Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona

Linley Wilson: The legal arm of the Arizona House

Linley Wilson, general counsel and deputy chief of staff for Arizona House Republicans, joined ahead of the 2022 session as the Legislature made it a more standard practice to wade into legal battles to defend state law.  

Now, after three years, Wilson is leaving her post to join the political and election law firm Holtzman Vogel. Carrying legislative expertise and a background at the Attorney General’s Office, Wilson hopes to leverage her experience with constitutional issues and with the firm’s new State Attorneys General practice, with a focus on clients facing investigation and enforcement by state attorneys general.

Her first day was Oct. 21. But before leaving, Wilson spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times, reflecting on her work in the Legislature, her passion for state government and the work ahead in private practice. 

Answers have been lightly edited for clarity. 

What has been your career path so far? 

My entire career has been spent in state government. I’ve had the honor of working in all three branches of state government in Arizona, and I’ve loved my career in public service. I spent over a decade at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office under Republican leadership, and I was thrilled when this opportunity became available to me at the Arizona House of Representatives. I’ve now spent three legislative sessions here, and I’m really proud of all of the work that the House has accomplished. We’ve taken a larger role in litigation, which you may have noticed over the past few years. We have extensively defended the constitutionality of state laws passed by the Legislature over the years, when challenged in state and federal courts. Really, it’s been a highlight of my career to be at the Legislature. 

What have been your biggest takeaways from your time at the Legislature? 

Personally, the insight into the legislative process and policy decisions that our elected leaders make on a daily basis on issues of statewide importance, just gave me a very deep appreciation for how state government works. I think that will translate really well to the private sector just in general. And of course, on the types of cases that I’ll be working on at Holzman Vogel. 

To be an effective litigator or legislator, you have a good understanding of how the legislative process works in any state. It’s one thing to talk about the separation of powers, but to truly be firsthand and see how laws are made and why they’re important, and that this body has collectively decided that this should be the policy for Arizona, I think, as transitioning now to be a litigator at the firm, I think that background is critically important when we are litigating constitutional rights — interpreting the Arizona and the federal constitutions. I’m so thankful that I’ve had that experience to bring with me into the private sector.

What have you been most proud of during your tenure at the Legislature? 

I’m really proud of the work on the Secure the Border Act that was referred to voters last year, which the voters passed on the ballot. The Legislature recently prevailed in court. It was challenged, and the legislative leadership intervened to defend it. The lawsuit was just dismissed there this week. So I think that really reflects the will of the voters. And border security is obviously so important for Arizona. So I really enjoyed working on that legislation.

Another one that stands out to me is the election timeline bill … Representative Kolodin sponsored the bill, and it was really important to put up some of Arizona’s deadlines for when certain election processes had to take place … I think that’s another really great accomplishment of the Legislature in the past couple of years.

What do you make of the Legislature more actively defending state laws in court? 

That’s probably my proudest accomplishment. The Legislature just had another ruling come out of the Arizona court reaffirming that the Legislature has standing in court to bring claims if the House and the Senate believe that its institutional powers or authority under the Arizona Constitution is being violated by another actor, an executive branch or in intervening to defend interests of the House and Senate when a law isn’t being defended in court. 

We’ve certainly taken the lead in the last few years. And that’s important, because those are laws that have been on the books. Prior Legislatures passed those laws, and I do believe it’s a duty of the Arizona attorney general to defend them in court when they’re challenged, and certainly that was my experience when I worked under Republican leadership at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. 

I think it’s important for the judicial system, too, for judges to have an adversarial process when a law is challenged in court. I don’t think judges want just a one-sided presentation of the facts and the law, and so it’s a valuable part that the Legislature played in that in litigation over the last few years. I just think it’s good for the entire system that that authority exists for the Legislature to step in when the attorney general, for whatever reason, decides that she doesn’t want to defend the law. 

What kind of cases and issues are you going to be focused on in this new role?

I’m obviously excited to contribute to the firm’s appellate practice. So that’s something I’m really looking forward to. And litigation of constitutional rights. The cases that involve emerging technology and privacy interests are really fascinating. 

Fundamentally, those issues will continue to emerge in the courts when you think about AI technology. And in Arizona, privacy interests are even more protected than they are at the federal level. So I think those issues are really fun to litigate, and they’re just very important all around for Arizonans. And again, that goes to the protection of constitutional rights. 

While I was at the Attorney General’s Office, I was also involved in election integrity matters. I’m looking forward to gearing up for the election next year and expect that the firm will be involved in a fair amount of election litigation. 

Why Holtzman Vogel? 

I really admired the work that they’ve been involved in. To me, it really is very unique to come in at a time when the Phoenix office is still in a growth unit. So it’s really just an outstanding opportunity to help grow the direction of the Phoenix firm and even just bolster all of those areas that have already aligned with my background really well. 

In a more existential sense, why do you think your work in public policy, and now in private practice, is important? 

When we’re discussing constitutional rights and making arguments to set a precedent in Arizona for how courts will need to uphold and reflect additional rights in various contexts, I can’t imagine more rewarding work than that.

That’s why I’ve done this type of work for so long, and why I’m so excited to join the firm. As a lawyer in this space, I just find it incredibly rewarding to be talking about constitutional rights and doing whatever we can to protect them.

What would be your advice for your replacement in the House?

The job requires creativity, sometimes an open mind, and certainly a collaborative attitude and great communication skills. And it’s just incredibly fun. I look back on my time here and truly enjoyed being the general counsel for the Republican majority. I had the ability to meet all the elected leaders throughout the state, reach their goals, and create a good product for the people of Arizona. It’s really unlike any other job. I guess I would tell the next person to keep an open mind, to be supportive in this role, and help essentially write laws for the state that would be long lasting and be so important in years to come.

What guides you in this work? 

My husband and I have two children, and they’re nine and 11 now. They’re being raised in Arizona. Of course, through my line of work, I think of them, and I think about the future that we’re creating in Arizona. And of course, that’s always my motivation and my guiding star.

What is something the average person might not know about you? 

My interest these days is being a soccer mom. Both of my kids play competitive soccer. And to bring it back briefly, to how that relates to my job, is that it comes to mind that when the speaker and the president intervene to defend Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act … that really hit home for me, because I have a nine year old daughter who plays in a competitive sport. I just think fundamental fairness in girls sports is so important because I see it, you know, in my own life.  

And so those issues do really hit home for me … I’m a soccer mom. I’m usually running kids around to soccer practice at least a few times a week … We just really enjoy this phase of life with them. They’re wonderful kids, and they keep us young.

AZ GOP seek to void law allowing people who have never lived in AZ to vote in local elections

Key Points:
  • Uniform Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act, allows Arizona residents who are out of the country to vote
  • Plaintiffs said AZ lawmakers acted illegal in extending voting privilege to children of AZ residents living abroad
  • GOP lawyer claims law on children of AZ residents voting, puts Republicans at disadvantage

An attorney for the Arizona Republican Party is asking a judge to void a 20-year-old law that allows some people who have never lived in the state to vote in elections.

At an Oct. 20 hearing, Kory Langhofer did not dispute that the law was approved unanimously by the Republican-controlled Legislature. And he acknowledged that federal law, known as the Uniform Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act, clearly allows Arizona residents who are out of the country to cast a ballot.

But Langhofer told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Herrod that lawmakers acted illegally when they extended that right to the children of those Arizona residents living elsewhere — including those who never have set foot on Arizona soil — in 2005.

The arguments seemed to gain a bit of traction with Herrod.

“So a child that this state has never had jurisdiction over could theoretically be able to vote when they become an adult because their parents are citizens of Arizona?” he asked.

“That’s what the statute says,” said Assistant Attorney General Karen Hartman-Tellez, who is defending the law.

“Isn’t that illogical and nonsense?” he responded.

No, she insisted. Hartman-Tellez said that because their parents are citizens and Arizona residents, even while overseas, so are their children, regardless of where they were born. And that connection, she said, is what gives them the right to vote.

Herrod, however, remained skeptical. He wanted to know whether there is an age at which the “children” who were born elsewhere to Arizona parents lose their right to affect elections here.

“When does that connection end?” he asked.

“It doesn’t,” she said, at least not until their parents are no longer Arizona voters.

And Hartman-Tellez said whatever anyone might think about all that, there’s nothing illegal about it.

“These are essentially policy decisions,” she said. “And the Legislature has the authority to make those policy decisions.”

Langhofer, who also represents the Republican National Committee and Gina Swoboda, who chairs the state GOP, contends that’s not true. He wants Herrod to rule that the 2005 law runs afoul of provisions in the Arizona Constitution which he said constrains decisions that lawmakers make about exactly what constitutes residency.

And that, Langhofer said, makes it irrelevant that 37 other states may have similar laws.

But the case isn’t that cut and dried. To make those arguments, Langhofer first has to prove to Herrod his clients have a legal right to sue.

That’s not absolute: In general, someone asking a court to void a statute has to show a particular harm.

Langhofer said he has two.

First, he argues, is that the law places Republicans at a competitive disadvantage.

It starts with the numbers.

In Maricopa County, Langhofer said, 51.3% of UOCACA voters are Democrat, with 18.2% registered Republican, 26.5% with no party affiliation, and 4% who are signed up with other parties.

By contrast, of the more than 2.6 million people registered to vote in the state’s largest county, 35.5% are Republicans versus 28.2% Democrats.

Overall, he figures there appear to be at least 12,615 UOCAVA voters statewide. But Langhofer doesn’t know how many of them are children of Arizona residents, something he hopes to find out as the case proceeds — if Herrod allows it.

The bottom line, Langhofer said, is the law on children of Arizonans voting — the one he is trying to get Herrod to strike down — puts Republicans at a disadvantage.

Hartman-Tellez told the judge the numbers are irrelevant, arguing that it’s not like the 2005 law — the one proposed by a GOP lawmaker and approved by a Republican majority — that was set up to give an advantage to Democrats.

She pointed out that nothing in the statute tells those voters with which party to register. Nor does it preclude them from voting for whoever they want.

And Herrod himself was skeptical of the claim that any partisan effect — assuming there is one — gives the GOP the right to challenge the law.

“That’s not the purpose of the statute,” the judge said.

True, Langhofer said. But he said it doesn’t matter.

“Just the fact that the government has illegally structured the environment in which you compete is enough to establish competitive injury,” he told the judge.

Langhofer has another theory.

He said having people on the voter registration rolls who shouldn’t be there — the essence of his claim that the 2005 law violates the Arizona Constitution — dilutes the votes of legitimate voters, making them “worth less by right than they should be.”

Hartman-Tellez, however, said assuming that there actually is vote dilution, any harm to any voter is “too attenuated” to give legal standing for Langhofer to sue on behalf of the GOP.

All that means Langhofer won’t get to make his claim that the 2005 law is unconstitutional unless and until the judge concludes that his clients have legal standing to challenge it.

That, in turn, left Herrod with a question for Hartman-Tellez: If the Republicans can’t sue, then just who can?

She said if there’s a legal right it belongs to the 15 county recorders. Hartman-Tellez said they would have to be the ones to ask a court to decide whether they are acting legally in registering the children of overseas voters.

Herrod did not say when he will rule on whether Langhofer’s challenge can continue.

The court fight definitely has taken on political overtones.

“Democrats want to cheat in our elections by allowing votes from people who have never established legal residency,” said Michael Whatley, who at the time was the chairman of the RNC, in a prepared statement when the lawsuit was filed earlier this year. “The RNC is defending the rights of Arizona voters to stop this unconstitutional law in its tracks.”

Gov. Hobbs criticizes Trump’s offer to University of Arizona for federal dollars

Key Points:
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs says President Trump’s offer to University of Arizona is a bad deal
  • Hobbs skipped the Board of Regents meeting to discuss the federal offer
  • The University of Arizona must decide on the compact by November 21

Gov. Katie Hobbs says President Trump’s offer for the University of Arizona to make policy changes for federal dollars is a bad deal.

The governor, however, won’t be using the bit of influence she has on the issue — she’s a voting member of the Board of Regents — on whether U of A President Suresh Garimella should take the deal. She skipped the executive session of the board late Oct. 17 that was called to discuss the federal offer.

“The university and ABOR are really taking the lead,” she said. “And we’ll be supportive of the decision they make.”

But Hobbs, in an interview with Capitol Media Services, made it clear there are things that the president is demanding that she considers improper, or, at the very least, troubling.

At the heart of all of this is a 10-page “compact for academic excellence in higher education that was sent to the U of A and eight other schools.”

It contains a list of demands, ranging from things U of A already does, like not discriminating on the basis of race and sex in student admissions and staff hiring. And there are provisions that do not apply to U of A, like a mandate that institutions with endowments of more than $2 million waive tuition for students enrolled in “hard science” programs.

Some provisions, however, would have an immediate impact.

For example, it mandates that all undergrad U of A applicants must take a widely used standardized test like the SAT or ACT.

That isn’t currently required at U of A to get in, though the school says those scores “are important post-admission for class placement at orientation.”

Then there are the more nebulous provisions in the compact.

“Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education,” the letter to the U of A and the other schools says, requiring “maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged.”

To qualify for that preference for federal dollars, though, the school would have to revise its governance “to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposely punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

Hobbs said that is concerning.

“I think we are very much bordering on censorship,” she said.

The compact also calls on the U of A to freeze tuition for five years and reduce administrative costs.

Hobbs said there’s nothing wrong with the goal — at least on paper.

“Universities should not balance their books on the backs of students,” she said. But the governor said it isn’t that simple.

State aid to the university system has not kept pace with inflation.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee says that the Legislature, on average, provided $4,015 per full time student in 2016. This year it is $4,131.

But JLBC analysts say that $4,131 currently is worth just $3,113.

And tuition and mandatory fees at U of A for in-state undergraduates, which were $11,403 in 2016, now sit at $13,906, a figure that remains unchanged from the prior school year.

“Their hands have been constrained over and over again,” Hobbs said of the universities and why tuition has increased.

“I think every university president I talk to is committed to keeping tuition as low as possible,” she said. “But I don’t think having arbitrary requirements to do that from the federal government, who isn’t here on the ground and sees direct needs, is helpful.”

Closely related to that issue of cost is a demand from the Trump administration to cap the number of international undergraduate students at no more than 15% — and no more than 5% from any one country.

That’s not currently a problem.

The U of A says its international students amount to just 3.3% of the undergraduate population. The figure is 1% at Northern Arizona University and 5.9% at Arizona State University.

Still, Hobbs said, those international students are financially crucial.

The U of A estimates that tuition for non-Arizona residents, including foreign students, runs $43,100 a year. By contrast, it amounts to $13,900 for Arizona residents.

Hobbs said that the money coming from those foreign students “a lot of times make up some of the costs that in-state tuition doesn’t cover.”

“And it allows more in-state students to go,” she said.

There are other provisions, like a requirement for “institutional neutrality,” saying all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives “will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.”

Trump also wants the school to publicly “grade distribution dashboards with multiyear trendlines” and provide statements that explain “any unusual upward trends.”

And he even gets into a demand for single-sex space like bathrooms and locker rooms, including that the terms of male versus female be done “according to reproductive function and biological processes.”

It’s not just what’s in the demands that concerns the governor. It’s also what is not, including that there is no actual guarantee of cash for compliance — and the question of how making a single misstep could result in financial benefits disappearing.

What was sent to the U of A and other schools says their activities will be subject to review by the U.S. Department of Justice. And if that agency finds a willful or even negligent violation, there would be a mandatory loss of benefits “for a period of no less than one year” and that any dollars advanced during that year must be returned.

“I think it’s very concerning,” Hobbs said.

All that comes back to what the governor says is the nature of the deal that Trump is offering.

“I think that the president prides himself on being a deal maker,” the governor said.

“But a lot of times, the deals he’s making are one sided,” she said. “And they benefit him or his agenda, but not the person on the other side.”

And then there’s that not-so-veiled threat if the U of A and the other schools refuse to sign.

“Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values (other than those in the 10-page compact) if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits,” the document reads.

Hobbs declined to call it “extortion.” But she said that there are reasons to be concerned about the president linking things like dollars for research to a variety of issues unrelated to the merits of that research — and the risk of loss of federal dollars for failing to accede to the president’s demands.

“The consequences of politicizing all of that is that it’s just not been about funding,” the governor said.

“It’s been about ending research that is solving the world’s biggest problems, that is finding cures for cancer, that is interrupting people that are right now in clinical trials for life-saving treatment,” she said. “And you’re politicizing all of that.”

Time for the U of A to act is running short.

The reason for Friday’s meeting of the regents is that White House gave the school until Monday to provide “limited, targeted feedback” on the demands. At the same time, though, the administration has said that what’s in the document is “largely in final form.”

A final decision from the U of A has to come by Nov. 21.

While Hobbs isn’t taking a position about whether the U of A should take the deal — she’s leaving that to the regents — others have no such hesitation.

In a letter to Garimella, about 80 top U of A professors asked him to reject the compact. And much of their concern is over what they call the “ill-defined new benefits” and the fear that being found in default “would sacrifice the federal benefits that we already enjoy.”

Ben Armentrout, a member of the U of A’s Graduate and Professional Student Council, echoed those concerns, calling the compact a “great, garbled piece of nonsense” that, if the school is found in violation, would force return of all federal dollars for that year, a figure he pegged at about $500 million.

Separately, the Faculty Senate voted on a 40-8 margin to oppose the compact, saying there are provisions which “endanger the independence, excellence, and integrity of the University of Arizona and infringe on the constitutional rights of the members of the University of Arizona Community.”

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 along party lines to oppose the compact.

“This is an authoritarian-inclined administration and this is their attempt to force it into academia,” said Rex Scott who chairs the board.

And there was a unanimous vote by the Tucson City Council to declare that the compact is “an unacceptable act of federal interference that undermines local control, academic freedom, and opportunity for our residents.”

Schweikert is a spoiler in the GOP primary for governor

Peter Clark

Tensions are rising in the 2026 Republican primary race for governor, and what was already shaping up to be a tight contest has taken an unexpected turn.

Longtime Rep. David Schweikert has now thrown his hat in the ring for the 2026  GOP gubernatorial primary. 

Karen Taylor Robson has the backing of the GOP establishment, and Congressman Andy Biggs has strong grassroots support, making Schweikert the wildcard.

While Schweikert may believe he can save Arizona, without a rubber stamp of approval from Trump or Turning Point, does he stand a chance?

Schweikert vying for the governor’s seat is a fool’s errand. It would be a move better for Schweikert to join Robson’s ticket for the lieutenant governor’s spot. 

Instead of striking out on his own, an alliance with Robson would be the best option because he doesn’t have a shot at the nomination, his policies would dovetail with Robson’s platform, and it would be better from the standpoint of optics.

Schweirkert’s bid for the GOP nomination is not a safe bet. He’s entering a crowded ballot with formidable candidates. 

Granted, he has beaten the odds in the past. He secured his congressional seat by narrow margins in 2022 and 2024. But how will he fare when it comes to fundraising?

Will donors be flocking to his campaign without much fanfare from the party or conservative organizations?

Robson already has a massive head start on fundraising, and Biggs has the backing of national advocacy groups.

With no significant backing, Schweikert will act as a spoiler in the primary. Siphoning votes away from viable candidates and tapering Robson’s modest lead.

Schweikert teaming up with Robson would be beneficial to both candidates. Robson possesses the coveted Trump endorsement, which gives her more credibility among political donors and voters. 

Plus, her business-focused policies would have more reach among independents and moderates than Schweikert’s hard-nosed brand of conservatism.

Surprisingly, despite Schweikert being more conservative than Robson, his policies complement her platform effectively. Both candidates are solution–oriented and boast pragmatic approaches to policy.

His status as a budget hawk and passion for deregulation are well-suited for Robson’s focus on business-friendly policies. Fostering a set of policies emphasizing economic responsibility and growth, Schweikert also patches one of Robson’s biggest blind spots, her conservative credentials. Some commentators have suggested that Robson has flip-flopped on policy and view her as an establishment conservative.

For primaries, the rules of a general election don’t apply. It is one of the few instances in Arizona politics where being a staunch ideologue is beneficial. Few can dispute  Schweikert’s credentials, as he has a ”98.28% Lifetime Score with ACUF” and a 90% rating from Heritage Action. If Robson had selected him as her running mate for lieutenant governor,  it could improve her image among hardcore conservatives.

One of Schweikert’s most concerning Achilles’ Heels is his proclivity for generating controversies and scandals. Aside from the typical criticisms a political candidate confronts, Robson is relatively scandal-free in comparison to Schweikert. Robson’s cleaner image makes her more electable than her provocative opponent.

Several years ago, Schweikert faced fines for “campaign violations.” Needless to say, in the mudslinging leading up to the primaries, this incident will be thoroughly scrutinized. But the cringe-worthy blunders don’t end with this quagmire. Unfortunately, he also tends to put his foot in his mouth — for example, the defamation lawsuit over the Elijah Norton political advertisement.

Even as of this year, Schweikert continues to indulge in incendiary rhetoric. He referred to the criticisms of the Medicaid changes in the Big Beautiful Bill as “whining and bedwetting.” There are more tactful and professional ways to address these criticisms; these off-the-cuff comments will be red meat for his primary opponents. 

While abandoning his campaign and joining Robson’s ticket won’t make these issues disappear, it will take some of the heat off of him, as Robson would be the focal point. 

Schweikert leaving his seat in Arizona CD1 for a long-shot campaign for the Governor’s Office seems like a faster track to the unemployment line. He will be more likely to have a seat at the Capitol teaming up with Robson than striking it out alone. Maybe he will have better luck in 2030.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

While Washington spirals, Arizona Democrats deliver real results

Rep. Oscar De Los Santos

In Donald Trump’s Washington, chaos and cruelty are the norm. Politicians bicker, extremists grandstand, and government grinds to a halt. But here in Arizona, House Democrats are showing a different way forward — one rooted in results, not rhetoric.

Over the past several months, our caucus has traveled across the state for our Democrats Deliver Tour, visiting the hospitals, veterans’ courts, food banks, community colleges, and homeless shelters where our budget investments are changing lives. 

At Sage Memorial Hospital in Ganado, we met with Navajo Nation leaders and local health care providers who will soon have a new dialysis treatment center thanks to millions we fought for in this year’s budget. The new facility will provide life-saving care, reduce travel times, and improve health outcomes for patients living with advanced kidney disease. For too long, Native communities have been told to make do with less. We’re changing that.

In Phoenix, alongside Gov. Katie Hobbs, House Democrats rolled up their sleeves at St. Mary’s Food Bank, packing food boxes and celebrating the work we did to deliver 10 million free school meals to working-class students in Arizona’s public schools. Because no student in the wealthiest nation in human history should go hungry. 

At the Veterans Treatment Court in Lake Havasu City, we saw what happens when compassion meets accountability. Our new Homes for Heroes initiative — a landmark effort designed to end veteran homelessness and expand veteran treatment courts statewide — is giving Arizona’s veterans a real path to recovery and stability. To every veteran who raised their hand and served, House Democrats see you and stand by you. 

In Tucson, we toured Pima Community College, where we celebrated the state’s unprecedented investment in the Community College Promise Program, which will provide full-tuition scholarships for working-class students who are striving for better jobs. We also toured a health care training facility to witness firsthand the impact our smart investments are having in training the next generation of health care professionals. And we learned about how our funding for adult basic education is helping Arizonans build skills and careers that actually pay the bills.

Alongside Attorney General Kris Mayes, we met with law enforcement leaders who help run the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. House Democrats secured new resources to help these brave officers track and arrest pedophiles who exploit children online. We were proud to learn that our investment is already having an impact – prosecutors announced that they recently secured a 20-year prison sentence for a man in Gila County who was convicted of child sexual exploitation. 

And at our last stop, we held a roundtable discussion at Keys to Change, which provides shelter, counseling, and job support to Arizonans facing homelessness. Democrats secured $15.5 million this year to bring struggling Arizonans off of the streets and to keep vulnerable families in their homes by offering rental and utility assistance. 

From urban Phoenix to rural Ganado, from liberal Tucson to conservative Lake Havasu City, one thing was clear everywhere we went: Arizona House Democrats are delivering for all Arizonans — not just for one region or one party.

These visits reminded us what governing should look like: listening, learning and delivering. While Washington Republicans wage culture wars, attack Medicaid, and shut down the government, Arizona House Democrats are feeding children, supporting veterans, expanding health care, and keeping our kids safe from online predators.

That’s the difference between chaos and competence. Between petulant politics and public service.

Because at the end of the day, Arizonans don’t want extremist rhetoric — they want earnest results. And that’s exactly what House Democrats are delivering.

Rep. Oscar De Los Santos is the Arizona House Democratic leader.

Gubernatorial candidates rake in millions in donations ahead of 2026

Key Points:
  • Three candidates for governor in 2026 have raked in over a million in campaign donations in 2025
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs continues to outraise her GOP opponents
  • U.S. Rep. David Schweiker does not have any donations to report yet

Next year’s gubernatorial race is shaping up to be a costly affair as candidates on both sides of the aisle continue to raise millions of dollars in the lead up to the 2026 elections. 

Gov. Katie Hobbs announced on Oct. 15 that her campaign is already breaking fundraising records, bringing in a total of $12 million since she was elected in 2022. Hobbs raised more than $4 million in 2025 alone, the biggest haul of any Arizona gubernatorial candidate in a nonelection year.

“Arizonans are rallying behind Katie Hobbs because they know she’s focused on delivering results – lowering costs, securing the border, and solving problems,” said Nicole DeMont, Hobbs’ campaign manager, in a statement. “While her opponents are locked in a contest for desperate approval from Washington, Katie Hobbs is bringing Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together to move Arizona forward.”

In the most recent campaign finance filing period, which covers July through September, Hobbs raised nearly $1.5 million. That brings her warchest up to $5.4 million in cash on hand. 

Hobbs’ political action committee, Copper State Values, has also raised over $2.7 million to support the governor’s reelection campaign. 

On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs is slowly but steadily seeing an increase in fundraising over the course of 2025, bringing in over $560,000 in the third quarter. That leaves him with around $630,000 in cash on hand and around $1.2 million raised this cycle. 

Biggs’ campaign noted that it received contributions from 4,000 new donors in quarter three alone, which could be attributed to the outpouring of support from conservatives after the shooting death of Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10. Kirk endorsed Biggs’ campaign for governor in May and campaign finance reports show an uptick in donations following Kirk’s death.

“As I continue to travel across Arizona and share my vision of freedom for our state, more and more voters are coming on board to show their support,” Biggs said in a statement. “It’s clear we deserve better than the weak leadership and petty vetoes Katie Hobbs has built her office around, but it will take someone with the relationships and experience at the State Capitol and beyond to lead our state from Day One.”

Turning Point’s political action committee has also been providing support to Biggs’ campaign, spending nearly $500,000 on media for Biggs in 2025 so far. 

Businesswoman and former lobbyist Karrin Taylor Robson, known for self-funding her campaigns, has around $970,000 in cash on hand at the end of quarter three and has brought in a total of $4 million in 2025. However, only $1.9 million of her funds have come from donors, while the rest comes from loans Robson has made to her campaign. 

Robson is also a big spender, having already dropped $3 million in 2025 alone. $2 million of that was spent on media buys promoting her own endorsement from President Trump, which she shares with Biggs. 

“I am grateful for every Arizonan who has invested in our mission to Make Arizona Strong Again,” Robson said in a statement. “With President Trump’s endorsement and the backing of thousands of conservatives, we will build an unstoppable ground game, win the primary, defeat Katie Hobbs, and get our state back on track.”

Building a Better Arizona, the PAC supporting Robson, also spent around $72,000 in independent expenditures on behalf of her campaign in the third quarter, according to campaign finance reports. Most of that money went toward consulting costs and voter outreach efforts. 

U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, the newest entrant in the race, does not have any donations to report given his late start to the campaign. But, Schweikert does have around $1.1 million in cash on hand from his congressional campaign that could be rolled over to his gubernatorial committee. 

As the candidates gear up to hit the ground running in early 2026, Hobbs continues to lead the pack in cash on hand. While her Republican opponents will use the money they have to battle it out in the Aug. 4 primary, the governor will be able to rest on her warchest for most of 2026. 

Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC sees nearly 40% jump in its net profit thanks to the AI boom

HONG KONG (AP) — Taiwan’s leading computer chip maker, TSMC, said Oct. 16 that its net profit surged nearly 40% in the last quarter, boosted by the surge in use of artificial intelligence.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp. is the world’s biggest semiconductor manufacturer. It reported a net profit of a record 452.3 billion new Taiwan dollars ($15 billion) in the July-September quarter, higher than analysts’ forecasts.

The company earlier said its revenue jumped 30% year-on-year in the last quarter.

TSMC has been building chip fabrication plants in the United States and Japan to help hedge against risks from China-U.S. trade tensions. The chipmaker is a major supplier to companies such as Apple and Nvidia.

“Demand for TSMC’s products is unyielding,” Morningstar analysts wrote in a note this month. “Given TSMC’s dominance, we doubt the company would be hindered if it faced tariffs on shipments to U.S. customers. We expect AI demand to stay resilient.”

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick proposed last month that computer chip production be divided 50-50 between Taiwan and the U.S. Taiwan — where the majority of global chip manufacturing is currently based — rejected that idea.

The company has committed $100 billion in U.S. investments, including building new factories in Arizona, on top of $65 billion that it pledged earlier.

Arizona kidney patients deserve innovative cures

Javier Palomarez

America spends more than $130 billion a year — over one-quarter of the entire Medicare budget — on kidney disease. And yet, when it comes to actually saving lives, we lag behind 24 other countries, including France, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran.

That’s not just a failure of policy — it’s a moral and economic failure. And it’s one our communities know all too well.

Here in Arizona, an estimated 16,300 are living with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), and Hispanic patients — especially women — are among the hardest hit. Our abuelas are the heart and soul of our families. They’re more likely to progress to kidney failure, but less likely to receive a transplant. For us, access to the most effective treatment isn’t a luxury — it’s a lifeline for our communities.

The U.S. kidney care system is failing the very people it’s meant to serve. Today, more than 60% of Americans on dialysis die within five years. In Arizona, over 7,000 Medicare patients rely on dialysis. Yet Big Healthcare continues to trap patients in a costly, for-profit cycle — while prevention, innovation and access to transplants remain neglected.

Instead of fixing this broken model, Washington made it worse. Just before President Trump took office, career bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) quietly changed the rules — moving these medications into a government “bundle” that puts dialysis corporations in charge, instead of patients, doctors, or pharmacists.

As a result, patients can no longer get these medications filled at their local pharmacy. They must rely on dialysis clinics to decide whether or not they receive them. PLTs help patients control phosphorus levels in their blood, which is required to stay eligible for a transplant. Without access to them, patients suffer more complications, are hospitalized more often, and may be removed from transplant lists entirely.

Transplants save lives and taxpayer dollars. Every kidney transplant saves Medicare more than $65,000 per year — that’s $500,000 over a decade compared to keeping patients on dialysis. So why would CMS undermine access to the very therapies that help patients get transplants?

This rule squeezes out smaller providers and sidelines the Made-in-America biotech companies that are working to deliver next-generation treatments. Our members — many of them small manufacturers, family-run startups, and innovators — are investing millions into building better therapies. However, there’s no incentive to innovate when the system is rigged to reward the status quo.

This isn’t what leadership looks like. And our community — our patients, our workers, our small businesses — deserve better. Rural Americans living in states like Arizona are more likely to be diagnosed with kidney disease, and essential sectors like agriculture, trucking and construction report high rates of kidney failure.

This can still be fixed. CMS has proposed its 2026 rule, and once again, it fails to restore Part D access for these essential medications outside the bundle. Now is the time to speak up.

A growing coalition — including the American Society of Nephrology, Nephrologists for Equitable Kidney Care, the National Minority Quality Forum, the American Association of Kidney Patients, and the National Grange — is demanding change. We join them in calling on CMS to reverse this harmful policy and restore competition, access and innovation to kidney care.

Restricting coverage for innovative medicines threatens the care patients need most. Now is the time to strongly urge the White House and Members of Congress to acknowledge the consequences of the proposed policy change and take quick and decisive actions to expand coverage and preserve access.

Javier Palomarez is President & CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council.

Chad Wilson: EVIT and Arizona’s future workforce

Across the East Valley Institute of Technology campus, chefs prepped a meal, auto mechanics wheeled under lifted cars, welders stood behind a veil of sparks and hairdressers snipped at stray ends. 

At each step of an impromptu tour of the Career and Technical Education District, Chad Wilson, EVIT superintendent, showed students forging a future job in real time. Amid all the unfolding career paths, Wilson sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to reflect on his own, from the classroom to an ultimately unsuccessful indictment to his role at the helm of an organization dedicated to student career readiness.

Career and Technical Education focuses quite a bit on paths — so what was your path to where you are now? 

I’m going to tell you the whole story. You take it for what it’s worth. Some people tell me I shouldn’t tell this whole story, but I think it’s a fascinating story. 

I’m originally born and raised in Tucson. My dad was a superintendent down there. I graduated from the UofA and didn’t really know what to do, right? And so my dad suggested, what about education? Because that’s where he spent his career, and because I really didn’t have any plan, I said, OK, that makes sense. I never intended for my career to be in education. But when I started teaching, I just loved interacting and working with kids – I loved it, and I never intended to be an administrator, either, right? But an opportunity presented itself, and I took advantage of it. 

I was offered an assistant principal position out at Apache Junction … I loved it. I loved the action in high school. I loved the dynamic in high school. I was a high school assistant principal, then a high school principal. I later became the assistant superintendent of Apache Junction and then the superintendent of Apache Junction. 

As a superintendent, what winds up happening is that I work for a governing board. If the governing board changes, or the governing board doesn’t want the superintendent, then you move on, right? Well, my governing board did change, and so I decided that it was time to leave. So I left and came over here as the assistant superintendent. 

One of the unfortunate things coming out of (Apache Junction) is that some of the decisions I made, folks didn’t appreciate, and long story short, some discussions with the Auditor General’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office about me ultimately led me to being indicted by a grand jury on four felonies. 

(Wilson was indicted in 2019 on one count of theft and three counts of misuse of public monies)

During that same period, the superintendent who was here left, and the governing board here appointed me interim superintendent. However, I was indicted. The governing board here, I owe them more than they will ever understand, because they said, “Just because you’re indicted, doesn’t mean you did it. Anybody can have an indictment.” 

Four months later, the charges against me were dismissed, and I was reinstated as superintendent. And I’ve been the superintendent here for the past six years. 

What about EVIT stands out to you? 

Our faculty and staff here are amazing. (About) 98% of them have come straight out of business and industry. Go to the welding and all those instructors down there are professional welders who’ve been in the industry, and the way they conduct their class, and the way they conduct their environment is like what you’re going to find in a welding shop. If you go into our CNA program, our RN program, all the instructors are nurses, and they’re going to conduct that like you would in a hospital. And so, because of that, they create a much more engaging opportunity for kids. 

Our governing board puts students first; our faculty and staff put students first. The work that we do is tangible. You can see the real outcome. Your industry certification, which allows you to be hired at a salon upon completing cosmetology is a real, tangible outcome, and I really appreciate that at this stage in my career. I spent many years in a traditional K-12 system that I believe in, but that traditional K-12 system often doesn’t have a tangible outcome. It’s a preparation for something, but the tangibility of it is really difficult. Here, you see it.

What has guided your work with EVIT? 

One of the things that was important to me when I became the superintendent is that we anchor ourselves to something. Most organizations have mission statements, visions and other elements. Although that is good, I’m not very much about what you put on the wall. What I am about is how you conduct yourself every single day. And so, what we anchored ourselves to, and still anchor ourselves to, is the idea that at EVIT, we change lives by loving our students and serving our communities. That’s what we do. 

When we talk about loving our students, it’s not just an emotional feeling; it’s more about the kind of agape love that I’m going to show you without expecting anything in return, and I’m going to take that next step without expecting anything in return. We anchor ourselves to the idea that if we’re going to become who we expect ourselves to be, there’s no greater motivator or anchor than love.

What changes have you overseen as EVIT superintendent? 

Before I became superintendent, there were certain requirements that students had to meet to attend here. So, for example, you had to have a 2.5 GPA, you had to have good attendance and good discipline at your home high school to be able to come here. And from our perspective, those criteria didn’t reflect a very loving organization, right? Because in some cases, we don’t know why the student has a 2.5, we don’t know why they may have poor attendance, and for us to say they can’t come here because of that didn’t make sense. And so we lowered all of those. Any student can come here and we’re going to work with you where you’re at. 

We were the ones who championed the associates degree. Some students don’t see themselves as college bound when they arrive, but once they’re here, they realize they can learn. It’s just the way that they were being asked to learn wasn’t conducive to their learning style. So, we thought, if a student in our health sciences decides that they want to pursue an associates and an RN now, why would we push them off to somebody else when they’ve had success with us? 

What does this impact look like on the ground? 

Students will say to us afterwards, “Thank you for the opportunity,” and that’s because I didn’t know what I wanted to do, and now I work. Thank you for the opportunity, because I didn’t see myself as a learner. Now I’m learning. Thank you for the opportunity, because at my high school, I never really felt like I fit in. And here I fit. Once you find a passion and a purpose, and you realize it’s tied to a paycheck, it changes everything. 

At the end of the day, we are who we are because of people outside of me, right? I mean, the daily interaction with our students happens with our instructors, happens with our office staff. (Students) to come back and say this place changed my life.

What do you see as the big existential shifts in education since you started? 

The older I’ve become, the more I have come to conclude that some of the challenges we face in K-12 education are challenges that we, as educators, have imposed. I think, for a long time, there was a sense among educators, including myself, that we were the ones with the answers and the solutions, and that everybody else should just follow our lead. And what we realized now, looking back on it, is that wasn’t the right approach. Perhaps a better approach would be to acknowledge that we are partners and part of the solution, but not the sole solution. 

What do our parents really want from the K-12 system? What is it that our community really wants from the K-12 system? Are we measuring outcomes in a way that really allows us to make decisions that are reflective of what our communities and our parents want? That’s why I really enjoy being here, because all we do here is workforce development, and that’s a very concrete, tangible way to go about business. Still, I think it also is a real reflective way on maybe some lessons learned in all of K-12, in that a kid that comes to school, the job of the educator, the educational system is to give them the opportunity to develop how to become a critical thinker, how to become a critical problem solver. And in some cases, I’m not sure that we did that as well as we should have as educators. In some ways, we taught them what to think versus how to think, and that’s a big difference. 

What is your north star? 

Would I feel comfortable if my son or daughter were going to have to experience the decision that I was going to make? Would this be fair to my kids? Well, if it’s not fair to my kids, it’s not fair to anybody’s kid, because everybody loves their kid just as much as I love my own kid, right? So at the end of the day, I’ve always held to that standard, that if it’s not good enough for my son or my daughter, it’s not good enough for anybody’s kids. 

Legal battle continues over Saudi groundwater pumping in Arizona

Key Points: 
  • Agricultural company claims attorney general lacks authority to sue 
  • Filings claim authority lies solely with Arizona Department of Water Resources 
  • Ongoing litigation puts spotlight on gaps in groundwater regulation, policy

A legal fight over whether groundwater pumping by Fondomonte Arizona, a Saudi-backed agriculture company, constitutes a public nuisance now centers around whether the Arizona attorney general has the right to sue in the first place. 

The question has yet to be answered by a Superior Court judge, but Fondomonte’s claim that Attorney General Kris Mayes has overstepped her authority and encroached on the responsibilities designated to the Arizona Department of Water Resources under state law raises a point of reflection on the routes for policy changes and the place for litigation. 

“Lawsuits are cumbersome, and they don’t necessarily achieve the kind of sophisticated results that people would like,” Kathleen Ferris, former ADWR director and senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy said. “But again, if you can’t get anything done any other way, then people are tempted to go to court.” 

Since 2014, Fondomonte Arizona, a subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian dairy company Almarai, has been pumping groundwater in La Paz County to sustain an alfalfa agriculture operation that supplies feed for cattle abroad. 

The state Land Department has moved to terminate four of Fondomonte’s leases in Butler Valley, but the company continues to operate in the Ranegras Plain Basin. 

In December 2024, after continually calling attention to Fondomonte’s operations across the state, Mayes filed a lawsuit against Fondomonte using public nuisance law. 

State law defines a public nuisance as anything “injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood or by a considerable number of persons.”

Mayes claims that “excessive” groundwater pumping by the company has resulted in declining water levels and water quality, dry wells, sinking land, and permanently depleted aquifers, threatening to completely deplete the water supply in the Ranegras Plain Basin if left unaddressed. 

She cites the company’s groundwater use in 2023 as a show of excess, noting Fondomonte had used 31,196 acre-feet of groundwater, or 81% of all groundwater extracted from the basin that year. 

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Fondomonte’s conduct constitutes a public nuisance, an injunction to cease “excessively pumping groundwater” and the creation of an abatement fund. 

Fondomonte wants the lawsuit dismissed. In a new filing, the company claims that Mayes lacks the authority to sustain legal action against it, arguing instead that groundwater regulatory authority falls exclusively to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. 

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, attorney Pagie Kemper argues Mayes is using the public nuisance statute as “a backdoor to regulatory powers she does not possess” and points to the fact that the Groundwater Management Act “expressively and exclusively delegated these critical matters” to ADWR and its director. 

Kemper then draws a parallel between the allegations and the requested relief, aligning it with the criteria of an Active Management Area, which is initiated by the public and ultimately managed by ADWR. 

She notes, too, that the ADWR is empowered to seek an injunction to impose any restriction or penalty deemed “reasonable and appropriate” for ceasing or limiting groundwater pumping. 

Kemper claimed the attorney general cannot use public nuisance as a cover, calling it, “nothing more than a pretext intended to create authority to sue where none exists.” 

Fondomonte asks that the case either be dismissed in its entirety or be delegated to ADWR. 

“Stripped of the public nuisance label, the allegations of and relief requested in the Complaint make plain that this is a regulatory action the Attorney General lacks the power to pursue,” Kemper wrote. 

Ferris, executive director of the Arizona Groundwater Management Study Commission, the group behind the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act, noted that the ADWR has maintained responsibility over water supplies in the state, although with the caveat that real regulation cannot occur without an irrigation non-expansion area or an active management area. 

ADWR is testing the waters in an active management area of the Ranegras Plain, with an informal public meeting scheduled for Oct. 15 to present information and accept questions and comments. 

But, even with an active management area, Ferris noted that Fondomonte could be grandfathered in under state law. 

“The real issue is that in the area where Fondomonte is, there is no regulatory structure,” Ferris said. “Whoever has the deepest well and the biggest pump basically wins and can dry up the wells of other people.”

Ferris added the aim of the lawsuit may go well beyond Fondomonte. 

“Mayes is attempting to approach this from a focus that is outside of the Groundwater Management Act. It’s nuisance law,” Ferris said. “I think she’s trying to find a way to stop the expansion of industrial (agriculture), because, let’s face it, that’s what a lot of this is. It’s industrial scale agriculture. It’s not just Fondomonte.” 

Efforts to regulate groundwater in unregulated areas have continued to hit a wall in the Legislature. Ferris declined to comment on the merit of Mayes’ approach, but said the courts have historically caused some complications and delay in ironing out groundwater policy. 

“We need to take this issue out of the courts and deal with it holistically, looking prospectively, instead of fighting it all out,” Ferris said. “What happens, though, is if things bog down, and if folks don’t feel like they can get relief, then that’s when people go to court.” 

Doug MacEachern, communications administrator for the ADWR, declined to comment on the ongoing litigation but stated that the department had no plans to intervene at this time. 

Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, said in a statement, “The attorney general is bringing her case under public nuisance law, which she has the authority to do.” 

Ag-to-Urban will reshape Arizona’s agriculture industry, but farmers question if it’s worth it

Key Points: 
  • Ag-to-Urban went into effect on Sept. 26 after passing this year
  • Program is expected to save about 7.1 million acre-feet of water over the next 100 years in Phoenix
  • Some farmers are concerned about how Ag-to-Urban will affect the farming community 

A new law aiming to save water through the sale of Arizona’s farmlands to housing developers has marked a new era of urbanization across Arizona — and farmers are beginning to worry. 

Having gone into effect on Sept. 26, Ag-to-Urban introduced a new program allowing farmers with “Irrigation grandfathered rights” to trade in their water rights for Groundwater Savings Credits. Those credits can then be traded in for compensation when the land is sold, offering farmers a new path to retirement, and developers a new source of previously unavailable development land. 

“When you kind of have faith that this is going to be a good thing, but you don’t know all of the steps involved, it gives a little bit of unease,” said Jadee Rohner, executive director of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association.

Rohner said that while some farmers may not approve of Arizona’s transition out of agriculture, Ag-to-Urban allows them to profit from the inevitable change, giving control over the situation. 

“We do not want to see agriculture go away, but … if it’s going away, we need to make sure that producers are taken care of,” Rohner said. 

 As of 2024, roughly 34% of Arizona’s total acreage was farmland. 

According to a 2022 census of agriculture report, there were over 1.9 million farms in the U.S. and 16,710 farms in Arizona —a number that decreased by over 12% between 2017 and 2022. Arizona accounted for just 0.8% of the U.S.’s farms in 2022.

Rohher said that among the agricultural community, Ag-to-Urban has become a divisive concept, as some farmers are relieved to earn money from unwanted land, whereas others are concerned about what the law means for the future of farming.

“Especially within those rural communities that have that deep appreciation for agriculture, they don’t necessarily want to see urbanization and development coming into some of their smaller communities, they’re pretty satisfied with the status quo,” Rohner said. “This bill can be viewed negatively in that sentiment, because they don’t want to see agriculture go away.”

A report from the American Farmland Trust, titled “Farms Under Threat,” predicts that based on recent trends, Arizona will “pave over, fragment, or compromise 444,500 acres of farmland” between 2016 and 2040. This is the equivalent of 1,100 farms and 1,700 jobs, according to the report. 

Rohner said urbanization may affect Arizona’s rural towns, which profit the most from agriculture and have farming integrated into their culture. 

“A lot of those smaller communities that are agricultural based have a deep appreciation for agriculture where their food comes from, the fiber that they utilize in their clothing and the food on their table,” Rohner said. “As we see, some of those economic drivers in those communities change, we see an influx of individuals that may not have that same affiliation and or appreciation, and that, in itself, is hard.”

Despite concerns about the future of rural farming communities, Rohner said she still supports Ag-to-Urban due to the amount of water it is expected to save and its initiative to provide producers with money for land conversion. 

According to an estimated water savings report from the Arizona Department of Water Resources, it is expected that Ag-to-Urban will save about 7.1 million acre-feet of water over the next 100 years in Phoenix. The same report estimates that Pinal County will save 2.5 million acre-feet of water over the next 100 years with the program. 

Another report from the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture stated that in 2023, Arizona used 3.9 million acre-feet of water, equivalent to approximately 4.3 acre-feet of water per acre. According to the report, Arizona applied the most water per acre. 

As a longtime farmer in Goodyear, Arizona, Ron Rayner said losing farmland to real estate and developments is not foreign to him or his community.

Rayner said if offered, he would be willing to participate in the Ag-to-Urban program.

Over the past year, Rayner said he has been working on a vertical farming project as a way to coexist with developments coming through his area. 

“We’ve expended quite a bit of money, and we’re really still investigating. We believe that it can work,” Rayner said. “There’s no real roadmap to follow. There’s just a lot of people that got broke trying to do it.”

While the program is expected to expedite urbanization in farming communities, both producers and water experts have emphasized that they have faith in the program’s ability to save water and compensate farmers. 

Patrick Bray, the executive vice president of Arizona Farm and Ranch Group, has been in the agriculture business for the majority of his life. He said that while he may grieve the loss of farmland, he appreciates the benefits that Ag-to-Urban can provide for members in his community who need the money for retirement. 

“Our family farm is down to a few hundred acres. And so you know why the change is hard to see, especially when you’ve been out there on that land for decades, it pulls out the heartstrings,” Bray said. “But at the end of the day, it’s important that those people who don’t want to farm anymore … that, that option stays viable for them”

Bray said that he does not expect Ag-to-Urban to hinder or harm the farming community, but rather to improve the current agricultural industry for the betterment of both parties. 

“The agriculture industry itself is very much thriving. It’s changing, but it’s thriving,” Bray said. “So while people may not see the fields like they used to, they still exist, it’s just in different places. And I will tell you, I believe that the ag industry is thriving, but it is going to be a generational change.”

Tucson Mayor Romero and council stand up for ratepayers

Rick Rappaport

Try asking the boss for a raise this year. Seems a lot to ask for since you just asked for a raise last year but start with this number — about 500% more than the Tucson inflation rate for last year. Be sure to let the boss know that this is not some number you just pulled out of thin air; you’re only asking for about the same percentage raise that Tucson Electric Power (TEP) now wants in its latest rate filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Let me know how that goes. 

Still, I have to give TEP some credit here — that is one ballsy move — asking for a 14% raise from each and every residential customer in its service area at a time of never ending summer heat and choking air. You say TEP doesn’t really care at all about you, that they’re some kind of inherently evil corporation? No, they are just a run of the mill for profit corporation doing what they are supposed to do: maximize shareholder revenue. And they’re doing a bang up job of it! The CEO of TEP’s parent company Fortis only earned a salary of $1,700,000 in 2024, but thanks to his bonuses he ended up earning about $16,000,000. Yes, that’s probably an unconscionable amount of money, but we have to give the CEO some props for giving credit where credit was due for all that bonus money. In a recent shareholder letter he singled out TEP’s Tucson base for its bottom line contributions to Fortis’ record profits.

Hey Tucson, we couldn’t have done it without you.

If TEP can squeeze more profit out of its residential customers, it will. It makes no economic sense not to do so. Really, no hard feelings, it’s just business. But what a good business it has turned out to be! The more TEP spends on ACC approved expenditures the more profit TEP makes — as of now, 9.55% of those expenditures, and soon to be 10.55% per TEP rate filing for next year. The more gas, oil and coal TEP burns to make your electricity — and the more water it uses up to cool those processes — costs you more. What a business model! It’s akin to the cigarette/nicotine model: TEP creates an ever escalating need and then charges you for the ever escalating prices — not only an endless loop of rising costs for all TEP customers but also for anyone anywhere near TEP’s climate busting exhaust — per Security Exchange Commission filings in 2024, 86% of TEP’s delivered electricity came from burning fossil fuels. 

It’s a lockdown monopoly utility business model. No way out. Just pay through the nose or else.

So kudos to Mayor Romero and Council for standing up to TEP and filing as an intervenor with the Arizona Corporation Commission on TEP’s 14% increase rate filing. It’s like that old cartoon character Popeye used to say before he righted all the wrongs by downing that can of spinach and clobbering his enemies: “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more.” With the current ACC members routinely drawing down on the world’s rubber supply by giving their stamp of approval on just about every TEP rate hike and expenditure request, the city of Tucson deserves our thanks and support for standing tall in that headwind and saying enough is enough. 

Please pass the spinach.

Rick Rappaport is a volunteer with the Arizonans For Community Choice Energy, the Citizens Climate Lobby, and the Greater Tucson Climate Coalition.

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