Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: election

Will Robson be the new face of Arizona conservatism?

Peter Clark

In a strange turn of events, a recent Noble Predictive Insights poll has found that Republican gubernatorial contender Karrin Taylor-Robson is “10 points ahead of competitor” Andy Biggs. Robson was once estranged from the MAGA wing of the GOP and is now the frontrunner in the primary race.

Some commentators believe Robson’s early lead is not sustainable on the long campaign trail to the 2026 primary. Due to her lack of grassroots support, being viewed as a political insider, and flip-flopping on policy, she potentially weakens her dominance.

What would it mean for the AZ GOP if Robson wins the nomination? Both candidates have the endorsement of President Trump, but represent different factions of the GOP.

Robson presents Arizona with a MAGA-lite flavor of conservatism, favoring solution-focused policies and practicality.

Meanwhile, Biggs is a MAGA firebrand. Uncompromising and resolute when it comes to upholding conservative principles.

The current status of the GOP primary could be a shift in Arizona politics. While MAGA is still a predominant strain of conservatism, it’s losing steam. From March 2025 to June 2025, Republicans nationally identifying as MAGA declined to 49%.

Robson’s current lead could be the ripple effect of national trends bleeding into Arizona’s political landscape. Voters currently preferring Robson could be a sign of a shift toward moderate politics, supporting AZ First policies, and a demand for solutions over fiery rhetoric.

Arizona is far from a secure right-wing stronghold. The diaspora of transplants from deep-blue states has loosened the GOP’s grip on AZ. Outside of registered Republicans, the second largest voter demographic in the state is independents, making up 34.13% of the electorate. 

Republicans really need to reach persuadable moderates if they want to win elections – 59% of Arizona voters believe that “both political parties are too extreme.”

As we saw in the 2022 midterms, extremism is a vice when it comes to winning elections. Independent voters were unswayed by the quirks of far-right MAGA candidates Kari Lake and Blake Masters. Lake even failed to engage moderates in her 2024 Senate bid.

Robson side-steps the “Kari Lake Problem” by marketing herself as MAGA-friendly, but avoiding inflammatory rhetoric that is off-putting to moderates. Her balanced approach has so far paid off. She even leads with “Trump-first Republicans.” Showing that even some of Trump’s diehard supporters recognize the GOP needs to change course to win Arizona.

A whopping 60% of AZ voters don’t believe politicians focus on the most critical issues.

Robson, positioning herself as being business-oriented while focusing on matters of local concern, such as the economy and public safety, is a laudable attempt to avoid the trappings of the national political scene. Establishing a political brand that is Arizona-First.

Biggs is America-First, not Arizona-First. He’s as Trumpian as you can get. Instead of focusing on issues of concern to the state, he may import policies that achieve the grand strategy of the national MAGA coalition. 

The rising nationalization of state and local politics is evident with national advocacy groups weighing in on low-profile local elections.

As governor, you must put the state before your party; otherwise, you will be doing a disservice to Arizonans. 

Conservatives have succeeded in implementing tax cuts, border enforcement, and rolling back DEI. But they’ve lost ground due to infighting and their hostility toward bipartisanship.

Arizonans are not impressed by the theatrics of bomb-throwing ideologues – they prefer results. Only 29% of Arizona voters prefer politicians who refuse to reach across the aisle on principle.

On her campaign website, Robson has highlighted the public’s frustration with “bipartisan gridlock,” signaling that she will be willing to approach the issues facing the state pragmatically. 

I can only hope that Robson is sincere in her efforts to put Arizona first. However, with the primary 11 months away, we can only hope she doesn’t succumb to the pressure from external interest groups. However, her milder brand of conservative politics appears to be already resonating with voters. If she stays on course, she could be a new force in Arizona politics.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

9th Circuit Court rules Fontes cannot enforce ban on offensive speech at polling places

Key Highlights:
  • Court said the EPM provisions were too broad, could criminalize unintended conduct
  • Threat of prosecution could chill otherwise legal activity
  • Judges refused to curb the authority of the Secretary of State to certify incomplete returns

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cannot enforce his ban on offensive or insulting speech at or around polling places, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The court concluded that the provisions Fontes included in the Elections Procedures manual are so broad that they could criminalize unintentional conduct.

Judge Kim Wardlaw, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, also said the language would outlaw any activity that has the effect of harassing, intimidating or coercing voters, regardless of whether that was the intent. And the threat of prosecution, she said, could “chill” individuals from engaging in otherwise legal political activity.

“Indeed, it is inherent in the very nature of political and electoral expressive conduct that plaintiffs may not know which political issues may become relevant or offensive at the polls,” the judge wrote. “And it is inevitable that some political and election speech — matters of public concern — will have the effect of being offensive to someone.”

But the judges punted on a separate question of whether Fontes can give himself the power to finalize election returns and declare winners even if the results from one or more counties are missing because their supervisors refused to certify the results.

Wardlaw acknowledged that such an action, if it were to occur, could disenfranchise some Arizonan voters by leaving their votes out of the final tally. And that could change the results of some elections.

She said, though, the challengers never made a clear showing that a county actually would balk at finalizing results. And that, Wardlaw wrote, meant they have no standing to contest the provision.

Central to the lawsuit is the Elections Procedures Manual.

In essence, it operates as a supplement to state election laws, spelling out procedures and policies in more detail than the statutes enacted by the Legislature. It also has the force of law, with violators subject to criminal penalties.

What Fontes put in the manual would prohibit “any activity by a person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters” both inside the 75-foot limit at voting locations, where certain activity like campaigning already is prohibited, as well as outside that perimeter.

He even included examples of what would be banned, such as raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker, using threatening, insulting, or offensive language to voters or poll workers, and intentionally disseminating false or misleading information at voting locations, like flyers that misstate the date of the election, hours of operation or location of polling places.

That drew a challenge from American Encore, an Arizona-based group run by Sean Noble, that bills itself as promoting free enterprise policies. It has also channeled funds into Arizona’s political campaigns, notably supporting Republican Doug Ducey’s victory in his first gubernatorial race in 2014.

Also filing suit was America First Policy Institute. It was formed in 2021 by allies of Donald Trump in the wake of his 2020 loss in the presidential race to support free market and Trump policies.

The challengers said they fear the provisions enacted by Fontes could be used to restrain what they say is their normal, lawful election-related activity. That includes electioneering activities, training volunteers and poll watchers and advocating for certain government policies.

They also said that what Fontes seeks to declare illegal could extend to things like wearing an “All Lives Matter” hat, a shirt that says “Vote to Protect Unborn Children,” and a hoodie that reads “Israel has a right to exist” or “Never forget October 7th.”

Wardlaw said an injunction against enforcement is appropriate given the vagueness of what the manual would and would not make someone subject to criminal penalties.

But that’s not all. The judge stated that the provisions Fontes seeks to enforce exceed those outlined in state law.

That statute makes it illegal to “knowingly” threaten or intimidate people to compel them to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or ballot measure. By contrast, she said, what Fontes proposed in his rules would criminalize any conduct that has the “effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating or coercing voters.”

What’s missing from that, the judge said, is a requirement that the person intends to do any of those things. Instead, someone could be charged with breaking the law simply because the listener felt threatened or intimidated, even if there was no intent to do any of that.

Wardlaw also took exception to Fontes’ use of the word “harassing,” a term not defined in the manual. She said that may encompass “a broad range of activities that are viewed as insulting or offensive,” activities that the First Amendment protects.

All that, the judge said, entitles challengers to an injunction because the threat of criminal prosecution for violating the provision could have a “chilling” effect on what people say, do, or wear, even outside of the 75-foot boundary.

And it’s not just the threat of criminal prosecution.

She said the language that Fontes inserted into the manual and the examples he gave were intended to be used by election officials to identify and “promptly remedy” any conduct that could be viewed as voter intimidation.

“Plaintiffs may be dissuaded from engaging in their intended speech even if there is no threat of criminal prosecution because election officials may nonetheless report them to police or remove them from the polling location based on guidance provided by the Elections Procedure Manual,” the judge wrote. And that threat, she said, is sufficient to create a risk of the provision being enforced against them, especially considering “the increasingly contentious elections our country has experienced over time.”

Tuesday’s ruling is not the last word. All it does is uphold an injunction issued by a trial court judge barring Fontes from enforcing the law. But it still gives him a chance to argue at a full-blown trial that the restrictions are both legal and necessary.

Fontes said the case is about the public’s right to “participate freely in the democratic process.”

“On one side is the voters’ freedom to assemble, to engage, and to be heard without intimidation or interference,” he said.

“On the other side is a claim to behavior that could trample those rights,” Fontes continued. “As secretary of state, I will always stand on the side of protecting voters — their voices, their rights, and the integrity of our elections.”

But attorney Andrew Gould, who represented the challengers, called it “a great victory for free speech.”

The problem with the language adopted by Fontes, he said, is it gave “too much discretion to government officials to criminalize and punish speech that they viewed as offensive or harassing.”

On the issue of canvassing election results, Gould said he was surprised that the appellate judges refused to curb the authority of the secretary of state to certify incomplete returns. He said this isn’t an academic question, saying the court was aware of what happened three years ago in Cochise County.

There, supervisors balked at doing the local canvass, with the two Republicans on the three-member board saying they had unanswered questions. It took a court order to complete the canvass, freeing up Democrat Katie Hobbs, then the secretary of state, to certify the election results, which declared her governor. Fontes, also a Democrat, was named secretary of state.

The results of neither of those races would have changed with or without the 47,284 Cochise votes.

But if the final canvass had been conducted without those votes, Republican Tom Horne would have lost the race for state schools chief to Democratic incumbent Kathy Hoffman, and Democrat Kirsten Engel would have more votes than Republican Juan Ciscomani for the Congressional District 6 seat.

Gould also said there have since been other situations where county supervisors have indicated they might try the same thing.

But Wardlaw said none of this rises to the level where she and her colleagues need to get involved.

She pointed out there are other actions — short of not counting a county’s votes — that the secretary of state can take.

That Wardlay noted, includes what happened in 2022 when a judge ordered the reluctant Cochise supervisors to comply. And she said there are real penalties for officials who refuse, pointing out that Supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby both were indicted on felony charges.

Judd entered into a plea deal; Crosby’s case is still pending.

Arizona Supreme Court ruling gives residents more power to block local projects

Key Points:
  • State Supreme Court ruling allows residents to block locally approved projects at ballot box
  • Residents have absolute right to propose laws, even if elected officials have already decided on a plan
  • The decision stems from the renovation of the roads in Page, Arizona

A small town fight over a plan to overhaul a downtown area in the Arizona Supreme Court has led to a new ruling making it easier for residents across the state to block locally approved projects at the ballot box.

The ruling, issued last week, says residents of Arizona cities, towns and counties have the absolute right to propose their own laws — even if elected officials have already decided on a redevelopment plan and started to implement it.

The decision could lead to local governments across Arizona having their decisions on roadway widenings, redesigns and other projects vetoed by voters at the ballot box.

In this case, some residents in the small northern Arizona city of Page organized to oppose a plan from the city council to remake a 1.4 mile section of downtown to boost business activity.

The downtown Page Streetscape Project involved removing two of the four travel lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard through the city’s business district, adding parking and wider sidewalks as a place to draw tourists and locals for dining and events. A center turn lane would remain.

The city rejected a ballot measure proposed by local citizens that would block the road widening, saying it was administrative and not subject to the initiative process in the Arizona Constitution.

A trial court judge and the Arizona Court of Appeals — in an opinion written by Justice Maria Elena Cruz before she joined the high court in January — sided with the city.

But the state Supreme Court overturned those rulings, saying that the initiative was legislative in nature and that the power of citizens to propose their own laws applied. Cruz recused herself and did not participate in the new decision.

“The foundational principle that informs this case is that the people’s power to make laws is co-equal to their elected representatives’ authority to create legislation,” Justice Clint Bolick wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court.

He said the initiative was legislative and backers had the right to propose it.

“The Initiative expressly creates public policy — preserving Lake Powell Boulevard as it existed on October 1, 2023; and the means of accomplishing that policy — preventing the use of public funds to narrow the specified portion of the road,” Bolick wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court. “The fact that this reflects a change in public policy does not alter its legislative character.“

The high court ordered the initiative put before voters, but did not set an election date.

The decision concerns Nancy Davidson, general counsel for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. She said that, at any given time, there are hundreds of roadway projects underway across the state, many of them involving multiple cities and requiring coordination between planners, traffic analysts, utilities, contractors and more.

She said the court decision classifying the decisions as legislative rather than administrative makes them vulnerable to challenges.

“Are we opening it up, and I think we are, where we’re allowing street projects to be basically second guessed by the electorate every single time?” Davidson said. “It could just really wreak havoc on any type of infrastructure planning, especially now that we’re going through so much growth.”

The plan was developed over nearly eight years, and little opposition developed until a new group emerged after the Council had approved the project, said Bill Diak, who served as mayor for 14 years before deciding not to seek reelection last year.

It was prompted in large part by the 2019 shutdown of the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station near Page and the Kayenta Mine that supplied it with coal, said Diak, an 80-year-old retired power plant employee.

More than 500 high-paying jobs at the power plant alone were eliminated.

The loss of the major regional employers led the council to refocus on tourism and kickstarted the Streetscape project, Diak said. The city was awarded a $5 million federal grant last year to pay for the makeover and set aside more than $5 million in city funds as well.

“You know, we used to have an industrial environment, high paying jobs and fully pensioned,” Diak said. “We had a coal mine and a power plant. In 2019, all of that changed. We lost all of those high paying jobs and everything, and we switched over to where our economy is now, tourism.”

Since then, the small town political fight led to major changes in the council’s makeup, hard feelings on both sides, and fears by Diak that the damage would be felt for years.

Debra Roundtree, who with her veterinarian husband ran an animal hospital in town and organized the Page Action Committee to fight the streetscape project, agreed that hard feelings prevail from the battle she led. She remains angry about what she believes were lies and deceit by the council and backers of the plan. And she said she’s been harassed and intimidated.

“I’ve had my home security challenged. I can’t tell you the level of what individuals did to try to keep the citizens from being allowed to vote,” Roundtree said. “I mean, that’s the funny thing about this, right? Citizens have to vote, and they might vote in favor of it. We don’t know.”

She complained about an anonymous letter that circulated, including among the council, criticizing her. And she said she can’t prove that there were people poised to cash in on the redevelopment plan.

“I have no idea why our past Council believed that reducing Lake Powell Boulevard down to two lanes would cause us to have an economic increase,” she said.

Although she’s opposed to the cost, her main complaint is that the plan would eliminate traffic lanes, saying it could lead to gridlock through town as RVs, pickups hauling boats to the lake and tourist buses try to navigate the tighter street.

Diak, a resident since 1980, says Roundtree has no one but herself to blame and said she is making up unfounded allegations against the council.

“She stirred the pot, and in order to do that, she had to discredit the council,” Diak said. “So wherever she got an opportunity to do that, she did. And then when it came down to the nitty gritty, she backed off of that.”

As with most small town political fights, it’s hard to weigh who is right or wrong.

Diak said the main street makeover is badly needed. He said those tour buses, RVs and boat-hauling trucks speed through town, there’s little parking and few places for the tourists that are now the city’s life blood to congregate and spend money.

An estimated 3 million tourists visit Page each year, drawn by two major natural wonders, the Colorado River’s Horseshoe Bend overlook just outside the town and Antelope Canyon on the nearby Navajo Nation. Horseshoe Bend alone, which the city controls, brings in about $6 million in tourist revenue alone from parking and other fees, Diak said, money the city uses for improvements at the site and promotion.

What is clear is that opponents of the plan now have the power to decide for themselves. That’s because they ran for political office, and, last November, Roundtree and the project opponents won seats on the Page City Council. The council voted last month to end the project, but it could be revived unless the initiative passes.

But the victories come at a cost, Diak believes.

“It’s hard enough to get someone that wants to step up and help their community by running for public office,” he said. “I think that it’s going to make people think twice, ‘Why do I want to get in that arena?’ Because she made the previous council out to be crooks and liars and cheats and stuff.”

“None of that could have been further from the truth,” he said.

Buying campaign swag may not translate to showing up at the polls, research shows

Key Points:
  • New study finds those who buy political merchandise less likely to volunteer, vote
  • Research head said there’s an ‘irony’ in the findings
  • Findings could signal to candidates to shift message to supporters

Sure, it’s nice to buy a cap, a T-shirt or even a coffee mug with the name of your favorite candidate.

But some new research suggests you’re far less likely to turn out on election day to help that candidate than if you had donated the same amount of money.

Anastasiya Ghosh, a marketing professor at the University of Arizona who headed the research team, said those who participate in the high-visibility support by purchasing campaign swag also are less likely to volunteer to help that candidate’s campaign than those who give small amounts of money.

And Ghosh said her research gives her a pretty good idea why: People who do things that are visible to others seem to believe they’ve done their bit for the cause. And at that point, she said, they are less likely to follow through with the less-visible things, like volunteering — and, in this case, voting.

“Me, buying something and carrying it around, using it in my household, others observing me, seems that I have done more for the candidate,” she explained of the attitude of those who flout campaign items.

But Ghosh said, there’s a certain “irony” in all that. She said those visible acts actually can hurt.

“If I’m a campaign manager, you buying a T-shirt from me is a lot less lucrative for me, if you will, than you giving me that money right away,” she said.

“I have to create a T-shirt, I have to ship it to you, and the money that’s left over is really small,” Ghosh continued. “But me, as a consumer, I feel like I’ve done more for you.”

The message to campaign managers, she said, is to place a little less emphasis on getting supporters to wear their candidate’s T-shirt — and a little more on getting them to the polls.

At least part of the effect, she said, is whether others will notice.

One experiment cited involved asking people to wear a candidate’s T-shirt. Some were told they would be wearing it in a nearly empty grocery store; others were told they would be in a more crowded spot.

“The effect was much stronger when other people were around,” Ghosh said, with those who were more visible less likely to then do other things like convince undecided voters.

All that, she said, ties to her conclusion that visibility matters. It’s called “impression management,” which includes a desire to be seen.

“If I have made my donation to a candidate, in most cases, nobody knows about it,” Ghosh said.

“If I spend an equivalent amount of money to put a T-shirt on myself with the name of my candidate, I understand that other people will see,” she said. “If I’m surrounded by people who are similar to me, that’s probably a positive impression.”

All this, she told Capitol Media Services, provides a crucial lesson for those running candidate campaigns: Selling those buttons and bumper stickers won’t necessarily translate into victory on Election Day.

Still, she said, there may be times when the more visible signs of support, like T-shirts and the yard signs, are more valuable to a candidate — even if the people buying the items don’t turn out at the polls.

“When you’re starting out the campaign … your goal is to signal to the world or your constituents that you have a very popular candidate,” Ghosh explained. “Maybe it’s worth investing into asking for merchandise that will be publicly worn.” 

“Maybe the person who bought it is not going to be a voter,” Ghosh continued. “But maybe others who will observe it will.”

But that effect, Ghosh said, only goes so far.

Put another way, she said a candidate may have to tell someone that it’s great they put out a yard sign, “but I need you to show up.”

She even has given a name to all this: political slacktivism, a term Ghosh said was suggested by one of her students.

“I do demonstrate that I’m engaged,” is the attitude of those buying or displaying merchandise or signs, she said.

“I support my candidate,” Ghosh said. “But I’m not doing the hard thing, which is actually showing up to vote.”

Ghosh said she found the same effect where people who purchase candidate campaign items are less likely to volunteer their time, make phone calls and go door-to-door to drop off campaign materials.

These conclusions, she said, are based on multiple sources of information.

Ghosh said historical data dates back to 2016, when people were asked whether they had yard signs and bumper stickers, and whether, in the end, they voted. That, she claimed, was designed to eliminate aberrations in the data.

She also reviewed surveys conducted during the 2020 national election among people who declared themselves supporters of one party or the other. They were monitored from the time of the national conventions through November.

What that showed, Ghosh said, is that those who bought political swag were 91% less likely to go to the polls than those who had made financial donations.

Finally, there were studies done with students.

In one case, some students were told they made a small donation in the form of buying a $5 political button. Then they were given the button and told to wear it.

Other students were simply told that a $5 donation was made on their behalf.

In both cases, students were asked how many text messages they would be willing to send out on behalf of the party and how many calls they would make for the party. The result? Ghosh found those who got the merchandise were less likely to have further engagement with their political party than those who were told they had given money.

Rep. Biggs promises to eliminate income tax and create speedy elections as governor

Key Points:
  • Rep. Andy Biggs wants to eliminate income taxes, create his own border task force and focus on election integrity if elected governor
  • Biggs vowed to sign bills within his first week that Gov. Katie Hobbs previously vetoed
  • Charlie Kirk’s endorsement of Biggs could help the gubernatorial candidate win younger voters

If U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs is elected governor, he wants to eliminate income taxes, further secure the border and help Republican state lawmakers advance initiatives that Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed during the past legislative session.

Just as importantly for Biggs and his supporters, he wants to strengthen the state’s partnership with President Donald Trump’s administration and clear any obstacles to implementing the president’s agenda.

Biggs laid out his vision at a campaign rally on Saturday at the Arizona Biltmore Resort, an event sponsored by Turning Point Action and featuring a lineup of prominent local and national Republican lawmakers and supporters.

Other speakers included Turning Point Founder and President Charlie Kirk, Arizona Reps. Eli Crane and Paul Gosar, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, Rep. Burgess Owens from Utah and former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz. 

Former Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, state Senate President Warren Petersen, and other Arizona Republicans vying for state offices also spoke at the rally.

Addressing a packed ballroom, the speakers expressed their unwavering support for Biggs and the Trump administration, denounced progressive policies, and criticized Hobbs and other state Democrats, including Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

Although the 2026 election is still about a year and a half away, Biggs and his supporters view this election as crucial to maintaining the momentum from Trump’s election victory last fall.

“If you want to keep this Trump movement going, we need someone that is more like President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement,” Kirk said. “We want a conservative as the governor of Arizona.”

In an unusual move, Trump has endorsed Biggs and his Republican opponent, Karrin Taylor Robson.

Recent polling data from Noble Predictive Insights showed Robson leading Biggs and Kirk, who had been connected to a run for governor before endorsing Biggs. 

However, David Byler, chief of research at Noble Predictive Insights, said that Kirk’s endorsement could serve as a boon to Biggs’ campaign and give him access to a pool of younger voters typically courted by Turning Point Action.

“Biggs now has the opportunity to inherit a young, digital-savvy base that Kirk built, which could be decisive,” Byler said.

At the rally, Biggs sought to build on that endorsement as he touted his relationship with Trump and attempted to distinguish himself from Taylor Robson.

“There’s a difference between being endorsed by President Trump and being endorsed by President Trump and having his personal cell phone number,” Biggs said.

When promoting his policies, Biggs condemned Hobbs for vetoing several bills that targeted border enforcement and expedited elections, and vowed to sign those bills within the first week of his governorship if elected.

Biggs highlighted the Arizona ICE Act, a vetoed bill introduced by Petersen that would have allowed law enforcement and government entities to enter into memorandums of agreement with federal agencies to enforce immigration laws.

He also said he would hire the state’s own border czar.

“Arizona will have the strongest border security in the nation,” he said. “We’re going to work with our sheriffs, our tribes, our local law enforcement officers, our magnificent (Arizona Department of Public Safety) and we will prevent the cartels from their evil human child and drug trafficking.”

Hobbs has embarked on her own efforts to counter drug trafficking at the border, including the launch of Task Force SAFE, which has deployed the National Guard to the border to work with the federal government to stop drug smuggling and human trafficking.

Hobbs has said through statements and veto letters that she didn’t want to place burdens on local law enforcement or have local officials take “marching orders” from Washington, D.C.

However, Biggs viewed her efforts as inadequate.

“We’re going to have a real border security task force,” he said.

Biggs also said he would focus on election integrity legislation, as Hobbs vetoed several Republican-sponsored “Florida style” election bills aimed at speeding up election results.

“How many of you would like to know who won the election (on) the night of the election?” he said to applause from the crowd.

In promoting the elimination of income tax, Biggs tied his plan to Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which proposes a series of tax cuts while potentially slashing spending for programs such as Medicaid and has received criticism for potentially adding to the national deficit.

Biggs said the tax cuts would be the key to a free and prosperous Arizona.

“We want to be the most free, most prosperous, safest state in the union,” he said. “And that’s what we’re going to do.”

Republican candidates debate immigration, budget ahead of CD7 election

Key Points: 
  • Two Republican contenders for CD7 debated 
  • Both supported the president’s immigration policies to varying degrees
  • Each an underdog in the largely Democratic district

Two Republicans vying to get elected to an open congressional seat each are claiming to be firm adherents to the policies of the party’s de facto chief: Donald Trump.

In a debate on May 29, Daniel Butierez and Jorge Rivas, who both seek to become the GOP nominee to replace the late Democrat Raúl Grijalva, proclaimed themselves to be supporters of the president’s efforts to raise tariffs.

They also said they have no problem with the mass deportation of illegal migrants. Nor were they troubled by the president’s administration giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement latitude to pick up anyone, anywhere, who is undocumented — even right outside a federal courthouse where they have shown up for their asylum hearings.

“The law must be enforced,” said Butierez.

“It was ignored when they came in,” he said. “And we need to remove anyone who came in illegally.”

Rivas said no one should be surprised about how Trump has directed immigration enforcement.

“He’s doing the job he was hired to do,” said Rivas, who himself came to the United States from El Salvador in the 1980s and was granted political asylum.

But Rivas also told host Ted Simons of KAET-TV that he has no problem with ICE going into churches and schools to find those they intend to deport.

“If it’s within the United States, and the law of the United States applies, so be it,” he said.

“We cannot pick and choose where we enforce the law,” Rivas said. “We cannot pick and choose when we enforce the law. If we do that, we become a banana republic.”

Butierez, for his part, disagreed.

“I don’t think law enforcement should be going into our schools or our churches,” he said. “I believe they should be sanctuary areas.”

But both said they have no problem deporting those who may be being sent back to countries they fled, even if they face danger when they return.

“They’re criminals that never should have come here in the first place,” Butierez said.

“I don’t blame the administration that’s doing this and sending them back,” he continued. “I blame the previous administration that let them come in.”

Rivas, for his part, rejected the suggestion that returning these migrants to places they fled could be considered cruel.

“There are many things that are cruel in this country, or even the world,” he said. And Rivas said it’s not the responsibility of the United States to be sure that every country treats its citizens well.

“I think the United States has a responsibility to take care of the citizens of this country and to make sure that this country does not become cruel or a dictatorship or whatever they might want to call it.”

Both also said they would have supported the measure just approved by the U.S. House — the chamber in which they hope to serve — that included cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

“I know there’s a lot of fraud,” Rivas said.

“Organizations and individuals have been stealing left and right from Medicare and Medicaid,” he said. “The Trump administration is just making sure the money is being used properly for the people that need help and not necessarily being offered to anyone, where anyone can take it, and just abuse it as they have been for so many years.”

Butierez said he’s not convinced that anyone who needs and is entitled to care will be denied services.

It starts, he said, with the fact that the measure is not yet in final form and still needs to clear the Senate. Beyond that, Butierez said all the talk now about people losing care is just “fear mongering.”

And Rivas said if people are looking for someone to blame for the fact that the current administration is trying to cut costs, they should look at the past four years under Joe Biden.

Consider, he said, money sent by the U.S. Agency for International Development to create Ahlan  Simsim, a version of Sesame Street for children in Iraq. A federal government website put the funding at $13 million.

“Also, they gave Ukraine, what, $400 billion … to kill people?” Rivas said.

“Why didn’t we save that $400 billion and say half of that would go to Medicare and Medicaid?” he said. “That’s why I’m running because I’m tired of those people in Washington doing whatever they want, left and right, and nobody holds them accountable.”

Various websites, however, have put the amount of emergency funding to Ukraine since the war with Russia started in 2022 at about half of that claimed by Rivas.

The two GOP candidates who showed up for the debate — Jimmy Rodriguez pulled out at the last minute — did agree on one specific fact: When Butierez ran against Grijalva in the regular general election in 2024, he picked up nearly 100,000 votes.

By contrast, Grijalva received nearly 172,000 votes. But Butierez said the fact he could do that well in a heavily Democratic district against the long-time congressman shows that he is electable in a race without an incumbent.

Rivas has a different take on the results of the 2024 general election. He pointed out that Grijalva had been absent from Congress since February but did return in November after completing cancer treatment. By that time he had announced that the 2024 election would be his last.

Grijalva, debilitated from his cancer treatment, did not campaign, was seen using a wheelchair, and died just two months after being sworn in this past January. What that means, Rivas said, is that Butierez essentially ran unopposed and “only got a very small percentage of the vote.”

“So, I please ask you not to waste your vote any more and give me a chance,” Rivas said.

Butierez, however, did get in one specific dig at Rivas: the fact that he admitted he does not live within the congressional district.

There is no legal requirement for members of Congress to live within the district they seek to represent. Rivas said afterward that he and his family do most of their shopping and other activities within the portion of Tucson that is in CD7.

The primary is set for July 15. Whoever wins the GOP contest will face off against the Democratic candidate who wins their party’s primary on Sept. 23.

American-made voting equipment might not be ready by 2029

Key Points:
  • Pending legislation demands all tabulation equipment must be sourced in the U.S. by 2029
  • Currently, there are no voting machines that meet the requirements
  • Even if manufacturers start production immediately, officials are unsure they’ll meet the deadline

President Trump has promised to bring manufacturing back to America.

But if he isn’t successful by 2029, Arizonans could end up counting ballots by hand.

On party-line votes, both the Republican controlled House and Senate have approved legislation spelling out that, beginning that year, the Secretary of State’s Office cannot certify vote-recording and vote-tabulating equipment unless each and every part of the machine, including all components and software, are “sourced from the United States.” 

House Bill 2651 also says the equipment must be assembled in the United States.

The measure now goes to Gov. Katie Hobbs.

The only thing is, there are no voting tabulation machines available that meet those conditions according to Jenn Marson, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Counties. And it is her organization’s members who would have to comply.

She told lawmakers there are probably companies that could meet the deadline. But the problem, Marson said, comes down to this: What if they can’t?

Rep. Brian Garcia, D-Tempe, said he thinks he knows what the result will be.

“This would render us a full hand-count tabulation,” said Garcia, something he said can’t support.

The proposal is being pushed by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear.

“I believe this is going to secure better security standards,” Montenegro told colleagues during a hearing on the measure.

“It’s going to make it easier to investigate any machine issues,” he said. “And it’s going to help restore public trust in elections.”

Montenegro also noted that the Department of Homeland Security already classifies voting equipment as “critical infrastructure.” He said that means it should be subject to strict regulation during production and the sourcing of all components.

“If there are issues that would arise with the voting machines, it’s easier to discover them if the machine hardware and software are created in Birmingham or Buffalo or Boise, not in Beijing,” Montenegro said.

Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, said this isn’t an academic concern.

“Almost every piece of software we get has a back door to China,” said Gillette, who has formerly consulted on national security. He argued the list of vulnerable equipment includes everything from common routers, which computers use for communication, to hospital equipment.

Gillette said this isn’t simple industrial espionage.

“It’s not going to a Chinese firm,” he said. “It’s going to the CCP,” meaning the Chinese Communist Party.

Gillette said that foreign access to voting equipment means the results “could be altered by the Chinese government or the highest bidder through the Chinese government.”

That, however, still leaves the question of meeting the deadline.

“We talked to the speaker about it … He is very confident that American manufacturing will step up its game and be ready,” Marson said. “We’re not so sure. And we’re just not sure what we’re supposed to do if it’s not.”

The good news, Marson said, is that counties can continue to use equipment they already have on hand as of the beginning of 2029. But she said there will soon be a need to replace that equipment.

Marson also warned lawmakers that it’s not just a question of whether a company could have an entirely domestically produced machine ready by that date. She said the timeline is much shorter.

“Arizona requires that you be federally certified for election equipment before you can be state certified,” Marson said, a process that has to go through the federal Election Assistance Commission. And she said it’s currently taking the EAC about two years to perform the necessary checks.

“And so, even if American manufacturing steps up its game immediately as soon as this bill becomes law, I don’t know if they would be ready to have the machines that they’re going to start building — and have them be certified — in time for the state,” Marson said.

So what’s needed, she said, is “some sort of out if American manufacturing does not step up its game quite in time.”

Lawmakers ignored the plea and approved the measure without the “what if” provision the counties are seeking.

But Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, said he’s convinced that companies that want to sell their equipment here will come around.

“I’m pretty sure there’s a competitive edge they want to maintain,” Finchem said. 

Finchem also suggested that legislation like this might provide the necessary push to ensure that the equipment being used truly meets the requirements of critical infrastructure.

“There has been an abysmal failure of manufacturers to meet that standard,” he said. “I think there is a lot of inertia that is going on right now to get us there.”

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, however, said the legislation was unnecessary.

“We are telling our counties to fix a non-existing problem with a non-existing solution,” said the Tempe Democrat. And she said the equipment already complies with “rigorous federal security standards” with testing by accredited laboratories.

The measure now heads to Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Feds drop Biden administration challenge of Arizona election law

The Trump administration is dropping its 2022 challenge to an Arizona law designed to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal races.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the state can start enforcing the law.

The move by the Department of Justice is in many ways no surprise. Since President Trump took office and put his own people in charge, the agency has been stepping away from litigation filed during the Biden administration to protect the rights of voters.

Senate President Warren Petersen cheered the action.

“A major win for election integrity and the rule of law!” the Gilbert Republican posted on his X, claiming credit for the move. “This follows my letter to the Department of Justice asking for them to back out of this misguided Biden lawsuit.”

But even Petersen conceded the case is not over, saying that House and Senate Republicans will continue to defend the 2022 law “against the special interest groups challenging it.”

That was echoed by Elisabeth Frost, an attorney at Elias Law Group who represents a variety of private organizations involved with voting rights.

“We are going to fight for Arizona voters whether Trump’s Department of Justice is with us or against us,” she said.

Hanging in the balance is whether close to 50,000 Arizonans will be able to vote in the next presidential race.

A 2004 voter-approved initiative requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.

However, the National Voter Registration Act also includes a provision allowing people to use a special federally designed form to vote in federal elections. That form mandates that applicants sign a sworn statement avowing, under penalty of perjury, that they are, in fact, citizens.

In 2020, however, Biden outpolled Trump in Arizona by 10,457 votes. So two years later Republican lawmakers, with the blessing of Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, approved a measure to say that form can’t be used to vote for president in 2024 and beyond unless there also is citizenship proof.

But before that could happen, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton struck down that requirement as illegal and discriminatory.

She also voided another provision that said anyone who uses a federal form cannot vote by mail as well as a requirement directing county recorders to conduct checks of voters they have “reason to believe” are not citizens.

That case continues to work its way through the court system, with the latest ruling just a month ago by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the essence of what Bolton concluded. In fact, the appellate judges told Bolton to take another look to determine not just whether the legislators acted illegally — what she already concluded — but whether they acted with an intent to discriminate.

Now the Department of Justice told Bolton it wants out.

“The United States no longer seeks to press its claims in this case,” wrote Daniel Freeman, an attorney with the Civil Rights Division. He also wants Bolton’s earlier judgment in favor of the federal government dismissed.

It remains unclear whether the decision of the Trump administration to step aside now — after there have been several rulings — will aid the state in its continued efforts to block what are known as “federal only” voters from casting a ballot in 2028.

Some of this depends on what happens now that the case is back before Bolton to determine if lawmakers, in approving the law, acted with “discriminatory intent.”

A finding of intentional discrimination by itself is significant, and not just because of what it says about the GOP lawmakers who approved the plan and their allies like the Free Enterprise Club that pushed it.

It also would make it harder for legislative leaders to argue when the case goes to the Supreme Court — where it is virtually certain to head after the latest round of evidence and hearings — that the restrictions were based solely on their belief that they were necessary to prevent voter fraud. This would open the door to findings that the state violated other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Lawmakers may have an uphill fight.

In sending the case back to Bolton, the Court of Appeals told her that she needs to look beyond whether the GOP legislators who pushed the measure acted sincerely in their belief that non-citizens were voting.

The appellate judges said the test is whether lawmakers actually had such evidence. And to this point, they said, the Legislature has failed to produce any such evidence.

Bolton has not yet set a date for a hearing on what the appellate judges sent back to her — or even whether to grant the request by the Department of Justice to back out of the case.

All this, however, could become moot.

The U.S. House this week approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections along with a provision to require states to regularly purge their voter rolls.

A similar measure was killed last year in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans now are in control, but getting the measure to Trump would require them to deal with a possible Democratic filibuster.

Rodney Glassman will be an attorney general law enforcement can trust

I have worn a sheriff deputy’s badge for over four decades and now have the privilege to lead the men and women responsible for protecting over 4.5 million citizens as the Maricopa County sheriff. We need an Arizona attorney general who will have law enforcement’s back – every time. That’s why I am co-chairing the campaign of my longtime friend, Rodney Glassman. Rodney’s an Air Force veteran, experienced prosecutor and a tough conservative who will fight to keep our families safe and work with President Donald Trump to secure our border. Rodney and I share a strong commitment to our long, successful marriages, amazing daughters, of which we both have two, and our dogs. We have had many long conversations about the importance of protecting the voiceless, and I look forward to having Rodney as a partner and ally, committed to prosecuting animal abuse as our next attorney general.

Jerry Sheridan
Jerry Sheridan

Arizona law enforcement is under attack. Overworked, understaffed, and with liberal politicians and the 24/7 media second-guessing every split-second decision we make, fewer and fewer people are willing to serve. In the city of Phoenix, that means under 1,900 officers filling over 4,000 budgeted positions, longer response times, unanswered calls, and in some cases, dispatchers literally unable to send an officer to respond to resident emergency calls.

When my deputy walks up to the car window of a driver they’ve pulled over, with probable cause, the first question in their mind cannot be “is this the decision that’s going to end my career?” Yet that is our current reality. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office is responsible for handling all of the appellate work, on behalf of the state, for all 15 county attorneys across Arizona. We need an attorney general who supports and partners with local prosecutors and police officers and doesn’t kowtow to criminals. Someone who puts victims and their families ahead of evil-doers.

Prior to being elected statewide, by less than 250 votes, our current Attorney General Kris Mayes had never spent a single day working as an attorney in court. Arizona law enforcement and the citizens we serve cannot afford to have someone running the largest law office in the state, Democrat or Republican, who has never worked as an attorney or prosecuted a criminal. Rodney has built a successful civil litigation practice, he’s prosecuted drug dealers and financial crimes and sought justice for victims of sexual assault in the courtroom. He’s qualified.

Rodney has a track record of standing with law enforcement and their families. He serves on the board of directors for the Arizona 100 Club, raising money for the families of Arizona’s fallen first responders. In 2022, Rodney traveled all across Arizona, volunteering his time to champion the Back the Blue referendum, which created a death benefit for first responders killed in the line of duty. For almost two decades Rodney has worn the uniform and now serves as lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force JAG Corps Reserve.

Growing up in New York City, my dad was a lieutenant in the New York Police Department. I remember watching him leave home for work, not knowing if, or when, he’d return. Families of law enforcement can no longer afford to have the attorney general’s seat held by a liberal activist who hates law enforcement nor can they risk electing a Republican who has never prosecuted a criminal. We need an attorney general with a proven track record of standing up for those who keep our communities safe, and that’s why I stand with Rodney Glassman.

Jerry Sheridan is sheriff of Maricopa County.

Legislature 2024: Republicans end year with expanded majority in both legislative chambers

For the first time since 2020, one party in the Arizona legislature has expanded its stronghold.

Republicans gained one seat in the Senate for a 17-13 majority and two seats in the House for a 33-27 majority. 

“We are stronger than ever before right now,” said Speaker-elect Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, after he was elected as the incoming speaker by the House GOP caucus. “The last election cycle has shown it where the Democrats have spent tens of millions of dollars to try to flip the chambers but they’ve done so unsuccessfully. The people of Arizona have spoken.”

The GOP completely flipped three legislative districts that have been considered highly competitive swing districts in recent years. 

Legislative Districts 4, 13 and 16 turned red after the November election. Rep. Keith Seaman, D-Casa Grande; and Sen. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, lost to Republicans Chris Lopez and Carine Werner, respectively. 

Rep. Jennifer Pawlik, D-Chandler, didn’t seek re-election in LD13. Representative-elect Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler, was elected with Rep. Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler, defeating their Democratic opponents Nicholas Gonzales and Brandy Reese. 

The only seat Republicans lost was in Legislative District 17. Democrat Kevin Volk defeated incumbent Rep. Cory McGarr, R-Tucson, in the district’s House race.

For Democrats, the results were disappointing for a party that chipped away at Republican legislative supermajorities in earlier decades. Democrats haven’t held a majority in both chambers at the same time since the 1960s.

Flipping the legislature was a major goal for the Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which spent millions backing candidates in swing districts who outraised many of their Republican opponents.

“Arizona’s legislative chambers will remain in Republican control. Across the country, down-ballot Democrats worked tirelessly to combat top-of-the-ticket trends. It is now clear that those trends proved to be insurmountable,” said ADLCC Executive Director Elsa O’Callaghan in a prepared statement. 

The additional two seats in the House and one seat in the Senate don’t bring the GOP to supermajority representation that the party once held in the state, but HighGround Public Affairs consultant Doug Cole said every seat matters for the Legislature’s negotiations with Gov. Katie Hobbs.

“The last four years, it’s been one vote,” Cole said. “Sometimes, people will need to break away (from party leadership). This will allow them to.”

Cole said it can be easier for party leaders at times when they have a smaller majority because supermajorities can create subgroups within a party. 

But there is one major subgroup at the Legislature, the Arizona Freedom Caucus. 

Several members of the Freedom Caucus have already been critical of Montenegro and his leadership team, despite Montenegro not being elected speaker officially yet.

After Montenegro was named incoming speaker, Rep. Jacqueline Parker, R-Mesa, wrote in a Nov. 13 post on X: “In the case of the House, openly turning chairmanship appointments over to the worst of the worst lobbyists is a dereliction of duty the likes of which the AZ leg has not seen for quite a while (if ever). So far the secret vote  was just a caucus agreement. It can be changed.” 

Cole said he expects the influence of the Freedom Caucus at the Legislature to be just as strong as it’s been in recent years.

“The Freedom Caucus is still as relevant as they always have been because of who the president of the United States is,” Cole said. “That does filter down to local politics.”

The next two years are pivotal for both parties as they navigate the early stages of President-elect Donald Trump’s new administration. A Dec. 10 poll from Noble Predictive Insights determined 45% of voters believe Republicans are better equipped to run the state while 41% said Democrats would be better in charge.

The Noble poll also noted independent voters in August viewed Democrats as being better to run the state by a small 2-point lead, but that swung toward Republicans by 8 points after the election.

“Republicans have a decent – but not unbeatable – edge on who is thought to run the government more effectively. Republicans effectively appealed to independents this election, and voters now trust them to govern,” said David Byler, Noble’s chief of research. “If the GOP governs well, they could grow this edge – and if they fail, they could easily give it up.”

Democratic consultant Gaelle Esposito said she believes Arizona shifted left relative to the rest of the country, where Republicans saw major wins. She pointed to Democrat Ruben Gallego’s win over Kari Lake in the U.S. Senate race and said an ambitious strategy from Democrats for legislative elections led to Republicans gaining ground in the House

In previous elections, Democrats have often used the single-shot strategy of only running one candidate against two Republican opponents. That trend was slightly bucked this year with Democrats running two candidates in LD4 and LD13. 

“This is the best partisan environment they could have asked for and this is all they got,” Esposito said. “We’ll see if they’re just continuing to live on borrowed time … I would assume Hobbs would have a very good chance at re-election having both the foil of the Trump administration and a continued Republican Legislature to work against.”

 

Pollster explains how Democrats went wrong

Pollster Mike Noble says he knows why Democrats in Arizona generally did so poorly in the last election: The political independents who make up more than a third of registered voters weren’t interested in what the Democrats were selling.

A new survey found that 31% of independents listed the economy as one of the top three issues in deciding for whom they would vote. That aligns perfectly with the priorities of registered Republicans.

And Democrats? At the top of their list was threats to the economy as 27%

The economy? It was in the top three for just 18% of Democrats.

Mike Noble

But the disparities don’t stop there.

The No. 3 issue for Democrats in deciding for whom to vote was abortion. That rated among the top three for just 11% of independents and 6% of Republicans.

And just 6% of Democrats considered immigration among their top issues.

Noble said all that came home to roost when Arizonans went to the polls last month. And while much of the focus was at the top of the ticket, he said the effects trickled down the ballot to more local races.

“They were focused on what mattered to Arizonans – especially “those all-important independent voters,” Noble said.

“They were more spot-on compared to Democrats who were a bit more in la-la land when it came to issues they were talking about,” he continued. And Noble said that was particularly true on the question of abortion, which, while a key priority of Democrats, proved less significant among the rest of voters than the issues of immigration and the economy, the ones being promoted by Donald Trump.

“And, frankly, independents trusted Republicans better on those issues than Democrats,” he said.

Yet even in a year where Trump won in Arizona and Republicans picked up seats in the state House and Senate, there was an outlier: Democrat Ruben Gallego defeated Republican Kari Lake by 80,000 votes in the race for the U.S. Senate.

Some Lake supporters have cried “foul,” arguing there is no way that Gallego gained 93,000 more votes among Arizonans than Kamala Harris. Noble, however, said there are reasons for that, including what he called a “like-ability” factor: Gallego was viewed positively by 53% of those questioned in the new survey versus Lake at just 37%.

But what really made a difference, Noble said, is that as much as Lake tried to paint Gallego as a Biden-Harris sycophant, he was doing his best to show Arizonans a different face.

“Ruben, I think, did a pretty good job of distancing himself for making different decisions than Democrats as a whole,” Noble said. And not just on big issues.

For example, he noted that Gallego banned his congressional staff from using the term “Latinx,” something Noble said is “part of that social-identification politics, which is smart to do.”

Gallego made his position clear in a social media post.

“When Latino politicos use the term it is largely to appease white rich progressive who think that is the term we use,” he wrote during the campaign. “It is a vicious circle of confirmation bias.”

At the same time, Noble wrote, there were “twists and changes” within the Democratic Party itself. And that, he said, placed Gallego more in a centrist position, “more palatable to voters” and not coming off as out-of-touch.

The flip side of all this, said Noble, is that when Democrats are looking for lessons of what went wrong – and what not to do next time – they should not be focused on what Harris and many other Democrats did.

“Look at what Ruben Gallego did, and, previous to that, Mark Kelly, and, previous to that, Kirsten Sinema,” he said. “That is what you should be doing if you want to be successful in Arizona.”

The same survey found that 46% of those rated Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs as favorable against 41% who had an unfavorable impression of her.

Noble, however, said it probably is less of a reflection on her – she was not up for election this year – and more on the impression of voters about Democrats as a whole. And, that, in turn, goes to the fact 2024 was a presidential election year, with what happens at the top having a lot of down-ticket effect.

“They just had better messaging on the right issues,” he said of Republicans. And Noble said that was particularly true on the issue of immigration.

“That was kind of Trump’s signature issue,” he said, more-so in a border state like Arizona than it was elsewhere.

Still, if Democrats lost because they were more focused on things like abortion than immigration, how did Proposition 139, which put the right to an abortion into the state Constitution, manage to get the votes of more than 61% of Arizonans?

Noble said there’s nothing inconsistent about that. He said voters differentiated between the political campaigns of the candidates and the ballot issues.

“A perfect example of this is that we saw voters voting for Trump, for Gallego – and yes on abortion,” he said.

In Arizona, that is not unique.

Voters in Missouri and Montana both amended their state constitutions to enshrine the right of abortion until fetal viability, generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks. Yet Trump won both states, and by an even larger margin of victory than Arizona.

Trump also won in Nevada where a similar abortion measure was approved, though voters in that state now have to ratify the change in 2026.

The survey of 988 registered voters was conducted from Nov. 20 through 25 and is considered to have a margin of error of 3.1%.

 

 

Transportation infrastructure investments are a win for Arizonans

While Arizonans may be feeling excited or anxious based on the top of the ticket election results, votes taken across our state reveal we are more settled and in agreement than not when it comes to funding transportation infrastructure. 

Significant Support for Increased Transportation Options

Amerigo Berdeski

The voter-approved transportation ballot measures in Flagstaff, Maricopa County, and Pinal County were uniquely written based on local geographics and demographics. Case in point: voters in Maricopa County approved continuation of a half-cent sales tax of which 40.5% will be allocated to freeways and other routes in the state highway system; 37% to public transportation such as bus, vanpool, and dial-a-ride services; and 22.5% to arterial streets, intersection improvements and regional transportation infrastructure. Although each elected leader and involved entities across the region, including ours, would have drafted the measure differently, the need to work together, craft a balanced plan, and benefit as many citizens as possible, surpassed any individual or organizational imperative.

Significant Movement to Electrify Transportation

Diane Brown

As transportation-related measures are implemented, engineering and other jobs will be maintained and created, old ground repaired and new ground broken, and more transportation options will emerge for Arizonans and visitors. However, when it comes to transportation, it is important to keep in mind that our state is also a powerhouse for the growing electric vehicle (EV) industry, due in large part to the hard work of the Arizona Commerce Authority to bring these businesses to our state.

EV businesses located from Yuma to Casa Grande to Buckeye have rightfully earned Arizona national recognition for having a “cradle-to-grave” industry. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Arizona is in the top 10 states for EV registrations. And a recent report by Atlas Public Policy documents that Arizona has 3,800 public charging ports across 1,300 locations.   

To continue to advance the industry and reduce barriers to driving an EV, Arizona has been awarded over $200 million for EV projects across our state. The Arizona Department of Transportation was awarded funding to work with the private sector to install EV charging stations for the public along our interstate highways and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program’s beneficiaries include the city of Mesa, Cochise County, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, and San Carlos Apache Tribal Council. The investments in charging infrastructure mean more local jobs, more local economic benefits, and more options for drivers.

Significant Need to Continue to Drive Forward

Similar to reasons why transportation measures passed overwhelmingly, elected leaders and citizens may have different reasons to support the EV industry in our state. Whether it is for job creation, improvements to air quality and public health, or saving money for EV drivers, as Arizonans, let’s continue to work together to steer our transportation system forward. 

Amerigo Berdeski is operations manager for the American Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona.. Diane E. Brown is executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. 

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