldn’t automatically kill mail-in voting.

“It’s not true,” Kolodin said. But he would not say how it would work. And nothing in the ballot measure provides any answers.

Fontes, however, said it would be “impossible” to administer mail-in voting if Prop. 144 is approved.

“People are going to have to go take their ballot in instead of putting it in the mail,” he said.

The only other plausible alternative, Fontes said, would be for those who still want to vote by mail to include a photocopy of their identity documents and submit it with their ballots.

“I mean, who has a photocopier at their house?” he asked. “It’s unworkable, it’s unreasonable.”

Confirming mail-in ballots

Fontes added that mail ballots require voter identification.

Election workers must compare the signatures on ballot envelopes with other samples they already have on file. If they match, election workers open the envelope and count the vote. If there is any question, election workers can contact voters and ask them to provide further information.

That process, however, came under question when Kari Lake challenged her loss in the 2022 gubernatorial race.

A legal expert her attorneys called testified that about 274,000 signatures on early ballots were compared in less than three seconds, with about 70,000 in two seconds or less. That, Lake’s lawyers argued, shows there really was no verification.

But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson said Lake failed to prove that Maricopa County failed to review the signatures on ballot envelopes. And he said the amount of time election workers spent on them is legally irrelevant.

Kolodin filed a lawsuit in 2022 on behalf of the Arizona Republican Party asking judges to kill mail-in voting, arguing that anything other than voting in person — and on Election Day — is unconstitutional. 

That legal effort failed.

No-excuse early voting did not exist in Arizona until 1991, when the Republican-controlled Legislature approved the change.

Critics say religious service protections could run afoul of right to free speech

Key Points:
  • Arizona bill HB 4117 aims to protect religious services from interference
  • Critics argue the bill is too broad and could silence free speech and dissent
  • Opponents fear the bill may lead to increased harassment and violence

A measure to protect religious services from interference is drawing opposition amid claims that it is so broad it could be used to silence free speech and dissent.

House Bill 4117 was designed in large part to address the rise in antisemitism and the disruption of synagogues, according to Rep. Alma Hernandez.

“None of us want to be disturbed when we’re at a religious service,” said the Tucson Democrat who said she’s seen it firsthand as a board member of her synagogue.

“We had to, unfortunately, hire an actual police officer to be present every time we’ve had a Shabbat service,” she said, referring to the Jewish Sabbath.

The original version of HB 4117, while approved by the House, used language that made it illegal to “disturb” or “disquiet” a religious service through indecent protest. That ran into issues over whether its prohibitions against things like “profane” speech and unnecessary noise unfairly infringed on First Amendment rights.

So Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, crafted new language he said would resolve those issues.

But when that revised bill arrived at the full Senate, Sen. Analise Ortiz said things had only gotten worse.

“This original text was a simple misdemeanor for indoor disruption,” said the Phoenix Democrat.

“The amendment has now expanded it to outdoor, adjacent spaces, covering an undefined, protracted commotion near any religious activity.”

Kavanagh said expanding it beyond the actual churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship is necessary.

Consider, he said, a tradition in his home community where a religious group rents a section of a city park for an Easter sunrise service. Similarly, he said the law as amended would protect services even if they were held in a room at a community center.

Ortiz, for her part, said she sees quite a different scenario. And it starts, she said, with the new version of HB 4117 protecting not just religious services but “religious activities”

Consider the Westboro Baptist Church, she said. It is known for picketing the funerals of gay people with signs like “God Hates Fags.”

“People might claim that that’s religious activity,” Ortiz said, potentially inviting legal retaliation for anyone who might seek to interrupt that group’s activities.

Ditto, she said, of the activities of some anti-abortion groups that pray outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.

Ortiz is not alone in her concerns about the breadth of the measure.

“There’s a Planned Parenthood clinic in my district,” said Tempe Democrat Sen. Lauren Kuby. “It’s often the site of protests with people spouting religious themes, shall we say, and trying to interfere with patients getting their healthcare.”

The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act already makes it illegal to use force, physical obstruction or other activities designed to injure, intimidate, or interfere with people going into a facility. Kuby said she fears what might happen if HB 4117 gives those protesters new rights based on the measure’s protections for religious activities.

“My concern is this bill would really put abortion patients in greater danger of harassment and violence than they’re already under,” she said.

“It will allow protesters, say, to gather outside a privately owned Planned Parenthood clinic, on a public parking lot,” Kuby said. “And as long as they’re assembled for a vaguely defined religious activity, they will be protected.”

And that could mean someone who interrupts what is happening, even just to speak to a protester or mutter some comment, could be classified as having interfered with a religious activity, she said.

A first time offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a potential penalty of six months in jail. But a second offense — or any offense committed by two or more — carries a maximum penalty of a year and a half in state prison.

Kavanagh said the concerns about the breadth of the proposal are not justified.

He said the first part of the legislation deals with issues that have broad agreement: that it should be against the law to obstruct, block, or impede another person’s ability to enter or exist a place of religious worship.

As to the rest of it — the parts that apply to religious services or activities — Kavanagh said a violation would occur only if someone makes “protected commotion, utterance, or display” that disrupts the religious service or worship. And he said that a protest of any type “does not become a religious service because somebody says a prayer in the middle of a protest.”

What Kavanagh said he is aiming to protect is something more basic.

“I don’t know when in our society it became OK for people to get up close to people worshiping and begin yelling and chanting to disrupt their religious service,” he said.

“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion,” Kavanagh said. “This stops people from interfering with religious worship.”

That’s true, said Sen. Mitzi Epstein, but she’s still worried about the breadth of the definitions — particularly the idea that it would cover a religious service being conducted in a park and how that could affect others in that same park exercising their own First Amendment rights of speech and assembly.

“One group might plan a rally to protest the current president or the current governor,” said the Tempe Democrat.

At the same time, she said, another group could say a ramada in that same park is its designated place of worship. And the wording of HB 4117, said Epstein, could result in the other group being charged with disrupting a religious service or activity.

“We do want to protect our freedom of religion,” she said. “But we do not want to trample freedom of speech when we’re trying to protect religion.”

Epstein said the bill in its current form should be scrapped and replaced with something better.

That wasn’t the position of Sarah Kadar, deputy regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. She told lawmakers new laws are needed.

“Frequent violent clashes between protesters and congregants have drawn considerable attention,” Kadar said. “Incidents at synagogues, churches, and mosques and other institutions of faith have proven to be dangerous.”

Rep. Alexander Kolodin acknowledged the “disturbing resurgence of antisemitism” in the United States.

“I find that very unfortunate,” said the Scottsdale Republican, saying he appreciates “the good faith efforts of my colleagues to address it.”

But Kolodin, who is Jewish, said this kind of legislation isn’t the answer to any part of the problem.

“We only make antisemitism worse when we crack down on First Amendment rights because that makes people resent the Jewish people,” he said.

The changes the Senate made to the bill still need to be reviewed by the House.

Educator-legislator pipeline highlights shortfalls of state education

Key Points:
  • About 52% of Arizona lawmakers have one or more ties to education, according to their biographies
  • Despite that, Arizona ranks below the national average for per-pupil spending
  • Lawmakers, candidates and union leaders remain hopeful for improvement in spite of politics 

The majority of Arizona’s lawmakers have ties to education, yet the state still struggles to find education solutions that work for everyone. 

Collectively, 47 lawmakers have experience in the education field, the Arizona Capitol Times found. 

Some are current or former K-12 teachers, others have served or currently serve on school district governing boards, and others still teach or have formerly taught at colleges. Even more have served on education foundations, hold education degrees, have an immediate family member who is an educator or have done education-related work at some point in their career. 

The party representation among legislators who fit one or more of these categories is an almost-even split, with 26 Democrats and 23 Republicans having some tie to education. 

Approximately 52% of total state lawmakers have some form of education experience they are bringing into the Legislature, yet despite that fact, Arizona still ranks 49th in the nation in per-pupil spending. The state currently sits at $11,987 per student, according to a National Education Association report, with the national average being $17,250. Arizona also has the highest student-to-teacher ratio of any state, the report found.

All of that means Arizona’s classrooms are both underfunded and overcrowded when compared to the national average.

The educator-legislator pipeline

Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Laveen, has taught kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade and a little bit of seventh and eighth grades over her 10 years in education. Her inspiration for wanting to teach came from her own experiences as a student, she said.

“In kindergarten, it is just amazing how slow you have to teach and repeat and repeat, so you have to be a really patient kindergarten teacher, right? If you taught kindergarten, that would be a qualification on a résumé for any job,” Miranda said.

Running for office wasn’t in her plans, but her late husband, Ben Miranda, who served in the House of Representatives, encouraged her to run. 

“I thought it was the most ridiculous thing for him to ask me to run for the House, and I basically said, ‘No, you’re the politician. I’m the educator,’” she recalled. Long story short, she ran for school board and got elected, giving Miranda her first experience in politics she likened to a “little legislature.” 

Now a senator, her priorities have shifted from improving the lesson plan to advancing education more broadly — an issue she says boils down to who has majority control. 

“At the end of the day in politics, in this Legislature, it depends on who the majority is, and whoever the majority is. The results of where we’re at in our state is a reflection of that,” Miranda said. “The majority of us are educators, but it comes down to what we believe is right for education, and I can’t imagine any of us not thinking that the child should come first, so we’d have to find more like-minds in that area.”

Miranda isn’t alone. Even teachers who are not yet elected officials want the opportunity to contribute to education policy. Democratic candidate Ben Koehler, for example, is running for a House seat in Legislative District 20 while currently teaching math at a public high school in Tucson. 

“I’ve had a handful of students for two years now, and getting to develop those relationships and build upon what we did in their first year on algebra one, and keep growing their math skills. Just watching them grow as people and mature and develop has been incredibly rewarding,” he said.

Koehler emphasized addressing the many road blocks and barriers that are put in the way of education — everything from broken air conditioners to well-intentioned but disruptive government mandates. 

Koehler also pointed to elections, teacher pay and the voucher program as sore spots for Arizona’s public education system.

“It’s a real struggle for public schools to see that money being siphoned away and sent towards, frankly, wealthy families that don’t need that money as much as other communities may,” he said. 

Those at the cross-section of education and politics don’t always become politicians. Sometimes they become advocates. That was the case for Arizona Education Association President Marisol Garcia, who taught eighth grade social studies for 20 years, and now leads the association’s advocacy efforts using her firsthand experience. 

“It was a place where I understood the power of having experience and potentially offering a firsthand account of what’s happening right now, and how we could come to a solution,” she said. “I think it is quite common for people who are interested in public service and running for office that they see going to being a full school board member as a stepping stone to understand policies to then move to the Legislature.”

The experience differs slightly for teachers and school board members, Garcia said, but classroom experience, working with parents, understanding standards and testing and even setting up classrooms can all give valuable insight into political life. 

School board members, she added, often have the advantage of having worked with the district office and have a deeper understanding of the budgets and statewide policies or directives that impact the day-to-day running of a school district.

Both are important to the Legislature, Garcia said.

So why are Arizona’s rankings so low?

Garcia said she thinks the state’s subpar education funding and test scores come down to dueling priorities, especially for those who have other jobs outside of the Legislature. 

Another factor is how long those who represent Arizona have been in the classroom. Veteran educators have a unique experience and see year after year that high quality education needs better funding, she said. A classroom 12 years ago is very different from a classroom just five or six years ago, during the pandemic, and it’s even different now, she added.

She also pointed to the ESA program and tax cuts for corporations as her two top picks for why state education is so poorly funded. 

“(The Legislature’s) focus on cutting taxes and giving tax credits to people has a direct impact on funding of public schools. The pie keeps getting smaller and smaller, so they can say we’re giving a larger percentage, but it’s a mini pie,” she said. 

Garcia pointed to elections as one force that could change the tide, but added that any real progress was going to take nonpartisan effort from the Legislature. 

“I would love to see a nonpartisan solution come from not just business and parents, but also educators and children who are going to inherit these systems, to be able to say this is a priority for us. Let’s find a creative solution,” she said. 

And despite the ongoing political chess matches, Garcia said those educator-legislators aren’t giving up. They’ll keep fighting for their districts and students well into their term.

“I need more educators. I don’t care their party affiliation. I want more educators in the Legislature who can tell their colleagues what is really happening in our schools because they, at least, can speak to firsthand experiences that are recent and the impacts that the decisions that are made at the Legislature have on them,” she said. 

Reps. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, and Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, who both worked as teachers according to their biographies, did not answer a request for comment.

Arizona lawmakers revise ‘civil terrorism’ bill after criticism

Key Points: 
  • State lawmakers propose new crimes of “civil terrorism” and “subversion”
  • Original proposal deemed too radical by members of GOP
  • Without adjustment, bill could be headed for veto

State lawmakers are moving to create broad new crimes of “civil terrorism” and “subversion.”

But the proposal scheduled for a roll-call vote in the House this week is not as radical as originally proposed. And that’s only because a Scottsdale Republican lawmaker convinced colleagues to remove key provisions.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin said there’s nothing wrong with creating laws designed to prevent people from interfering with the constitutional rights of others.

But he said the legislation, crafted and promoted by the Manhattan Institute in the name of dealing with civil disturbances, was so extensive that it would make criminals out of people engaged in actions protected by the First Amendment. In fact, Kolodin said that, as worded, it even would have allowed prosecutors to charge him with a felony because of public statements he made about the state’s diminishing water supply — statements that could be interpreted as causing fear which the law would ban.

And, in a word of warning to fellow Republicans, he said that the original plan could even have undermined their own efforts to curb the size and scope of government.

Kolodin managed to convince colleagues during the floor debate this past week to make the changes he wants.

The measure, however, is still far from becoming law. HB 2136 still requires a roll-call vote.

House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said that, even in amended form, it still would provide the government with broad authority to use the threat of prison time to crack down on protests. And the Laveen Democrat suggested to Republicans they may want to take a closer look at what they are proposing.

“It seems to me that, under the definition of civil terrorism in this bill, the January 6 insurrectionists are civil terrorists,” he said, when some people assaulted police officers, broke into the Capitol and tried to stop the electoral vote count in an effort to prevent certification of the results which showed that Joe Biden had won the presidential election.

If the measure receives final approval from the House, it would then transfer to the Senate for another round of debate. And, even if approved there, it still would have to withstand a potential veto by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

The legislation is being promoted by Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, in the wake of anti-ICE disturbances in other cities.

But the language comes from the Manhattan Institute. Co-founded by William Casey, who later became the CIA director under Ronald Reagan, its self-proclaimed goals include advancing “creative, evidence-based policy ideas for better policing, public safety and criminal justice.”

Tal Fortang, a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute, testifying at a committee hearing last month, told lawmakers that in Arizona and elsewhere, “extremist groups” are making increased use of “civil terrorism.”

“That term refers to the mass commission of minor crimes in order to intimidate or coerce civilians into taking unpopular political positions,” Fortang said.

“Instead of persuading their fellow Americans through free and robust speech, they break laws by doing things like blocking roads, or vandalizing, or destroying property,” he said. “When you engage in democratic politics, actions that inconvenience your fellow citizens are the worst things you can do.”

And that led to the measure to create new crimes of civil terrorism and subversion and make them felonies, punishable by 18 months in state prison.

It cleared the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on a 6-3 party-line vote.

Kolodin, during the full House debate this past week, told his colleagues they need to understand what they were being asked to approve.

Consider, he said, language in HB 2136 spelling out that someone commits civil terrorism for planning, preparing or coordinating acts “that are designed to cause widespread fear.”

“Well, I recently put out a communication that was designed to cause widespread fear,” Kolodin said.

He proposed legislation that would have required water suppliers to notify all of their customers of what could happen if water from the Colorado River becomes less available, including what it would cost to find alternate sources, treat and deliver them. That drew criticism from Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, who said sending out that kind of notice, without further explanation, might cause “mass hysteria.”

Kolodin failed to gain traction for the notice requirement, and his bill died. But he said lawmakers should not adopt language in HB 2136 that would criminalize such warnings.

The bigger problem, Kolodin said, is a lack of understanding by some of what the founders of this country had in mind when they crafted the First Amendment. And he told his colleagues they have to stop thinking of them as just “old men.”

“The framers of the United States Constitution were some of the most radical people who ever lived,”  he said. “And that’s a very good thing for our country because they endowed Americans with a right that no other people in the world possess: the right to speak freely, totally freely, free of the fear of government consequence.”

More to the point, Kolodin said this right goes farther than most people think, “even perhaps many people who have been members of this body.”

He cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sets a two-part test on when the government can restrict speech.

First, he said, it needs to call for “imminent lawless action.” But that, too, remains legal unless “there’s a reasonable chance it actually will provoke that imminent lawless action.”

Kolodin said that makes illegal the language in HB 2136 which would have defined civil terrorism to include any unlawful act “with the intent to coerce or intimidate a civilian population.” And he convinced lawmakers to vote to replace that with language that makes it a crime only if someone intentionally commits vandalism or destruction of property in a way that “imminently threatens to cause unlawful and serious physical injury to another person or actually causes unlawful or serious physical injury to another person.”

Also gone as a result of Kolodin’s amendment is language that would have made it a crime to make statements, communications, manifestos or directives before, during or after the act that advocates the use of violence or unlawful force to influence the behavior of a civilian population.

But HB 2136 also includes a whole new section of law making “subversion” a crime. And that, in the form promoted by Way and approved by the Judiciary Committee, included “subvert the government of this state or the United States.”

That language, Kolodin said, should alarm some lawmakers. So he insisted it be removed.

“In our country, it is arguably a civic duty to work to undermine the government,” he said.

“As conservatives, we view that as a large part of our job: to limit, narrow and fetter the government so that it is not a threat to people’s liberty,” Kolodin told colleagues.

“Americans owe no loyalty to a government,” he said. Americans owe loyalty to one thing and one thing only. And that is the Constitution.”

What replaces the stricken language, Kolodin said, is language that allows someone to be convicted of subversion only if that person attempts to deprive anyone else of their liberties under the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution or key portions of the Arizona Constitution.

“Now the language is very firm, very rigorous, very detailed,” he said. “And I hope that it will be used as a way to keep government in check more than it will be used against normal citizens.”

Even in an amended form, it could still be rejected by Hobbs.

The governor vetoed a measure last year that would have made it a felony to intentionally interfere with traffic if it results in more than 25 vehicles being held up.

“Recognizing the sanctity of constitutionally protected rights, it is critical we approach these matters with precision to avoid infringing on Arizonans’ freedoms,” she wrote.

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.

Incumbent Mayes, challenger Glassman lead fundraising in Arizona AG race

Key Points:
  • Warren Petersen uses leftover campaign funds for attorney general bid
  • Rodney Glassman leads in fundraising with $2.4 million in the bank
  • Incumbent Kris Mayes has nearly $1.1 million for the 2026 election

Senate President Warren Petersen is relying on money left over from prior legislative campaigns to give his bid for attorney general a financial bump.

But he still hasn’t caught up with Rodney Glassman, the other Republican who hopes to get the nod from voters to take on Democratic incumbent Kris Mayes in the 2026 general election.

New reports filed with the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State show that Petersen brought in more than $69,000 in new contributions in the second quarter of the year. That brings his donations for this election cycle up to more than $190,000.

But Petersen started ahead of the curve with nearly $200,000 left over from prior campaigns. That means he now has almost $351,000 in the bank.

That, however, pales in comparison to Glassman, a Phoenix attorney, who added another $578,000 in donations over the last three months, on top of the $604,000 he had collected earlier this year.

But Glassman, who lost his bid to be the GOP nominee for AG in 2022, has now been accumulating money for this race for more than a year. And he invested $1 million of his own money late last year.

All that, he reports, leaves him with $2.4 million in the bank.

Incumbent Mayes, facing no primary opposition, listed new donations this quarter of nearly $515,000. Mayes, however, has also been amassing donations since her 280-vote victory in 2022 over eventual Republican nominee Abe Hamadeh.

That race cost her about $3 million. So, now she already has close to $1.1 million for the 2026 race, all of which can be allocated to the general election, as she has no primary foe.

In the race for secretary of state, Republican Alexander Kolodin, who thus far faces no primary opposition, reported more than $93,000 in donations. But Kolodin, who did not have a lot of money left over after his successful 2024 bid for the state House, says he has less than $125,000 on hand.

That puts him behind incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes, who brought in another $224,000 in the past three months. With expenses, his cash on hand is less than $212,000.

One statewide race where there will be a primary is the effort by Tom Horne to hang on to his position as superintendent of public instruction.

Horne had to spend more than $1.1 million in 2022 to first survive a three-way GOP primary and then to defeat incumbent Democrat Kathy Hoffman. That left him little in the bank at that time for the 2026 race.

He reports having collected more than $61,000 in the most recent quarter, with $212,000 in cash on hand.

Now he has to fend off a challenge by state Treasurer Kimberly Yee to get the Republican nomination. Yee, who is in her second term, cannot seek reelection. In May, she entered the race for school chief.

She reports more than $162,000 in donations and, with few expenses so far, still has more than $161,000 in the bank.

This race could get expensive.

Horne can use his own finances to boost his chances, having spent almost $900,000 in his 2022 campaign.

Help for Yee is more likely to come from the outside.

She has the backing of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, a group of the most conservative Republican state legislators. And that is likely to bring with it money spent on her behalf.

There are a handful of Democrats who have expressed interest in the race.

However, so far, only two of them have filed campaign finance reports: Teresa Luiz, with $18,000 in the bank, and Michael Butts, who has a negative cash balance of $44.

There is, however, money in the race to replace Yee as treasurer.

Republican Elijah Norton reports $1.1 million since entering the race earlier this year. So far, however, all of that has been self-funded.

Democrat Nick Mansour, also a newcomer to the race, has raised more than $233,000 in donations. He has reported no expenses so far, leaving all of that in the bank.

In the race for the Arizona Corporation Commission, Republicans Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers are trying to keep their seats. Both, however, are expected to run with public financing as they did in 2022.

They are being challenged by two Republican lawmakers: Ralph Heap and David Marshall. Both have said they also will use public finances.

But both also have been endorsed by the Arizona Freedom Caucus, which remains free to find outside funds to run on their behalf, all without limits.

Of three Democrats interested in pursuing the two available seats, none reported any campaign donations.

Animal cruelty bill heads to Senate after weeks of negotiations

Key Points:
  • Bill expands criminal charges for the cruel neglect of pets
  • Bill received bipartisan support
  • Bill will now head to the Senate for final read

After weeks of negotiations, the House approved an animal cruelty bill that would bring criminal charges against people who abuse their pets.

Senate Bill 1658 passed the House 34-18 on June 12 with bipartisan support despite objections from some Republicans who viewed certain provisions of the bill as overly punitive.

Most of the Democrats voted for the bill, while the majority of Republicans disapproved of the measure. Republican Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, sponsored the bill and worked with Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, to move it through the House. 

The legislation would require pet owners to provide food, water and shelter to their animals, and expand the definition of animal cruelty to include failing to provide medical attention for a pet. It also adds charges for subjecting an animal to cruel neglect.

“It is common sense, does not affect livestock, does not affect people experiencing homelessness, very straightforward language,” said Humane Society President and CEO Dr. Steven Hansen in an interview earlier this month.

During the House third reading hearing, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said the bill troubled him on a “personal level” because it could affect pet owners who are struggling financially.

“They’re the folks that are clinging to the family cat through financial hardship, where they may not have a safe and healthy place to live, where they may be draining their bank account, facing bankruptcy and just trying to hold on, and this body proposes to make them into criminals without a second thought,”  Kolodin said.

Lawmakers who supported the bill said it would give law enforcement the necessary tools to quickly arrest people who abuse animals.

“This bill gives law enforcement and prosecutors clear standards to act quickly, protect animals in danger and hold abusers accountable,” said Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, during the House Committee of the Whole session on June 11.

The bill was prompted by an animal cruelty case in September 2023, when 55 disabled dogs were seized from a Chandler home. The homeowner was arrested on multiple charges of animal cruelty, fraud and theft.

The bill was initially introduced as Senate Bill 1234, but was double assigned to the the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and House Judiciary Committee after it was approved in the Senate with bipartisan support.

Blackman used a striker amendment on another Bolick bill after the original animal cruelty measure was double assigned.

The legislation still faced obstacles as Republicans questioned the vagueness of the language and harshness of the penalties. 

Blackman worked on a series of amendments that sought to clearly define the language and other aspects of the bill in order to garner the necessary support.

The bill will now head to the Senate for a final read and, if approved, to the governor’s desk.

 

House approved ‘Stolen Valor Act’ targets ‘fake’ military vets

The state House approved a measure April 9 that one lawmaker said would, for the first time ever, make lying a crime for political candidates. 

As crafted by Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, Senate Bill 1424 would make it a felony to impersonate a veteran if done “with the intent to obtain money, property or any tangible benefit.” What would run afoul of the law includes everything from saying they had served to being the recipient of any sort of decoration, medal or badge that was not lawfully earned through military services.

It also is crafted to make it a crime for people to say they are combat veterans or misrepresent the conditions of their discharge.

Blackman, a tank commander who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the measure is designed to ensure that those who have served and have earned certain honors — and who have paid for that with their blood and their lives — are not disrespected by those who “don’t have the guts” to actually enlist and earn them.

But Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, argued it sets a bad precedent.

He said there’s no question that politicians lie. But he said that’s a matter for voters — and not the courts — to decide.

And Kolodin argued that the system works, pointing out that a candidate in the 2024 GOP primary who claimed military experience he did not have — a candidate who ran against Blackman — lost his race by a wide margin.

The argument drew a fiery response from Blackman.

“It’s not about political speech,” he told colleagues. “It has nothing to do with politics.”

Kolodin, however, pointed out that what SB1424 would make a felony specifically includes those who misrepresent their veteran status “in furtherance of a campaign for political office.” And that, he said, sets a bad precedent.

“In this country, we’ve had a historical tradition that says the power is in the hands of the people, the voters,” Kolodin said. “And the voters get to say if somebody is lying or not.”

This legislation, he said, takes that decision away from voters.

“This bill tells a court that you can throw somebody in jail for lying in a run for office,” said Kolodin.

Consider, he said, the promise of President George H.W. Bush in 1988, when running for reelection, who said “Read my lips: no new taxes.”

Then there was the promise by President Barack Obama, in promoting his health care program, that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Even PolitiFact dubbed that the 2013 “lie of the year.”

“We cannot open the door to allowing our courts to judge political speech within the context of criminal law,” Kolodin said. “It’s a massive threat to the civil liberties here in this state where politicians are allowed to say what they want and the voters get to decide.”

Blackman said “stolen valor” legislation like this is justified, particularly in a state like Arizona with 500,000 veterans.

“This has nothing to do with political speech,” Blackman said.

“This has to do with blood, sweat and tears that men and women have left on the battlefield,” he told colleagues. “This has to do with people lying about and making money off it.”

What that means, Blackman said, is that individuals remain free to claim they are veterans. What they will not be able to do, if SB1424 becomes law, is use those claims to solicit campaign contributions and seek to be elected based on those lies.

During the debate, Blackman showed off a case with his decorations. And he said that, despite what some think, they are more than “just cloth.”

“Every single one of these medals that I have earned and that other people have earned is not about political speech,” he said.

“It’s about people dying for this country,” Blackman continued. “It’s about people who stand up and say, ‘Send me!”

That, he said, contrasts with those who don’t want to be sent off to war but still want to wear the same medals.

“This has to do with people putting it on the line and somebody saying, ‘I want to take that from you because I don’t have the guts to do it,”’ Blackman said.

While Kolodin cast the sole dissenting vote against the measure, he wasn’t the only one with concerns about the verbiage and the precedent that would be set from using criminal laws to deal with campaign lies.

“It opens the door to a little bit of mischief,” said Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, voting for the bill but saying he hoped there would still be changes.

This is the second time Blackman has had a version of his measure out of the House.

But his original bill got assigned to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Elections, chaired by Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, who tabled the measure even after veterans showed up to testify. She said in a statement she wanted to alter the bill to amend federal law “so there would be no conflicts or confusion.”

Blackman started over, tacking the new verbiage onto an unrelated bill that already has been approved by the Senate. Now, with the 54-1 House vote, it goes back for a vote of the full Senate, bypassing Rogers’ committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Next question,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kolodin said at the time he was a victim.

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

House approves bill to require wildfire prevention plans from Arizona utility companies

Utility providers may soon be required to produce wildfire prevention plans after House approval of HB2201 on Feb. 25. 

The bill, which initially failed to pass over concerns that it went too far to protect power providers from wildfire liability, was approved on its second vote in the chamber, 35-25. 

The bill, if approved by the Senate, would require power entities and electric utilities to prepare wildfire mitigation plans to proactively prevent wildfires and decrease any damages that may occur from a fire. Those new strategies include inspection procedures for wildfire risks, procedures for de-energizing power lines, community outreach and public awareness efforts, and new steps on how power companies will monitor compliance with their plans. 

Rep. Gail Griffin

“If the electric company, power company is at fault, they are liable,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford. “It helps save lives, and properties and ratepayers.”

The bill is a response to the devastating wildfires in Southern California that destroyed thousands of structures and tens of thousands of acres of land in Los Angeles County. 

Many lawmakers originally opposed the bill during its first vote on the House floor on Feb. 18.

That vote occurred before Rep. Neal Carter, R-San Tan Valley, amended the bill to remove a provision that would have prohibited a class action lawsuit from being filed for a cause of action against power providers related to a wildfire. Carter’s amendment also removed language from the measure that initially proposed removing the ability to assign any fault to a provider for their decision to de-energize or not de-energize an electric grid.

Carter said attorneys in California often sue power companies after a wildfire and claim negligence from the company to receive large sums of money in property damage or injury compensation. That procedure, Carter claimed, is too unwieldy for Arizona.

“It drives up rates for the people who purchase power,” Carter said of the civil lawsuits. “It also creates power companies who are gun-shy about leaving the power on when there’s high winds for example, so they shut it off.”

The new HB2201 is an attempt by lawmakers to protect both power companies and consumers by keeping the electric grid energized. 

The bill also raises the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence for a plaintiff to prevail in a civil lawsuit against a power company, which is a higher standard of proof than the preponderance of evidence standard used in most civil cases, but not quite as rigorous as the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal proceedings. 

“It means you have to provide evidence that the power company was at fault,” Carter said. “Why should we have California-style energy driving our energy policy here?”

Several members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus voted against the bill, including Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, who said he doesn’t believe the bill has functionally changed from when House members first voted against the measure. 

Kolodin offered an amendment on Monday which proposed removing the clear and convincing evidentiary standard. The amendment failed 28-29 after Griffin called it “hostile” and brought it to the floor without Kolodin first discussing it with her.

“I can’t support this bill without the Kolodin amendment,” said Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa. Olson is the only member of the legislature who has served on the Arizona Corporation Commission, the governing entity that regulates public utilities across the state. 

Still, the requirement of proactive plans from utility companies prompted support for HB2201 from Democrats interested in bolstering Arizona’s wildfire prevention and response capabilities.

Power providers would be required to submit their plans to the Corporation Commission for review by May 1, 2026, if the bill is signed. Following that date, plans must be submitted every even-numbered year.

Director of Criminal Justice Commission resigns amid GOP accusations

Editor’s note: This story has been revised to include new information. 

The executive director of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission announced his resignation after intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers during the commission’s sunset review. 

Andrew LeFevre announced his plan to resign at a Feb. 17 meeting of the ACJC’s Executive Committee after it met in executive session to discuss “personnel matters related to the executive director.” 

LeFevre and the ACJC have been on the defensive this session after Republican Reps. Alex Kolodin and Quang Nguyen leveled accusations that the commission has been attempting to expand its data collection duties in order to spy on Arizonans. ACJC is currently up for its regularly scheduled sunset review. 

Andrew LeFevre

LeFevre’s resignation was pending until made official by a vote of the commission at a meeting scheduled for Feb. 20. ACJC Chair Dave Byers and Vice Chair Steve Stahl thanked LeFevre for his service and apologized for the circumstances of the resignation at the Feb. 17 meeting.

“Andy, words can’t express the amount of work you did for ACJC and the professional way that you did it,” Stahl said during the meeting. “This is certainly not the way I would have wanted to handle things, but when you sit in that chair sometimes you don’t get a choice.”

The resignation comes after Kolodin and Nguyen introduced a bill to terminate the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and questioned LeFevre extensively at two separate hearings. LeFevre repeatedly denied their allegations in committee hearings, in a letter sent to the Legislature on Jan. 29, and a guest commentary published in the Arizona Capitol Times on Jan. 31.

Kolodin also accused Byers of espionage for his role in the Judicial Branch’s Task Force on Countering Disinformation, which LeFevre also refuted.

“I thank Mr. LeFevre for his service and hope that Chairman Byers will quickly follow suit,” Kolodin said in a text message on Feb. 18. 

A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the Courts, where Byers is the executive director, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Kolodin’s statement. 

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, co-sponsored a bill to continue ACJC for eight years and expressed concern over the resignation in a prepared statement.

“It’s unfortunate that politicization over this important agency made Mr. LeFevre feel the need to resign,” Ortiz said. “Hopefully it doesn’t lead to any disruption of the critical victim’s services, data analysis, or  grant funding distribution that the agency provides.”

Last week, Kolodin said during a House Judiciary Committee meeting that the ACJC is “too dangerous to exist” and the disinformation task force was actually a “mass censorship apparatus,” although he presented no evidence to back his claims. 

Kolodin and Nguyen raised concerns that the ACJC was hoping to create a database on all gun owners in the state and collect information on individuals who had not committed any crimes. 

Nguyen also expressed concern that LeFevre and the ACJC were unresponsive to lawmaker questions during past sessions and engaged in improper lobbying practices, like pressuring other organizations to change their positions on bills or mischaracterizing the positions other groups were taking on bills.

In addition to Kolodin and Nguyen’s bill, Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, introduced a strike-everything amendment in the Senate that would reorganize ACJC into the Sheriffs’ Criminal Justice Commission. The amendment would rename the commission, change its membership and adjust its responsibilities. 

Currently, ACJC’s membership represents a wide range of professionals involved in the criminal justice system, like police officers, county attorneys, sheriffs, judges, victims advocates, probation officers and others. It is responsible for researching the state’s criminal justice system and providing recommendations to lawmakers and agencies. 

Finchem’s amendment would limit the membership to five county sheriffs and two public members and allow them to make recommendations for how its duties should be changed. 

Two sheriffs would be appointed by the Senate president and two would be appointed by the House speaker. The governor would appoint the remaining sheriff and the two public members. 

Finchem’s amendment instructs the new commission to provide a report by March 2026 with recommendations for duties that should be repealed, transferred to another agency or added to the commission’s statutorily designated duties. 

That bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee on Feb. 19, but Republican Sens. John Kavanagh and Shawnna Bolick said that they believe ACJC can be reformed without major restructuring.

“I don’t know if this is the right solution moving forward,” Bolick said of Finchem’s proposal.

She and Kavanagh said reform is needed due to concerns from sheriffs that the commission hasn’t been adequately fulfilling its duties to administer grant money from the federal government to law enforcement organizations. Bolick said Kavanagh is working with ACJC on those reforms and Kavanagh said he would not support the House bill from Kolodin and Nguyen that terminates the commission.

 

“The House is sending over a complete elimination of [the commission] which can’t be done; they perform a lot of functions,” Kavanagh said during the hearing on Feb. 19. “…I’m not going to vote to get rid of ACJC.”

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.