Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Democrats

As crossover week nears, Democrat and bipartisan bills finally debut

Key Points
  • Democrats struggle to get Republican committee chairs to hear their bills
  • As crossover week approaches, a handful of Democratic and bipartisan bills have passed committees
  • Of the bipartisan bills, many would benefit certain Arizonans, especially in health care

Throughout the session and up until the last minute, Democrats have begged Republican committee chairs to hear their bills, and finally, some pleas have been heard. 

At least 14 Democratic bills have passed committee or are awaiting a hearing, but none would address the affordability crisis that Democrats have used as a rallying cry for much of their work. 

Crossover week starts Feb. 23, and successful Senate bills and House bills will cross the great divide and be assigned to the opposite chamber’s committees. Although nothing ever truly dies at the Legislature, if the bills don’t make it through the next committees, they’ll be stopped and only a bill, never a law. 

There are at least five bills in which the Democrat is the prime sponsor, with at least one Republican lawmaker signing on as a co-sponsor, and all but two of those bills passed. There are at least seven bills with Republicans as the prime sponsors, but a Democrat signed on as a co-sponsor and all but two passed committees. 

Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, D-Tuba City, passed three bills out of committee so far, which is the most of any Senate Democrat, according to Senate research staff.

None of the Democrats’ bills heard focused on their unified message of “An Arizona We Can Afford,” a message they have pushed all session. Caucus members said their bills would address housing issues, education and myriad rising costs in health care, child care and utilities. 

They’re going for quality over quantity, Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan said.

“I’m certain that we have not held back,” she said. “We, continually, are finding new issues that crop up that we want to address with new bills, and then, of course, there is the backlog of Democratic bills that Republicans never hear.”

Meanwhile, Republicans have introduced their own bills they say would address affordability, though it’s likely some of those bills could meet Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen. 

Sen. John Kavanagh previously told the Arizona Capitol Times that the parties just have too different philosophical ideologies to find bipartisan support on affordability. 

“Republicans want to grow the economy by cutting taxes so people have more money and businesses can grow. Democrats want to deal with the needs by increasing taxes so the government can run programs,” he said.

Republicans have also introduced a number of bills relating to culture wars and ones that wouldn’t seem to address affordability. A news release from Opportunity Arizona, a nonpartisan organization, said the bills would make Arizona unaffordable and unsafe, while legislation that could actually help is being dismissed. 

Some of the bills mentioned are Senate Bill 1638, one of the tax conformity bills proposed by Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler. Another is Senate Bill 1051, which would require hospitals to collect immigration status, filed by Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff. And a third, Senate Bill 1333, would propose to fix the state’s 8.84% error rate on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) or penalize the Department of Economic Security if it’s not below 3% by 2030, filed by Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, but Democrats argued it would further strain the department. 

“The legislation that Arizona MAGA extremists at the Legislature are prioritizing is doing the opposite of lowering costs,” Executive Director Ben Scheel of Opportunity Arizona said. “Their corporate welfare agenda is handing out billions to multinational corporations — all on the backs of working Arizonans’ tax dollars so the rich can hoard more wealth and ICE can terrorize mothers and children.” 

So what do Democrats and bipartisan bills focus on?

Despite the affordability topic seemingly being pushed aside for now, the Democrats’ bills and the bipartisan bills are aimed at benefiting certain groups of Arizonans – if signed into law. Here’s a handful of examples.

Senate Bill 1295, filed by Sen. Brian Fernandez, D-Yuma, and co-sponsored by four Republicans, would allow eligible inmates who have a debilitating illness, including ones that are terminal, life-threatening, functional or cognitive impairment or inability to independently live daily life, to receive care at a contracted facility. Written confirmation from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (Medicaid) would be required that the inmate qualifies for enrollment in the Arizona Long-Term Care System.

Senate Bill 1630, filed by Sen. Hildy Angius, R-Bullhead City, and co-sponsored by a mix of Republicans and Democrats, would establish a home and community-based service program for adults who are seriously mentally ill under the state’s Medicaid program. 

Senate Bill 1803, filed by Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, and co-sponsored by Sen. Kiana Sears, D-Mesa, would establish prohibitions, requirements and procedures for people who assist veterans with their benefits and limit any compensation received for providing assistance. Though this bill did receive pushback from the Arizona VFW and the American Legion Department of Arizona, Gowan said it’s a step in the right direction. 

Another bill relating to health care is Senate Bill 1776, which would allow traditional healing services covered by Medicaid to be delivered through an urban Indian organization. Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, D-Tucson, filed the bill, along with other Democratic co-sponsors.

Senate Bill 1740, filed by Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, would require each law enforcement agency to develop and conduct employee training on the Turquoise Alert System and the issuance of a Turquoise Alert. Along with four more Democratic senators signing on, Sen. TJ Shope also co-sponsored the bill. 

Democrats attempt affordability bills in Republican-controlled committees

Key Points:
  • Democrats file 257 bills this session, emphasizing affordability 
  • Many affordability bills will require bipartisan support for approval
  • Approval would impact health care, education, housing and other industries

Arizonans are facing an affordability crisis, but Democrats are determined to address at least some of those issues if they can only get their bills heard in committee. 

Democrats started the legislative session with a unifying message of “An Arizona We Can Afford,” which includes tackling housing issues, education, and myriad rising costs in health care, child care and utilities.

The minority party has introduced at least 257 pieces of legislation (including resolutions), far fewer than the Republicans’ 600 bills, according to an Arizona Capitol Times analysis. But they’re going for quality over quantity, Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan told the Capitol Times earlier this year. 

“I’m certain that we have not held back,” she said. “We, continually, are finding new issues that crop up that we want to address with new bills, and then, of course, there is the backlog of Democratic bills that Republicans never hear.”

Senate Democratic bills are rarely heard in committees these days. Many of the bills are assigned, but the Republican lawmakers leading the committees haven’t put them on the agenda and so they go unheard. 

At a news conference on Feb. 5, legislative Democrats, along with the advocacy organization Opportunity Arizona, reiterated this issue. They pointed out several pieces of Republican legislation that won’t help affordability, such as Sen. Janae Shamp’s Senate Bill 1070, which would direct the Department of Health to study so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” and several senators’ bills that would support anti-immigration efforts. 

“We are in the minority, but we are also critical votes for many important things that need to happen in this state. We eventually need to sign a budget, so we will be looking at all of the tools available to us to ensure that these affordability bills are heard,” Sundareshan said. “Republicans need to give these bills a hearing so that we can have an Arizona that we can afford.”

It’s unlikely though, as the philosophical divide hasn’t been crossed too many times this session. 

“Republicans want to grow the economy by cutting taxes so people have more money and businesses can grow. Democrats want to deal with the needs by increasing taxes so the government can run programs,” Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, said. “We’re philosophically different. Never the twain shall meet.”

There will be a large number of bills that are not controversial, such as those needing changes to accommodate for changing conditions or changing federal law, and likely a good number of bipartisan bills that will make it to the other chamber and possibly Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk, he said. 

The plethora of bills paves the way to mid-term elections, allowing voters on both sides to see what their parties supported or opposed. It also speaks to what bills Hobbs approves or vetoes. 

“We send bills up knowing they’ll be vetoed. The people see what the governor vetoed, and if they agree, they can vote for the governor. If they disagree, they can vote against the governor next time,” Kavanagh said.

With two parties standing on the philosophical divide over how to address affordability, Arizonans are caught in the middle, still fighting rising costs of living. 

“The hope here is that Republican legislators will start to talk with Democrats about our affordability ideas, either hear our bills or incorporate our ideas into the bills that they’re moving forward so that the governor actually can sign them and help address, give relief to Arizonans who need it,” Sundareshan said. 

But nothing gets done in a divided government, Kavanagh said. 

Both parties have introduced bills that would impact affordability for many people, and the following list is the best example of each category, according to an Arizona Capitol Times analysis.

Democrats:

Housing:

Senate Bill 1442 would prohibit a corporation from purchasing single-family homes unless the home has been on the market for more than 90 days or there is a change in the asking price. It would also require annual reporting of single-family home purchases and sales by corporations and impose a $20,000 fine per violation for noncompliance. 

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, authored the bill and it has been referred to Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency (RAGE) and Rules, but hasn’t been heard. 

Health care:

Senate Bill 1797 would prohibit price gouging for manufacturers and wholesale distributors of essential generic drugs. The attorney general would be able to investigate significant price increases, require cost and access expansion disclosures and enforce penalties. If found guilty, manufacturers may be required to sell the drug to the state medical assistance program participants at pre-violation prices for up to one year. 

Sen. Kiana Sears, D-Mesa, is the author, but the bill has not been assigned to any committee. 

Child care:

Senate Bill 1597 would amend eligibility and funding provisions for child care assistance, including income thresholds, prioritization of waiting lists and criteria for denial or termination of assistance. It would also allocate money to eliminate the current waiting list and provide assistance to eligible families with incomes up to 165% of the federal poverty level. 

Sen. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, is the author, but the bill has not been heard in either Health and Human Services, Appropriations, Transportation and Technology or Rules. 

Utilities:

Senate Bill 1384 would prohibit utility companies and corporations from using ratepayer funds for political contributions, charitable giving, advertising, lobbying and other nonrecoverable expenses. 

The author is Sundareshan and the bill has not been heard in the Natural Resources Committee. 

Republicans:

Housing: 

Senate Bill 1431 would prohibit municipalities from imposing certain design or aesthetic standards on single-family homes and accessory dwelling units in subdivisions or developments, unless federally mandated. It would not apply to historic districts, tribal lands and military noise zones. 

The author is Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, and there is bipartisan support for this one, as Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, also signed on. It has not been heard in RAGE or Rules. 

Health care: 

Senate Bill 1316 establishes the Arizona Rural Health Transformation Fund, which would be managed by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. It would use money from the Rural Health Transformation Program, a federal program that promotes rural health innovation, strategic partnerships, infrastructure development and workforce investment. The bill would require three public meetings in each of Arizona’s largest metropolitan areas to gather input and feedback on how the money should be spent. An expenditure plan must also be submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for approval. 

The author is Sen. Hildy Angius, R-Bullhead City, and the bill passed the Health and Human Services Committee on a 4-3 vote, with Democratic senators voting against it. 

Child care: 

Senate Bill 1867 would amend laws related to the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. If a parent does not renew their student’s ESA, any remaining money will be returned to the Department of Education and the account will be closed. After a student graduates high school, the funds can be used for college but any unused funds would go back to the state. 

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, is the author, but the bill has not been assigned to a committee. 

Utilities: 

Senate Bill 1558 addresses regulations for mobile home parks and the requirement that landlords specify utility charges. It also provides remedies for tenants, including giving a written notice to a landlord and then filing a civil complaint. 

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is the author, but the bill has not been heard in RAGE or Rules. 

Lawmakers face re-election amid shifting political landscape

Key Points:
  • Democrats see 2026 as their best chance to gain majority in state Legislature
  • Republicans hold 17-13 Senate majority and 33-27 House majority
  • Democrats are targeting seven legislative districts in their re-election efforts

State lawmakers are running for re-election this year, and after a red wave in 2024 that expanded Republicans’ majorities in both legislative chambers, Democrats are confident they can gain ground in November. 

“This year truly is the best chance that Democrats have at taking the majority,” House Minority Leader and Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Co-Chair Oscar De Los Santos told reporters and constituents in a Zoom call on Jan. 5. “The conditions are there. The country is fed up with Donald Trump’s obsession with petty politics and nonsense and distractions.”

The Governor’s Office and several other federal and state executive offices will be up for grabs in November, as well as the entire state Legislature. Republicans currently hold a 17-13 majority in the Senate and a 33-27 majority in the House. 

De Los Santos said the state Democratic legislative campaign committee is targeting seven legislative districts.

Legislative District 2

The north Phoenix district is represented by two Republicans and one Democrat. Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix; and Reps. Justin Wilmeth, R-Phoenix; and Stephanie Simacek, D-Phoenix, have all filed statements of interest with the Secretary of State’s Office to run for re-election. 

Bolick defeated former Democratic state Rep. Judy Schwiebert in the 2024 election by more than 3% of votes when Schwiebert tried to move seats from the House to the Senate. Simacek got the most votes in the district’s House race and Wilmeth just finished ahead of fellow Republican Ari Bradshaw by .10% of votes. 

Bradshaw has also filed a statement of interest to run again for the House in LD2, but Simacek is the only Democrat to have filed so far. Other candidates include Republicans Linda Brickman, Neil DeSanti, Danielle Skranak and Arizona Independent Party candidate Tom Simes. 

Two Democrats, Krista Andrews and Daniel Toporek, have filed statements of interest to run for the Senate in the district, and two other Republicans, Timothy Ferrara and Christian Hinz, have filed paperwork to run against Bolick. 

Republicans make up about 35% of registered voters in the district, according to the most recent report from the Secretary of State’s Office published in October. Another 26% of voters are registered Democrats and the rest are registered as independents or affiliated with other parties. 

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission has labeled LD2 as a highly competitive district, giving Republicans a 3.80% advantage. 

Legislative District 4

This Scottsdale and northeast Phoenix district flipped entirely to Republican control after the 2024 election when it was previously represented by two Democrats at the Legislature in the prior election cycle. 

Reps. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix; and Pamela Carter, R-Scottsdale, defeated Democrats Kelli Butler and Karen Gresham. Carter had the closest race and beat Butler by 1% of votes, while Sen. Carine Werner, R-Scottsdale, defeated former state Sen. Christine Marsh by almost 4% of votes. 

Aaron Lieberman, a former Democratic state representative who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2022, has filed a statement of interest to challenge Werner for the LD4 Senate seat. 

The district’s House race has six candidates who are interested in running, including Gress, Carter and Gresham. Republicans Sandra Christensen and Jeffrey Nelson have also filed statements of interest along with Democrat Tank Hanna. 

Republican voters make up about 39% of registered voters in the district, and Democrats account for 26%, but a sizable independent voter base could determine how the district is represented after 2026. 

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission also considers LD4 as highly competitive, with Republicans holding a 3.42% advantage.

Legislative District 9

The west Mesa district of LD9 was the only competitive district in 2024 where Democrats took all three legislative seats. 

Reps. Lorena Austin, D-Mesa; and Seth Blattman, D-Mesa, both narrowly defeated their Republican opponents, Kylie Barber and Mary Ann Mendoza, in 2024, with Austin emerging as the top candidate with 26% of the vote. 

Blattman announced in December that he won’t seek re-election to instead pursue a new professional opportunity with greater “long-term stability” than his House seat and endorsed Democrat Jacob Martinez to replace him.

“Serving the people of LD 9 has been the honor of my life,” Blattman said in a statement. “Together we launched Arizona’s first Micro-Business Loan Program, putting many mom-and-pop shops on a more solid footing, and supported our public schools. I’m proud of what we accomplished and confident that Arizona’s best days are ahead.”

Austin has also filed a statement of interest to run again for her seat, and Republican Bradley Bettencourt is the only Republican seeking a House seat in LD9 so far. 

Former Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch beat Republican Robert Scantlebury by more than 3% in 2024, but Burch resigned during the 2025 legislative session. Her appointed replacement, Sen. Kiana Sears, has filed a statement of interest to run against Republican Bridget Fitzgibbons for the Senate. 

While LD9 was Democrats’ greatest performing competitive district in 2024, Republicans still hold a voter registration advantage of nearly 32% compared to Democrats’ near 29%. 

LD9 has one of the tightest advantages among highly competitive districts. The redistricting commission gives Democrats a 2.6% advantage over Republicans despite Republicans leading in voter registration. 

Legislative District 13

The Chandler district of LD13 was another that lost all Democratic representation in the Legislature in 2024, with all three seats going to Republicans. 

Reps. Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler; and Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler, both defeated their Democratic opponents, Brandy Reese and Nicholas Gonzales, in 2024, as both Republicans received nearly 26% of the vote each to lead all candidates in that race.

Willoughby is now seeking to flip chambers as Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, will be termed out of his seat after this year. Weninger is running for Chandler Mayor, and current Republican Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke is running for the state House in LD13. The only other candidate running for Senate in the district is Democrat Kristie O’Brien.

Weninger’s wife, Janet Weninger, announced in September she’s running for the state House as a Republican in the district. 

“As a mom, foster care advocate, and entrepreneur, I have spent my life helping others succeed. Arizona is well-positioned for success, but there is more work to be done. From repairing the Department of Child Safety, to fighting for law enforcement, to ensuring parents can make decisions in the best interest of their kids, our best days lie ahead,” Janet Weninger said in a statement when she launched her campaign.

Reese and Democrat Racquel Armstrong will be running for the House and Republicans Debra Schinke and Joe Granado have also filed statements of interest for House seats.

Despite Republicans accounting for almost 36% of registered voters in the district, LD13 has an even tighter redistricting commission vote spread than LD9, with Republicans holding a 1.56% advantage in the highly competitive district. Democrats make up about 27% of registered voters in the district.

Legislative District 16

Republicans also took all three seats in LD16, which includes Casa Grande. 

Former Democratic state Rep. Keith Seaman lost his 2024 bid for reelection by about 2.5% of votes to Rep. Chris Lopez, R-Casa Grande. Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, took home the most votes in the House race and Seaman’s daughter, Stacey Seaman, lost to Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, by 12% of votes.

Shope is running for re-election and Democrat Elaine Aldrete is the only other candidate in the Senate race. 

De Los Santos said some districts would only see one Democratic candidate running as a “single-shot” candidate for the House in an attempt to focus the voter pool on one candidate for at least one House seat. Only Democrat Dean Dill has filed paperwork to run for the House, while Martinez and Lopez are the only Republicans who are running so far. 

About one-third of registered voters in the district are Republicans and 27% are Democrats. LD16 is another one of the redistricting commission’s highly competitive districts and Republicans have a 3.62% advantage. 

Legislative District 17 and Legislative District 23

Neither of these districts is considered competitive by the redistricting commission, but both saw upset victories over the parties that held advantages in each. 

In LD17, which includes Oro Valley, Marana and Tucson, Rep. Kevin Volk, D-Tucson, beat former Republican Rep. and Freedom Caucus member Cory McGarr by more than 2% of votes in the district as a single-shot candidate despite Republicans holding more than 8% advantage in the district, according to the redistricting commission. 

Volk is running for re-election along with his seatmate, Rep. Rachel Jones, R-Tucson. Democrat Matthew Coelho has also filed a statement of interest for a House race, but Democrats narrowly lost to McGarr and Keshel in 2022 when they ran two House candidates instead of single-shotting. 

Republicans Kirk Fiehler, Avery Block and John Winchester have also filed statements of interest for the House. 

Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, is not seeking re-election in LD17. He beat the late Democrat John McLean by 2% of votes shortly before McLean’s death. 

Republicans Christopher King and Anthony Dunham have filed paperwork to run for the Senate in LD17, along with Democrat Hunter Holt.

In LD23, Rep. Michele Pena, R-Yuma, has won both her 2024 and 2022 elections despite Democrats having nearly a 17% advantage, according to the redistricting commission. Pena was the top vote-getter in the district’s House race with more than 34% of votes while Rep. Mariana Sandoval, D-Yuma, took the other House seat.

Pena is joined by two other Republicans, Gary Garcia Snyder and James Holmes, in filing paperwork to run for the House. Sandoval is running for re-election and Democrats Emilia Cortez and Juan Manuel Guerrero are also running for the House.

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.

No action to be taken on ethics complaint over Rep. Gillette’s anti-Muslim remarks

Key Points:
  • House Democrats file ethics complaint against Rep. John Gillette
  • Complaint follows Gillette’s anti-Muslim social media posts and statements
  • Ethics Chairman Rep. Lupe Diaz will not hear the complaint in committee

The House Ethics Committee will not be taking action for a complaint filed by Democrats against a Republican legislator who has made anti-Muslim remarks on social media.

House Democrats filed an ethics complaint against Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, after me called the Council on American-Islamic Relations a terrorist organization and said he rejects Islamophobia as “a construct of the Marxist left” in a series of social media posts on X.

House Democratic leaders filed the complaint on Sept. 10, according to a caucus spokesman. The complaint was filed after the Arizona Mirror published a story on Gillette’s posts that Democrats describe as “offensive, dangerous, and egregiously unbecoming of an elected official” in the complaint. 

The complaint alleges Gillette broke a House rule by engaging in disorderly behavior and damaging the public’s perception of the state House of Representatives. 

Gillette wrote in a Sept. 2 post on X that Muslims immigrants are attempting to bring “Sharia Law” to the U.S. as a “policy of Islam,” and linked the religion to the 2012 terrorist attack at the Benghazi American embassy in his interview with the Mirror, describing the attackers as “savages.”

House Democratic leaders said in a statement: “We strongly condemn the hateful and dangerous anti-Muslim comments by Representative John Gillette. Vile and bigoted language like this has no place in public discourse, undermines the safety and dignity of Muslim communities, and promotes fear and division. We know too well in Arizona that Islamophobic rhetoric can trigger acts of violence and put lives at risk. When used and sanctioned by public officials, it contradicts and weakens the core American values of equality, justice, and religious freedom.” 

The House Ethics Committee Chairman, Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, responded to the complaint on Sept. 12 with a letter to House Democrats and said he will not be taking further action with the complaint. 

Diaz said it would be unprecedented for the House to take up the complaint since remarks, statements, or opinions by lawmakers are not traditionally the subject of ethics inquiries. 

“Particularly in light of recent events, it is imperative that government institutions protect the freedom of speech, rather than take actions to silence, punish, or censor speech simply because someone might find it offensive or disagreeable,” Diaz wrote. “The inquiry you request this Committee to make would result in no more than an inquiry into the sincerity of Representative Gillette’s beliefs or a debate into the merits of those beliefs — neither for which an Ethics Committee hearing is the proper venue.”

In a statement Gillette provided to the House and sent to the Arizona Capitol Times, Gillette said Democrats are attempting to punish him for exercising his First Amendment Rights. 

“Immigrants are welcomed here as guests who can become fellow citizens, and gratitude, respect, and loyalty to our nation are the minimum expectations. Yet too often, what we see instead is a demand that Americans change our culture, our speech, or our religion so as not to ‘offend’ those who chose to come here. That is not assimilation — it is subversion,” Gillette wrote in his statement. “I will treat every human being with dignity and respect. But I will not, and America must not, bow to the demands of those who place their foreign ideologies above our Constitution.”

House Assistant Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, said on Sept. 11 that Democrats were hoping Diaz would hold a hearing for the complaint.

“It was important for us to file because of the extreme language and hateful words that he was repeatedly using online, and those are the kinds of words that incite political violence that we’re seeing,” Gutierrez said. 

In his statement, Gillette called Democrats hypocrites and referenced Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, hiding Bibles in the House last session when she attempted to make a point about not letting religion influence the government. 

“This is hypocrisy of the highest order. The Democratic Party will bend over backwards to defend those who hate America yet attack, and censor those who defend it. That is the Democrat Party of today,” Gillette wrote in his statement.

The Arizona chapter of the Arizona-Islamic Relations Council condemned Gillette’s comments in a news release on Sept. 10. 

“We commend Arizona House Democratic leaders for taking swift action by filing an ethics complaint,” said Azza Abuseif, Executive Director of CAIR-Arizona. “Rep. Gillette’s remarks are not only morally repugnant — they are dangerous. Anti-Muslim rhetoric fuels discrimination, threats, and even violence against our communities. Elected officials should be held to the highest standards of accountability and respect for all constituents, regardless of faith or background.”

Session Wrap: Sen. Sundareshan, policy priorities and partisanship

For Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, the legislative session contained its share of accomplishments and challenges for the Democratic caucus.

Some of the victories included working with Gov. Katie Hobbs and Republicans to ensure the Division of Developmental Disabilities program was fully funded, securing some of their funding priorities in the state budget and remaining unified in opposition to Republican bills they considered extreme.

However, many of the caucus’ priorities were unaddressed, including affordable housing, curtailing the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program and passing legislation to address rural groundwater shortages in the state.

Sundareshan spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times about these issues and future priorities.

What would you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session for you and your caucus?

A major accomplishment for my caucus was in sticking together on issues of value to the Democratic Party and our members, including on many of the extreme pieces of legislation that the Republicans put forward. Our caucus often was the caucus holding together. We were able to show the unity of our opposition, and when those bills then made it to the governor’s desk, that made it pretty clear to the governor that those were easy to veto because those were not in line with our Democratic values.

You supported the Ag-to-Urban bill, which had bipartisan support, despite concerns from some Democratic lawmakers regarding groundwater replenishment obligations. Why did you believe it was a good bill?

So ultimately, I felt comfortable voting for the language in the Ag-to-Urban bill. For one thing, and I think this is reflective of many of my caucus, as well as the House Democratic caucuses’ concerns, is that we should be addressing the big problem, which is rural groundwater. This had nothing to do with that. That problem remains outstanding, and there continues to be no solution, thanks to the intransigency of the Republicans who control the committees. So that’s one major issue. Two, there remains a significant concern about the ability for the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) to fulfill its existing obligations in replenishing groundwater that has been pumped through because of development up to now, and they are in the process of submitting their 2025 plan of operations for the next 10 years and the Department of Water Resources still has to evaluate it. There already are concerns about where they’re going to find that replenishment water, because we know that the Colorado River is dwindling. There are significant parts of their plan that are no longer able to be counted on. And then, on top of it, what further impact does the Ag-to-Urban bill have on their replenishment obligations? And I think that’s a significant concern that I was raising during the negotiations of the Ag-to-Urban bill, and I continue to have concerns about the groundwater replenishment district.

I was glad to see the involvement of the Gila River Indian Community in this process, because…as part of this negotiation, they are willing and interested to enter into negotiations to sell some of their water rights to the (CAGRD) in order to support those replenishment obligations. Will that be sufficient? That’s an outstanding question that we’re going to have to keep an eye on. But, for now, I was able to support the bill because I felt that the compromise that was reached included a significant number of necessary guardrails to ensure the land that was converting from farm to development to single family housing would altogether — with all of the guardrails, there would be something that could result in groundwater savings over the next 100 years. 

So what were some of the biggest challenges from this session?

So many things left unresolved yet again by the Republican majority in the Legislature. We can just rattle them off. For example, we were just talking about water. Rural groundwater remains unaddressed and it was very clear mid-session that there was no desire on the part of the committee chairs to continue negotiating any kind of bill that would do that. That is a huge disappointment and really tragic because there are people in rural Arizona who continue to face the issues of finding their wells running dry thanks to the unlimited ability for large corporate pumpers to just come in and leave the residents high and dry, literally.

Another thing that was left undone is Prop. 123. We had a lot of back and forth over the course of this session about how to ensure a ballot referral to the voters to renew Prop. 123 in a way that would support our education system. And that got bogged down unnecessarily by partisan bickering. I will again say that the House and Senate Republicans had decided that they wanted to start attaching unrelated policies to the Prop. 123 proposal, like voucher protections and other things, when we already have a very, extremely permissive voucher program in Arizona.

Why has it been so hard to address the rural groundwater issue?

What I’ve come to realize is that the reality of rural Arizona residents is just not being represented by even their own elected officials in this Legislature. I represent a suburban-to-urban district, but I have compassion for the people who are not my constituents, who are facing these water crises, and yet their own representatives are seemingly unmoved. Rep. Mathis and I introduced a bill that had Republican support from Republican elected officials in these rural areas across the state. This was something that was a bipartisan effort that we knew was reflective of the negotiations we had had with Republican legislators from last year. We worked together with other Republican elected officials from rural Arizona to put forward this proposal, and yet, that still could not get any hearing by the chairs of the committees.

Were you surprised by the budget process?

Certainly, it is a bit surprising to see the fractures within the Republican parties and the Republican caucuses display themselves so openly. I think what we observed with this budget process was to what extent the Freedom Caucus is willing to take everyone hostage — the entire state hostage — in order to achieve some of their goals, and how much of a hold they have over the Republican Party, because … they were flexing their power, and they showed that they are making demands of the broader Republican caucuses that needed to be addressed before we could move forward. 

What enabled the Senate Democrats to be able to work with the Senate Republicans and the governor to reach some of the compromises in the budget?

Senate Democrats had significant concerns with the budget process, as we have for many years, because Republicans do not directly negotiate with us and so we worked with Governor Hobbs and her team to ensure that our Democratic priorities were reflected in the budget. I think we were able to significantly achieve a lot of what we were asking for by working with the governor, but we also were very dissatisfied with the failure to again address universal vouchers, which has a huge impact on the budget. Over $1 billion in the next year that is just going again to this unaccountable, fraudulent program and wasteful because it’s going to people who do not even need educational support and have simply sent their kids to private schools. 

But, on the other hand, we also had a number of wins by negotiating for the budget. I’ll point to things like the Area Agencies on Aging that support seniors as they age and provide meals on wheels for seniors. That was a significant point that our caucus was fighting for. Another point is other services broadly for those who need it the most … refugee support and homelessness issues, there was very little funding available to put towards that. And I know many in my caucus would have loved to see a lot more go towards that but what we did see go towards that was due to the engagement of my caucus.

So what do you anticipate as the biggest democratic priorities for the next session?

So much of our affordability agenda was left untouched. We put forward many bills that would have helped Arizonans with affordable housing, with affording everyday necessities and none of those bills received hearings. So I anticipate that our focus on affordability will continue. So that’s one major thing we’ll focus on next session. In the water space, like I said, so much remains unaddressed in protecting our water and protecting our security to live here in Arizona. 

Child care investments (were) a huge priority for our caucus, as was for the governor, and there was an investment in this year’s budget, but not to the extent that had been proposed. I think about less than half of that investment was funded. So we will continue to be pushing for that investment and … things that support everyday Arizonans.

Session Wrap: Gov. Hobbs on 2025’s victories and ongoing battles

Gov. Katie Hobbs managed to score legislative wins and sign a bipartisan budget during her third legislative session on the Ninth Floor, but not without lengthy battles with Republicans and a new veto record.

Hobbs sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to recap what she calls a “very successful session” that saw movement on groundwater legislation, extended funding for individuals with developmental disabilities and the passage of a $17.6 billion budget.

But several issues were left on the table when lawmakers adjourned at the end of June, like school voucher reform, education funding and affordable housing initiatives. The governor hopes more can be done to address those areas when the Legislature reconvenes in 2026.

What do you consider your biggest wins of this session?

When we saved the funding for the developmentally disabled population, I think that set a really good tone for the budget. But in and of itself, it was a huge win. And we all watched these families come to the Capitol day after day, and the House Republicans refusing to give them a chance to speak in committee. I had a round table and just heard their stories. It was gut wrenching, and that’s why it was such a priority to save that program, and we did. I think my best day of the session was when we had that bill signing.

Some of your priorities weren’t addressed this session, which are you hoping to keep working on?

First of all, I’m really focused on what we did get done. If you look at the budget that we passed, and what I talked about in my State of the State — laying out the “Arizona Promise” — we covered a lot of those priorities. Giving state police and firefighters a much needed raise, continuing local border support and efforts on border security, investing in child care, Homes for Heroes. So there’s certainly a lot we can build on. Obviously, we didn’t get any reforms on ESAs, and that’s still going to be a priority, as well as getting a Prop. 123 to the voters that invests in public education and gives teachers a raise, I think that’s a huge priority. And then we have more to do on housing. Housing is a big one, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. It was really unfortunate that we couldn’t get a champion there but we’re not giving up. And the rural groundwater reform is also still critical. I certainly am really proud of the work we did on the urban groundwater with the Ag-to-Urban bill, but making sure that we’re not taking that as a win and going away because rural groundwater is still a really critical issue.

What kind of changes are you hoping to see in the state’s ESA program?

Everything’s on the table. I think the plan we proposed this year was very reasonable, and something that even supporters of the program could get behind. We’re not trying to eliminate the program. We want it to go back to its original purpose and help kids with disabilities, kids in low-performing schools. The more reporting we see on the abuses, the more ammunition, for lack of a better word, it gives a reasonable proposal. It’s really mind boggling to me that Republicans want to continue to defend these abuses.

It seemed like groundwater was also going to go unaddressed this session, but the Ag-to-Urban bill came in at the last minute. What did it take to get that to the finish line?

I think it was having Senator (T.J.) Shope as the champion, and him being willing to usher that through. Last year, the bill that got to my desk … it was rushed through, and it wasn’t the right compromise. And so we came back to the table. The legislative process is always weird, and sometimes things just sail through, and sometimes they stop, and then at the end is when you see the flurry of activity. I’m really glad we got the compromise that worked to make this a good program, and I think it just took the leadership of Senator Shope to get it done.

A few of the bills you signed this session had Democratic opposition and aligned with policies proposed by conservative groups. What was the reasoning there?

I have focused on not looking at the partisan solutions, but things that are addressing problems. An example is the age verification for online content. I vetoed a similar bill last year, and I’ve heard from more and more parents who are really concerned about content that their kids are exposed to. And this seemed like the right balance, and I have no idea that it was possibly aligned with right-wing things. To me, it’s something that’s addressing an issue that a lot of parents are struggling with.

I have to ask about the veto record. Why do you feel like that isn’t the best way to measure your legislative effectiveness?

There was definitely an orchestrated attempt to run up the score on that veto record. Like I vetoed bills this year that I vetoed one or two times before, and nothing’s changed about the bill or my position on it. I’ve been really clear, I’m going to be a backstop against extreme legislation that attacks fundamental freedoms of Arizonans. And a lot of those bills did that. But I think if you point to the work that we did, when people are willing to come to the table and compromise, we can get big things done. Ag-to-Urban, the DDD funding, the Axon bill, the Diamondbacks bill, the bipartisan budget — those are all things that have impact and and those are fewer and further between than the partisan stuff that goes on. Being willing to stay at the table is a lot harder than just ramming something through that you know is going to get vetoed. And I didn’t come here to veto bills, but I’m going to continue to be the backstop when I need to.

You had to play hardball this session with your bill moratorium and vetoing two different budgets. How do you feel about those decisions looking back?

What we saw with the developmental disability funding and with the two House rogue budgets (was) that they decided that they didn’t have to work together and that they could just do whatever they wanted and not need my support. But I’m the person that signs bills into law, and it seemed like they weren’t willing to understand that. Hopefully now they do.

What lessons did you learn from this session and what lessons do you hope the Legislature learned?

We had a very successful session, and I think it’s because we’ve been willing to do the hard work of staying at the table, not just our office, but legislators on both sides of the aisle. We worked really hard to have support on both sides of the aisle for our budget. I think this may be the most successful budget we’ve had of the three. It’s just that compromise is important and it’s important to stay at the table even when it gets really hard. And I don’t know that those are lessons that were learned or just reconfirmed again this year.

Session Wrap: Warren Petersen’s priorities ahead of AG race

For Senate President Warren Petersen, the next legislative session will likely be his last opportunity to help advance the Republican caucus’ legislative policy priorities.

Petersen is running for state attorney general in 2026, so he will look to work with his Senate Republican colleagues to revive legislation that either stalled or was previously vetoed, support the federal government on policies affecting Arizona and solidify the Senate’s relationship with House Republican leadership after the two chambers clashed during budget negotiations.

The following are responses provided by Petersen after inquiry from the Arizona Capitol Times. Answers have been edited slightly for clarity. 

What do you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session?

Power and water are foundational elements that contribute to our population and business growth here in Arizona. We were able to pass meaningful legislation to help us keep up with the demand, which was shown with our historic water policy, enabling us to conserve and grow, using less water even with our growing population. In response to projections showing a 60% increase in power demand over the next 30 years, we passed legislation to strengthen our infrastructure and ensure Arizona families and businesses continue to have access to reliable and affordable energy. We made significant investments in public safety to keep Arizona communities secure and delivered tax cuts to support small business owners.

What were some of the biggest challenges?

One of the biggest challenges this session was the lack of efficiency, particularly with how long it took to pass the budget. There was clear frustration over the delays, and unnecessary division within the party made the process more difficult than it needed to be. In the end, the budget that passed was the Senate’s initial budget plan with some extra spending amended on by the other chamber.

Were you surprised that House leadership didn’t engage in the budget negotiations and instead released their own budget?

It was par for the course for this session. We saw the chaos unfold with the (Division of Developmental Disabilities) bill and how that was handled, so I’m not necessarily surprised, but I’m disappointed that the session was drawn out with unnecessary division in our party. Two years ago, we put a budget on Hobbs desk in February. The hope is we get back to that level of efficiency.

Where did some of that disagreement come from, especially during the budget?

I’ll just leave it at my (previous) statement. It’s the normal stuff. I think human nature can creep in. But there’s other things too. Anybody that was there … if you ask five people what it was, I think five people would probably all say similar things. So I’ll just leave it where it’s at. I mean, we’ve shown what we can do with divided government. Two years ago, we had budgets up on the governor’s desk in February with divided government. So (we can) be efficient, and hopefully, we’ll return to that next session.

What will it take for the House and Senate Republicans to solidify that relationship in time for next year’s budget?

I‘m confident the next session will look different. By bringing on Grant Hanna as the new Chief of Staff, the House is positioned to operate with significantly greater effectiveness.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a number of border bills, including the AZ ICE Act that you sponsored. You mentioned that you could bring the bill back as a ballot measure or wait to see if a new governor is elected. Is that still a possibility?

That’s a discussion we will have early on next session as a caucus, to see if it’s something we want to put on the ballot. I do feel confident that we will have a new governor in 2026 who will sign the legislation.

What were some of the other big issues that went unaddressed this session?

Two major issues that were left unaddressed are immigration and election reforms. We sent the AZ ICE Act to the governor’s desk, a bill that would have empowered local law enforcement to remove dangerous criminals from our streets, but she chose to veto it, putting both public safety and ICE agents in a more vulnerable position. She also vetoed our Florida-style election system bill which would have ensured faster, more transparent results on election night. Because of that veto, Arizonans will continue to face delays and uncertainty in our election process.

There were a number of bills that were introduced this session with the intention of expediting election results. Can those bills return next session?
We would definitely like to see those bills come back. We’re monitoring. All eyes are on 2026, and we’ll see how things are progressing. I think we’ll have a Republican governor. And you know, it may be best to just put our energy into making sure we get a Republican governor. And then 300 bills a session that are getting vetoed will get signed.

So anyway, we’ll look at it. I think it was close to a signature. So maybe … the bill gets tweaked a little bit and gets a signature, but we’ll see. We’ll have those discussions as we head into next session with the numbers.

What made this such an abnormal session?

The length. There’s absolutely no reason to be wrapping up the session on June 25. So mainly the budget.

What do you anticipate will be the most significant Republican priorities for the next legislative session?

Water will definitely be a key topic in the next session, but our primary focus will remain on protecting individual rights, supporting small businesses, and upholding core conservative values. A top priority will also be addressing staffing shortages in public safety, especially within the Department of Corrections, to ensure we can add and retain the people we need to keep Arizona safe. We’re also committed to advancing Prop 123 and working with the Trump Administration on federal regulations that impact our state. Additionally, we will continue to step in and defend laws that our current AG refuses to defend.

This will be your last session as Senate President before you run for attorney general. Is there anything you want to accomplish before you focus on that campaign? 

We have the Arizona ICE Act, the Florida style elections. I have an SCR that I worked on that I would like to see passed that protects the taxpayer by a higher threshold for counties and cities to pass taxes. All three of those are important. Of course, we also have just the overarching issues that are important for Arizona: water, power. I’m sure I’ll get very involved with the water discussions as we go forward, continuing to deal with that. I don’t know that I’ll point to one bill that has to happen before I leave the Legislature. But those are things I’ll probably work on next session if there’s a path for a signature. I do like to spend my time on bills that have a good chance … that will be signed. Really, really, really, good chance of being signed. We’ll see what happens as we move forward.

Conflict defined the 2025 legislative session, will it set the stage for 2026?

Key Points: 
  • House left adrift by loss of chief of staff 
  • Conflicts followed, but likely won’t stick 
  • Election cycle to flare tensions next session

Conflict — whether between lawmakers, caucuses or chambers — is a natural fact of any legislative session, and this session was no exception.

Beyond intraparty splits and squabbles over bills, some observers noted key events colored this session and stand to shift the next. One of the most prominent events was the loss of the House of Representatives majority chief of staff and the ousting of the Senate majority leader after a series of seconds on unwelcome budget amendments. 

But, despite pointed press releases, barbed floor speeches, failed bills, a particularly fiery budget process and a last minute change in leadership, lobbyists, consultants and a lawmaker say any wreckage left after the end of session typically becomes long forgotten by the time lawmakers convene again in January. 

Still, 2025 created a point of reflection for political analysts. Which lawmakers fared well? Which stoked proverbial fires? What factors came to impact legislation and budget negotiations? And how does all of that stack up for the future? 

And with the election approaching, tensions are likely to flare again, mirroring the national political landscape as lawmakers polish their portfolios for voters. 

“I don’t know that I’m going to observe anything earth shattering, beyond common sense here, that both sides are going to get dug in even more,” consultant Jason Rose said. “So the sausage making might be even more colorful next year because of the election than it was this year.” 

The session started out standard. But in February, longtime House Chief of Staff Michael Hunter departed his post, leaving a key position in the chamber vacant.

Nick Ponder, senior director of Government Affairs at High Ground Consulting, said Hunter’s departure effectively left the House a “ship without a rudder.” 

“The abrupt departure of Michael Hunter remained a challenge for the House,” Ponder said. “It would be for almost any legislative body, because of his depth of knowledge and experience.” 

The House persisted without a chief of staff, but not without its share of obstacles.

Members clashed over supplemental funding to the Division of Developmental Disabilities, specifically after stonewalling from Rep. Matt Gress, R-Scottsdale, and Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria. That only ended after Rep. Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler, cut out of the caucus and worked across the aisle to get a clean continuation passed.

There were also some terse exchanges between Republicans over legislation to impose higher penalties for stolen valor, and the Axon saga, a conflict spawned by the business’s efforts to create a massive headquarters in Scottsdale, drew further lines in the sand between lawmakers. 

And then came the budget — marked by a House head start, fractured fiscal approaches, some knock-down, drag-out soliloquies against the opposing chamber, an Italian wedding and a premature sine die. 

But it all led to a budget with the blessing of both chambers and the governor. 

“Two thirds of chambers voted for the budget. Not everyone’s happy. But how many budgets are people really happy (with)? Especially when you have divided government,” consultant Barrett Marson said.

 Though Gress missed the final budget vote, he said the end of the year sparring is par for the course. 

“Every legislative session ends with tension. Bills die, bills get voted down. Bills never get heard,” Gress said. “The interim is a healing time for members. They go back to their districts, they can decompress from activity at the Capitol, and then we all rally again on opening day. We’re excited to see each other and regroup.” 

Marson similarly noted the need to have some semblance of a bounce back in the Legislature.

“If every little slight is going to be the armageddon for you, you’re not going to live a productive legislative career,” Marson said. 

At the end of the session, though, the powers that be saw a shift, specifically with Senate majority leader Janae Shamp booted and replaced with Sen. John Kavanagh — a change consultants say could alter the dynamics of the Senate and create new tension.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re in the Arizona State Senate or you’re working at Circle K, demotions are not wonderful for the locker room, so it’ll be interesting to see her approach with the team over the next year,” consultant Jason Rose said. “When you look at someone like John Kavanagh, who is both very conservative but also sagacious and practical, you clearly see a chamber and a body that’s looking to and leaning on that.” 

The next session also brings lawmakers closer to an election, which could change the dynamics among elected officials, especially those seeking higher office. 

Rose pointed to Senate President Warren Petersen as one example, noting that he is running for attorney general while concurrently serving as the Senate President.

“(Attorney General Kris) Mayes is among the most talented elected officials, like her, or not, in the last 20 years in Arizona, and that positioning battle between those two is really going to be something,” Rose said. “That’s Pay Per View political Arizona television, right there.” 

In reflecting on the legislative session as a whole, Rose said, like any legislative session, the results ranged from “good to goofy to outrageous” but said neither Republicans, Democrats nor Gov. Katie Hobbs is unlikely to see any real impact politically.

“I don’t think the Governor and the Democrats or the Republicans did anything earth shattering that’s going to affect their prospects,” Rose said. 

Arizona Democrats vote to remove party chair at chaotic, marathon meeting

Key Points:

  • Arizona Democratic Party members ousted Chair Robert Branscomb after months of controversy
  • The meeting was long and disorganized, resulting in frustration from many party members
  • A new chair will be elected at the party’s next meeting, though Branscomb can challenge his removal

Members of the Arizona Democratic Party voted to oust Chair Robert Branscomb during a chaotic July 16 special meeting.

Branscomb became chair in January after ousting incumbent Yolanda Bejarano at the party’s annual leadership elections. His short tenure in the position has been plagued by controversy, including a letter of no confidence from Arizona’s top Democrats, public disagreements with the party’s union and fundraising difficulties.

The total number of votes cast to remove Branscomb is unclear, with some state committee members voting via email due to technical difficulties. But 476 members voted for removal via the party’s preferred method of voting, clearing the two-thirds requirement for in the ADP’s bylaws.

“Today’s recall effort is rooted in misrepresentation, divisive tactics and does not reflect our democratic values,” Branscomb said at the meeting. “This effort is not about the strength of the party. It’s about distraction and dividing us at a time when unity is more important than ever.”

Branscomb’s supporters railed against former chair Bejarano and argued elected Democrats want someone they can control. They also claimed the push to remove Branscomb was rooted in racism — not actual issues with his leadership — because he is the first African American leader of the state party. 

Several county chairs and state lawmakers who spoke in favor of ousting Branscomb cited concerns that he would not be able to lead Democrats to victory in the 2026 elections. 

“Donors have told me directly they’re sitting out until the party gets its act together,” said Rep. Aaron Marquez.

The meeting was marred by technical difficulties and confusion among state committee members, with many becoming heated or using expletives during procedural votes.

“I’m trying to maintain decorum, but I’m gonna be honest. I am very upset,” Rep. Quantá Crews said during the meeting. 

Over two and a half hours were spent trying to fix issues with the online voting system the party uses to conduct votes during meetings. Several members were not sent links to vote to establish a quorum, sparking frustration among attendees who were concerned they would not be able to cast a vote on the question of removing Branscomb. 

The issues seemed to stem from miscommunications and tensions between state party officers running the meeting and ADP Executive Director Michael Ruff, who was administering the online voting system with other staff members. Some ADP staff members commented in the Zoom call chat that they had offered to assist with the meeting, but did not receive a response. 

Several attendees suggested cancelling the meeting and rescheduling, while others suggested the difficulties were created by Branscomb and staff members loyal to him to disenfranchise party members. 

“I just feel like this was not well planned, the staff was not prepared for it, Michael Ruff did not prepare us, we had a lack of conversation about this meeting,” said ADP Vice Chair Melissa Galarza. 

The conflicts with Branscomb began in April when he sent a letter to state committee members accusing U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego of retaliating against him for making personnel decisions without consulting them. The senators, joined by Gov. Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, fired back with a letter declaring they had lost confidence in Branscomb.

Arizona’s top Democrats supported Bejarano for reelection as chair, but other members of the party wanted to see a change after Democrats suffered devastating losses in the 2024 elections.

After his public battle with the Democratic elected officials, Branscomb was censured by the state party’s executive board for sharing internal communications and not returning a report on how he accessed those communications.

ADP has also been spending more money than it is raking in, according to recent campaign finance reports. That puts Democrats in a precarious position to defend themselves from Republican challengers heading into the 2026 elections. 

In early July, Kelly, Gallego, Hobbs, Mayes and Fontes announced they would be launching a statewide coordinated campaign through the Navajo County Democrats. The effort allows the Democrats to reroute their funding away from the state party, which would ordinarily be the largest vehicle for fundraising for candidates. 

The feud at the top of the party also comes as negotiations between management and the ADP union have stalled. The Arizona Democratic Party Headquarters Union announced on July 15 that it plans to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board accusing party management of retaliation, baseless disciplinary action, delayed responses and more. 

The party will nominate candidates and vote on a new chair in September, though Branscomb could challenge his removal. In the meantime, ADP Vice Chair Kim Khoury will serve as interim chair.

State budget standoff looms over possible government shutdown

Key Points:
  • Montenegro pushes $17B plan, defying veto threat
  • House GOP resists Senate deal, demands more time
  • Budget deadlock risks government shutdown July 1

Ignoring a veto threat, House Speaker Steve Montenegro introduced his own zero-growth spending plan on June 23 for the new fiscal year, which begins on July 1.

The Goodyear Republican said it is clear that the $17.6 billion plan negotiated among Gov. Katie Hobbs, Senate Republicans and Democrats from both chambers is irresponsible. More to the point, he claimed there are not sufficient votes from House GOP members to support the proposal over their own $17.2 billion budget plan.

So now, what is scheduled for a House vote on June 25 is a $17 billion spending plan. Rep. David Livingston, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said that’s basically what the state is spending this fiscal year plus a few adjustments.

Montenegro indicated he’s willing to add some funds if Hobbs agrees to something the House GOP considers more reasonable. But with time running out, he wants something in place while those negotiations take place.

How far Senate Republicans are willing to go to deal with House GOP objections remains unclear.

On one hand, Senate President Warren Petersen voted for that $17.6 billion plan. And he has defended it as perhaps the best deal to be had, given that the Democratic governor has the last word.

Petersen, however, indicated he’s also willing to see what the House passes, though he is making no commitments.

But none of that will matter if the governor follows through with her promise to veto it. And if no one blinks by July 1, that sets the stage for an unprecedented fiscal crisis in Arizona, as the state Constitution has no provisions to keep the government operating without an adopted budget.

All that, however, presumes there are sufficient Republican votes for what Montenegro has dubbed his “continuation budget.”

There are 33 GOP lawmakers in the 60-member chamber.

But one, Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, is in Italy for his honeymoon. And House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said not a single one of the 27 Democrats will vote in favor of the “non-starter” bill.

“That plan will short-change our public schools, our colleges, health care, lifeline services for working families and the most vulnerable in our state,” he said. He also noted that the Senate-approved plan — the one supported by a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate — includes dollars for other priorities, such as a pay raise for Department of Public Safety officers and state firefighters.

If Democrats balk, that means Montenegro can afford to lose just one vote in his caucus.

Whether he has that remains to be seen.

Just a week ago, Livingston said he thought there were enough House lawmakers from both parties to approve the Senate plan.

On June 23, the Peoria Republican was telling a different story.

So what changed?

“We got the real numbers,” he said, ones that showed the spending in the Senate plan was unsustainable.

Even assuming there are sufficient votes for this new GOP plan, that still leaves the question of why go through the exercise given the governor’s promise to veto it. Montenegro said he isn’t paying attention to that.

“First and foremost, the people of Arizona deserve to make sure we’re going through every budget, every dollar that’s being spent for the public,” he said. And what that means, Montenegro said, is a budget that prioritizes dollars for public safety, law enforcement and safe communities.

“Unfortunately, from the start, the executive budget laid out a framework that did not line up with having those conversations,” he said. “And we were pretty much given or told, take-it-or-leave it.”

That’s not exactly how Hobbs sees it, saying that Montenegro and House GOP leadership were invited to participate in the negotiations. The speaker disagreed.

“The House has always been open to conversations,” he said, though Montenegro acknowledged that, once the Senate began talking with the Democratic governor, it was clear that they were crafting a plan that would not be of interest to House Republicans.

“They decided to focus on their own negotiations behind closed doors,” he said. “We were not a part of those.”

Still, Montenegro said House Republicans remain ready to talk. And the spending plan that was introduced on June 23 is a way to do that while ensuring that state services do not come to a halt on July 1, once there is no state authority to spend money.

How much latitude the GOP caucus will give the speaker to agree to a deal — and avoid a financial crisis — is still up in the air.

Rep. Justin Olson is taking a hard-line stance.

The Mesa Republican said the Senate-approved budget for the next fiscal year is an 8.3% increase over current spending. By contrast, he said, inflation and population growth are up just 4.1%.

Olson said the last time lawmakers had such a giant mismatch was during the administration of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

“State expenditures increased by more than double the rate of growth in population and inflation,” he said. “We ended up with a $3.6 billion budget deficit, a budget crisis, that we were ill-prepared to be able to resolve.”

Lawmakers addressed the deficit with approximately $1 billion in cuts, a similar amount of borrowing, and a temporary sales tax increase that made up the difference.

Special election in CD7 could provide crucial insight to Democrats in 2026

Key Points:
  • CD7 will be the first election in the state since big losses for Democrats in 2024
  • Candidates hope the race will provide energy and clarity for Democrats running in 2026
  • Elections will be held for all statewide offices

Six months after suffering devastating electoral losses at the state and national levels, Democrats are back on the campaign trail in southern Arizona, hoping to learn from their 2024 experience.

While candidates run in a special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, many are hoping the race will help energize the state’s Democratic base and provide clarity for a consistent message in 2026.

Every statewide office and all 90 legislative seats will be up for grabs next year, not to mention all nine U.S. House seats. Democrats hope to keep their tenuous hold on the top three statewide offices, while also flipping a few legislative and congressional seats. 

No one is more aware of the stakes than the candidates running in the 7th Congressional District. The outcome of the primary in the deep blue district will demonstrate to the party’s top brass what kind of candidate Democratic voters are looking for and the issues they want that candidate to focus on. 

At a debate hosted by Arizona PBS on May 27, all five Democratic candidates agreed that the party is not doing enough to fight back against Republicans and President Donald Trump. 

“This special election is the first referendum on 2024,” said Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old social media strategist running in the primary. “Did we learn our lessons, and who will we be as a party and a country in 2026? I hope, I pray, that the answer is newer, better, stronger.”

All the candidates and many voters in the district say the most significant lesson Democrats can learn is in their messaging. Daniel Hernandez, a former state representative running for the seat, is hitting that point especially hard.

“I think the biggest thing that we need to focus on as a party — for folks here at the state level who are going to hopefully run and get reelected like (Gov.) Katie Hobbs and (Secretary of State) Adrian Fontes — is the actual things that voters care about and not lecturing them,” Hernandez told the Arizona Capitol Times. “I think people are just sick and tired of the fighting, and they want to know what you’re going to actually do to solve problems.”

Voters in CD7 feel similarly, even if they do not plan to vote for Hernandez in the upcoming primary. Frank Sotomayor, a retired journalist who is volunteering his time with Adelita Grijalva’s campaign, echoed those sentiments.

“I think that the Democrats need to focus more on bread and butter issues, the economy, the bill at the grocery store, at the gas station,” Sotomayor said. 

Foxx, the youngest candidate in the race, would be the first woman of Generation Z in Congress if elected. She is acutely aware of the problems with age in the Democratic Party and the fact that this seat only opened up because its occupant passed away.

“Age is central to the conversation,” Foxx said. “We can pretend it’s not, but it matters to voters.”

The last eight members of Congress to pass away while in office were all Democrats, according to Business Insider. Raúl Grijalva was one of three House Democrats who passed away in 2025. 

Foxx said she believes the lack of a robust primary process in safe districts has contributed to the age problem among Democrats. That opinion is partially informed by her role as a surrogate for Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign, after Harris took over President Joe Biden’s candidacy without going through a primary. 

“People value primaries (and) being a part of the process,” Foxx said. “We heard that loud and clear in the Tik Tok comment sections and on the ground.”

State Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, said she hopes the special election will help Democrats regain momentum and build toward goals they didn’t reach in 2024 — like flipping the Legislature. Sundareshan also serves as the co-chair of the Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and said she has hope Democrats can flip some seats in 2026 despite losing ground last year. 

“After this race, it starts the process of mobilizing people towards electoral campaigns to show that there is an outlet, there’s a political outlet for your frustrations,” Sundareshan said. “And this is the most productive way that you can get engaged is by electing candidates that will champion your issues and your causes.”

Jacqueline Ortiz, another volunteer for Adelita Grijalva’s campaign, said Democrats need to remember to fight for every vote, including those from members of their own party.

“2024 was rough, and I feel like the Democrats realized that they can’t take anything for granted,” Ortiz said. “(Just) because (someone) voted blue in the last election doesn’t mean they’re going to vote blue again.”

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