Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: election 2014

Taylor Robson quits Arizona governor’s race

Key Points:
  • Karrin Taylor Robson ended her campaign for the Republican nomination for governor
  • Taylor Robson warned Republicans must avoid a “divisive primary”
  • U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs and David Schweikert are now the main contenders in the primary

Karrin Taylor Robson suspends her campaign for governor, citing her desire to avoid a “divisive Republican primary.” 

In a statement, Taylor Robson said she is stepping back from the race to help the Republican Party win back the governorship from incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. 

“… we cannot afford a divisive Republican primary that drains resources and turns into months of intraparty attacks,” Taylor Robson said. “It only weakens our conservative cause and gives the left exactly what they want: a fractured Republican Party heading into November. With so much on the line in 2026, I am not willing to contribute to that outcome.”

Taylor Robson’s exit leaves U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs and David Schweikert as the main contenders for the Republican nomination to lead the top of the ticket in Arizona. The state’s primary is set for July 28. 

“I want to thank Karrin Taylor Robson for a well-run campaign and for her many contributions to keeping our state red,” Biggs wrote in a post on X. “This is a critical time for our party to unite and avoid a costly, divisive primary as the weak and ineffective Katie Hobbs continues to hurt Arizonans.”

Meanwhile, Hobbs’ campaign took a victory lap in a statement from her campaign manager Nicole DeMont.

“Karrin Taylor Robson saw the writing on the wall and knows that Gov. Katie Hobbs is going to win re-election because of her bipartisan record of lowering costs, securing the border, and protecting healthcare,” DeMont said. “No matter who emerges from this chaotic primary, we will stay focused on building a winning coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who believe in putting Arizona first.”

Taylor Robson ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2022, losing to Kari Lake. She entered the Republican primary for the 2026 election in February 2025 after President Donald Trump endorsed her at Turning Point USA’s 2024 conference in Phoenix. 

Trump’s endorsement of Robson drew ire from the more conservative members of the Arizona Republican Party, like Arizona Freedom Caucus Chair and Sen. Jake Hoffman. Eventually, Trump gave a second endorsement to Biggs when he launched his campaign in March.

Taylor Robson ran as a moderate, anti-Trump foil to the ultraconservative Lake in 2022, but attempted to court the president’s favor — and his voters — for her second gubernatorial run. However, many Republicans were wary of Taylor Robson’s shifting alliances and threw their support behind Biggs. 

Known for self-funding her campaigns, Taylor Robson had the largest campaign warchest in the Republican primary, with $1.2 million in cash on hand, according to campaign finance reports from January. Taylor Robson pledged to continue supporting Republican candidates in 2026 and much of her campaign cash will likely be funnelled to other races. 

Schweikert’s campaign did not release a statement or immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republican lawmakers and operatives took to social media to thank Taylor Robson for her work on the campaign and supporting Republican candidates and the party in Arizona. 

“I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future to hold the line and expand our majorities in the Arizona Senate & House,” Sen. T.J. Shope said in a post on X. “Let’s unite our party behind (Biggs) so we can win the big battle in November!”

Let’s work together to keep Maricopa’s elections secure

Kate Brophy-McGee

It’s an important week for Maricopa County elections and the partnership that will empower you to vote confidently in 2026. In the courtroom and in the boardroom, we will be fighting for you.

Voting is personal

When you cast your ballot, you are making a powerful and personal statement about the issues that matter most to you; what you want to see in your community, state, and country; and who will help lead the way to the brighter future you imagine. 

As someone who has won and lost close races of my own, I know that trust in the system is paramount. That is why I have spent years learning how elections are actually run in Maricopa County — and why I remain confident in the integrity, professionalism and dedication of the people who do this work every day.

Our Elections Department is nonpartisan. The people running our elections are your friends and neighbors. They vote too. And they care for your ballot as if it were their own.

As county leaders, we demonstrate our care for voters through deliberate choices and sustained investment focused on three core priorities: transparency, efficiency and continuous improvement.

Transparency and improvement build confidence

I believe in a “show” not a “tell” method for voter education. I’ve heard over and over: people don’t want to feel like they are being told or simply expected to trust our election system; they want to see how it works for themselves so that trust becomes earned.

That is why Maricopa County has expanded public tours, opened observation opportunities, and increased live video feeds of our election facilities. Transparency is one of democracy’s strongest safeguards. When people can see the process for themselves, confidence grows.

Early in 2025, the Board of Supervisors commissioned a comprehensive, independent review of our election processes, including the security of your ballots and the machines used to tabulate them. That work is nearly complete, and we will share the findings publicly in the coming months. Where auditors identify opportunities to do better, we will act — swiftly and openly.

Continuous improvement is not a sign of weakness; it is a commitment to excellence.

Efficiency matters

Voters also deserve timely results.

Election night is not just about who wins, it’s about public confidence that accurate results are being delivered in a timely manner. That is why I am committed to putting the resources behind our Elections Department to count ballots faster, without sacrificing accuracy, security, or transparency. That means staffing and planning well ahead of Election Day.

But efficiency does not exist in a vacuum.

Working together is not optional

Arizona law intentionally divides election responsibilities between the county recorder and the board of supervisors. That structure requires cooperation. It always has.

Unfortunately, the current county recorder has suggested he can “go it alone” and has sued the board to gain power. A hearing in Heap v. Galvin is scheduled for Jan. 26. The lawsuit is an unnecessary and costly distraction from the people’s business, in my opinion.

The current board and recorder have run four smooth, lawful elections together under our normal division of responsibility. We are only in court because the recorder does not like how the law requires us to work together to run them.

That disagreement does not serve voters.

At the end of January, the recorder will present his proposed budget to the board. To plan responsibly for 2026, we need this budget request to provide clarity and understanding, specifically when it comes to the recorder’s new plan for signature verification. If we know the rate of verification, we can plan to staff double shifts and commit to reporting results faster than ever before. However, without coordination between our offices, we cannot accurately staff up, budget or design systems to meet voter demand — no matter how many resources the County commits.

A call to partnership

Litigation may continue. But it does not excuse a failure to collaborate.

In the words of Helen Purcell, Maricopa County’s longest-serving elections official: elections work best when professionals work together. That wisdom still applies.

My message to Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap is simple: let’s make the 2026 elections about our voters. Let’s work together. The public deserves nothing less, and our democracy demands it.

Elections are not about titles, turf, or personalities of elected officials. They are about honoring our voters and creating a trustworthy, efficient system that empowers them to vote confidently.  Instilling that confidence is our joint responsibility. As chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, I, along with my fellow board members will work every day to earn that confidence.

Kate Brophy-McGee is the Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Few protections for elected officials targeted by deepfakes

Key Points:
  • On Oct. 17, Sen. Wendy Rogers reposted a deepfake video of Gov. Katie Hobbs
  • Deepfakes do not violate Arizona laws related to content
  • Experts say elected officials cannot rely on regulation to combat deepfakes

“I promise if I’m reelected governor, you won’t recognize your state by the end of my term,” Gov. Katie Hobbs says in a six-second video posted to X on Oct. 17. 

Except the governor never said that. The video is a deepfake, developed using generative artificial intelligence and an official portrait of Hobbs taken in 2023.

To Arizona politicos familiar with the governor, the video is obviously fake. The voice does not belong to Hobbs and the smile the fake governor flashes at the end of the clip is slightly uncanny. 

But to average voters and out-of-state observers, the video is realistic enough to fool the viewer. And it has been viewed more than 10,000 times, thanks to a repost from Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers, who did not respond to a request for comment. 

“This is kind of horrifying,” said Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan. “It is exactly what we have all been worried about with the rise of AI.” 

Deepfake content of political figures is nothing new, but it is becoming more common as artificial intelligence models like Grok by X and Sora by OpenAI make the creation of it more accessible and more realistic. Experts say attempts to regulate content won’t keep pace with its evolution, meaning Arizona lawmakers, candidates and elections officials will have to develop their own strategies to combat AI-generated photos and videos. 

Michael Moore, the chief information security officer at the Secretary of State’s Office, has been helping elected officials and elections administrators prepare for deepfake content aimed at disrupting the state’s elections. He says most leaders do not realize how easy it is to create realistic AI-generated content. 

“It’s not like just the president of the United States is going to have deepfakes of him, it’s not like just the governor is going to have deepfakes of her,” Moore said. “You can make this of anyone. It could be an elected official, it could be an election official, it could be anyone in your community, like the principal of your kid’s school.”

Moore said the state did not see an influx of AI-generated threats in 2024, just a few relatively unsophisticated deepfakes. But he does foresee deepfakes becoming a bigger issue during the 2026 midterm elections, now that technology allows anyone with a smartphone to create them. 

“My job is to think like a bad guy and then try to defend against it,” Moore said. “If I wanted to erode confidence in elections, these are the tools that I would use. It is incredibly challenging to actually mechanically interfere with ballots, it’s way easier to negatively impact people’s perception and confidence in elections.”

Despite the threat deepfakes pose to Arizona’s elections, the laws regulating them are relatively lax. The deepfake created of Hobbs, for example, does not violate the two Arizona laws passed in 2024 regarding political deepfakes. 

Neither Hobbs’ office nor her campaign responded to requests for comment.

Chris McIsaac, a researcher at the nonpartisan R Street Institute, has studied AI policies enacted across the country and said he doesn’t view legislation as the answer to combatting deepfakes.

“It’s exceedingly difficult to write a law that is going to capture the current state of technology and certainly where the technology is going,” McIsaac said. 

One law signed by Hobbs in 2024 requires deepfake creators to include an AI disclosure on manipulated content posted within 90 days of an election. If a politician asks a court to intervene, the creator of the deepfake content will receive a $10 fine per day until the content is removed or reuploaded with a disclosure. 

Another law, introduced by Republican Rep. Alex Kolodin of Scottsdale, allows candidates to ask a judge to declare a manipulated photo or video fake. However, the judge cannot require the removal of the content or impose a penalty for its creation.

Kolodin said he doesn’t see a need to rush to create more regulations just yet, as his law never ended up needing to be enforced during the 2024 election cycle.

“We’ve tried the light touch, now let’s see how things develop, let’s see where things go from here,” Kolodin said. “Not everything is a matter for legislation or a crisis that the Legislature needs to respond to. The important thing is simply that voters know the truth.”

Sundareshan, who introduced her own deepfake bill that never received a hearing, disagreed. She said the two laws passed in 2024 are just a starting point.

“I’m not so sure that what we ended up passing is going to be very capable of deterring this kind of activity,” Sundareshan said. 

Some states have attempted harsh crackdowns on AI political content, including outright bans or criminal penalties, according to McIsaac. But those laws are hard to enforce and can run afoul of the First Amendment. 

For example, a California law attempting to prohibit online platforms from hosting AI-generated political content ahead of an election was struck down by a federal judge in August. A similar law that required labels on digitally manipulated campaign ads was also overruled.

That limits regulation of deepfakes to disclosures, which McIsaac says is an imperfect solution.

“The question is, are these types of disclosures really going to have an effect?” McIsaac said. “The jury is still out. I don’t think there’s great examples of those being implemented.” 

Moore agreed that legislation won’t keep up with the rapid evolution of AI, but said he supports disclosures for AI-generated content.

“I think that that would be a very reasonable piece of legislation,” Moore said. “People can still have their freedom of speech, but if they’re creating masterful impersonations of other people, it being labeled as a deepfake, I think that’s a reasonable request.”

McIsaac said elected officials and government bodies should instead focus on educating and communicating with voters about AI, as a response to a deepfake on social media is faster than any piece of legislation or court action could be. 

“I think a better approach is to think of this as more of a communications exercise and having campaigns figure out ways to quickly counter this false claim that’s floating out there and (put) the counterargument out there for why this is false and then (let) the voters decide who they believe,” McIsaac said. 

Kolodin encouraged anyone who sees deepfake content of him to reach out and ask if it’s real. Sundareshan said she and her Democratic colleagues have yet to discuss combatting deepfakes, as she wasn’t even aware of how far the technology has come.

“I think it is just not even well understood how real a threat this might be posing to us and we do need to be having the conversations,” Sundareshan said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“When does that connection end?” he asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langhofer said he has two.

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

It starts with the numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langhofer has another theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court fight definitely has taken on political overtones.

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

A crusade against vote by mail is growing

Tearanie Chinn

Arizona voters have been successfully using vote-by-mail for more than three decades. With those decades of experience, this state has become a shining example of how increased vote-by-mail access increases voter turnout and allows voters to participate easily and safely in their elections in a way that suits their busy lives. However, despite its popularity with voters across the political spectrum, this cornerstone of our democracy has continued to face renewed attacks over the years. 

Last month, the president of the United States posted on social media that his office was in the process of preparing an executive order that, among other things, would outlaw voting machines and make voting by mail illegal. While the administration shifted from issuing an executive order to hinting at taking a legislative path to make those same changes, the president and his anti-voter allies have not slowed down in their attempts to undermine this critical piece of American democracy. 

First, it must be said that the assertion that executive orders could make vote-by-mail illegal is unconstitutional, plain and simple. It’s based on lies and misinformation, and at any other point in history, it would be seen as political theater meant to intimidate election officials, not as a serious policy idea. If an executive order had the authority to institute this rule, which again, it doesn’t, it would block millions of Americans from voting, no matter their political beliefs. 

Arizona, in particular, has one of the highest shares of voters who cast their ballots by mail, excluding mail voting only states, with 74% of Arizona voters opting to vote by mail in 2024. Despite its popularity, anti-voter groups have continued to attack vote-by-mail. 

Recently, a court of appeals rejected a lawsuit backed by anti-voter groups and the Arizona GOP that sought to limit election officials’ ability to verify mail ballots. While the suit was struck down because the groups were unable to demonstrate that they had suffered a concrete injury from the state’s current signature verification process, it is clear that those who filed the suit are motivated to undermine Arizona voters’ ability to cast their ballots.

While many of the current administration’s threats to upend our voting systems via executive orders have been stalled for now, and the courts have managed to stave off some of these attacks against vote-by-mail and election certification from local conspiracy theorists and election deniers, the reality is that this is just the beginning. We should expect any and all methods of voting to come under the scrutiny of anti-voter conspiracy theorists who will do everything in their power to undermine the will of the people if it doesn’t fit their agenda.

Come 2026, Arizona voters will expect their elections to look as they always have, with the proven safeguards that have maintained free and fair elections up to this point. Sitting election officials, election experts, and voters alike must now continue to ensure that vote-by-mail and other proven election systems remain protected from these baseless attempts to undermine them.

Tearanie Chinn is All Voting Is Local Arizona’s senior Democracy Defense manager, and former deputy education director for Rural Arizona Engagement/Rural Arizona Action. 

Sambo ‘Bo’ Dul: From state government to private law

After weathering storm after storm as a state elections director, chief legal adviser to both the secretary of state and the governor, Sambo “Bo” Dul, exited state government. Her work leaves her battle ready as she steps in to co-lead the election and public law practice at Coppersmith Brockelman.

How did you find your way to the law? What drew you to election law, to political law? 

When I was a kid, I really wanted to be a pediatrician, and then I came of age and got to learn more about my family’s experience. I was born in Cambodia in the immediate aftermath of the genocide, and then we fled the country right after that. I was a year old, and we went into a refugee camp, lived there for four years, and my dad was killed right before we got into the refugee camps. As I grew older, I became more curious and asked many questions, learning more about politics, the law, and their impact on our lives, both in Cambodia and after we moved to the US. 

The Khmer Rouge is just your quintessential example of what can happen when the rule of law, democratic institutions and any semblance of due process and equality under the law just completely falls away. It’s terror, and it’s genocide. 

My family lived firsthand a very grim alternative to democracy. And then, when we arrived in the US, we had to navigate rebuilding our lives in a country we weren’t familiar with. To have gone through all of that trauma and loss and to leave everything behind and come to a new country where you don’t know anything, you don’t understand anything, you don’t know the language, and you’re trying to rebuild your life, but you’re also trying to navigate this very bureaucratic immigration system. 

I had to become my family’s immigration lawyer. As a kid in middle school, I was filling out immigration forms for us and attending the meetings and translating, because I spoke the most English in my family. I became the family translator and immigration lawyer, navigating that process for my family from a very young age. A very prominent part of my adolescent years was the anguish and frustration of dealing with immigration bureaucracy. So all of that compelled me to study political science and economics in college and go to law school and public policy school afterward. 

What have been your most significant takeaways from your time in public practice?

We as a state have a lot of big, seemingly intractable problems, but none of these problems are not solvable if everyone is willing to come to the table and to talk to those you disagree with, and to put aside pre judgments, and to be genuinely willing to listen and to try to understand the perspective of those that you disagree with, and to be willing to give and take to think creatively about a way we could come at this problem that is acceptable to everyone, despite different kinds of priorities and stakeholders that we’re prioritizing. 

The point of pride for me is that I consistently took this approach and perspective, both in the Secretary of State’s Office and the Governor’s Office. In both instances, we operated in a divided government environment, despite the odds being completely stacked against us. 

The 2020 election was just unreal. The challenges that confronted the state and election officials during that cycle included the pandemic, false claims of election fraud, election denialism, threats and harassment against election officials, the influx of audits, the Cyber Ninja’s audit, and issues with public confidence and processes.  Those were all incredibly challenging to navigate. They would have been challenging to navigate under the best of circumstances, but with a divided government, limited resources, and the pandemic, it was particularly difficult. But we, as an office, and to the governor and secretary’s credit, were able to put aside these differences and work together with the county officials, who were from different political persuasions and served different constituents across various segments of the Arizona community. 

In your work for the governor, what have been your biggest accomplishments and challenges?  

I’ll start with challenges. There were a lot of challenges. Governing is hard. I really believe that government can and should be a force for good in people’s lives. Our work has to work for the people we represent, the people we serve. And making all the trains move together, in the right direction, and on the right schedule is hard, especially in a divided government. But I’ll say it’s getting harder and harder in the dysfunctional information environment that we’re in and in the “always on” news cycles and social media environment — I think these create incentives for political theater over the less glamorous but critical work of coming together and actually solving the problem at hand. I’d point to that as a significant, overarching challenge I’ve seen. 

In terms of accomplishments, I’m proud of so much … As a general matter, I’m immensely proud of the teams that I built both as the state elections director in the Secretary of State’s Office and as general counsel in the Governor’s Office. Those offices were able to accomplish what we accomplished because of the significant contributions and collaboration of great people on our team. We all worked so hard and supported each other through all the challenges. We learned together and tackled problems together. I’m so thankful to have gotten to work with such dedicated public servants. 

What prompted your decision to transition out of the Governor’s Office? 

It was a very hard decision. It was very hard to decide to leave work that I care immensely about, at a time when it seemed more important than ever in the midst of the upheaval from the Trump Administration. It was hard to leave the team — people I care a lot about, that I’d been through so much with, and I love Governor Hobbs as a leader and as a human being. It’s been such a privilege to have her trust and to work alongside her all these years. 

But a confluence of factors led to the decision. I’d spent almost seven years in the state government. Even during the 8 months I was at the nonprofit organization in 2022, my work was still representing the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office and other states’ chief election officials in administering and defending free and fair elections. It was still a lot of short-fuse, rapid response, emergency litigation. So I see it as a continuous stretch. And those seven years were preceded by nearly a decade in private practice, at big national law firms that were very demanding of my time and energy. I have two young daughters and an aging mom (and I am aging myself), and I needed a break and a recharge. I had some family and personal health issues come up around that time also — everyone’s fine — but that was ultimately the final push to pull the trigger and step back, and take some time to take care of my family and myself. 

That’s the push factor, but there were also pull factors. I am very excited about returning to private practice. I’m really a law nerd at heart. I love the practice of law, reading cases, researching the law, developing arguments and writing briefs. Because of the nature of the work, pace and demands of my roles as general counsel in the Governor’s Office and in the Secretary of State’s Office, I didn’t often have the time to do those deep dives myself. I was managing all the cases and giving strategic direction — when you’re so busy putting out a hundred fires at once and keeping the trains moving through the fire zones, you just can’t be lead litigation counsel on cases, you can’t be the one actually standing up in court. You have to hire outside counsel, a lawyer in private practice, for a lot of that. So a part of me was itching to get back to that, and to bring to that work everything I’ve learned, the incredible perspective I’ve gained in these public service positions. 

Why Coppersmith Brockelman? 

I’m really looking forward to returning to private practice, and to doing that at Coppersmith particularly, just because I’ve worked closely with the attorneys here from my positions at the Secretary of State’s Office and Governor’s Office for so many years, so I know first hand the high caliber of their legal work as well as their character. Hard work is always easier and the outcome better when you’re doing it with people you like and work well with and I know that will be the case here. 

How would you define your ethos in approaching the law? What guides you in the work you do? What is your north star as you take this next step? 

I believe I wouldn’t have done the work that I did if I didn’t believe in it. But I believe that government can be a force for good in people’s lives. And I believe that, despite our historical and present day shortcomings, this country can live up to its constitutional promises — of equal protection and due process under the law, of freedom of conscience and freedom of association, of government that serves all people, not just those with wealth and power. And I believe that America can be pushed and nudged to live up to its ideals through the just and moral application of the law. That’s what guides me in the work that I do.  

Despite that optimism and idealism, though, I’m also a pragmatist and incrementalist at heart. I will take slow, incremental progress over letting “perfect” be the enemy of the good, any day. And I think enduring progress requires us to meet people and communities and institutions where they are — especially those who disagree with you, who come from a different perspective than you. We have to come to the table with a willingness to truly listen and understand. And to be done well, that work is often slow and incremental. As the famous MLK Jr. quote goes, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. I think we all have a part to play in that bending. 

The long road to election integrity

Key Points:
  • Election trust still on shaky ground despite less tension, no litigation  in 2024
  • Former elected official tours tabulation center to spread word of reliable elections
  • Former and current election officials see trust challenges ahead 

Election trust remains a moving target, despite a less explosive aftermath in 2024, leaving election officials and outside parties on an eternal path to disseminate voter information and dispel misinformation. 

In contrast to 2020 and 2022, the 2024 election left few claims of fraud and no election challenges in its wake. But more than a year out from another major election, those working in and watching the electoral system do not believe more latent voter distrust means it disappeared entirely. 

As part of ongoing education efforts, RightCount, a nonprofit aimed at educating and assuring voters of the electoral systems’ integrity, sent its board members – including former Governor and Secretary of State Jan Brewer, former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell and former Congressman Matt Salmon – to tour the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on July 29, led by election director Scott Jarrett. 

Jarrett ran through the fast facts as part of Tour Tuesdays, a weekly offering by the county to show any interested parties the inner workings of elections up close and personal. 

He reminded members of RightCount – some former elections officials themselves – of Maricopa County’s position as the third most populous voting district, centrally located in a swing state and intersecting eight of the nine congressional districts and 22 of the 30 legislative districts.

Jarrett ran through the mechanics of creating, printing, sending out and tabulating ballots on Election Day and beyond in continuously high turnout elections, with rates hovering at about 80% in 2020 and 2024. 

And, Jarrett acknowledged the stopgaps, the failsafes, the steps taken by the office to shield election data from tampering, to ensure all ballots are counted, to assure voters of a solid outcome. 

Though more than a year out from the 2026 general election and coasting in the wake of a far less-contentious 2024 election, Jarrett said he expects continued challenges to public trust to continue.  

“I’d say right now, we’re not hearing at the same level the distrust in elections. I’d say a large part of that is due probably to the results of the last election,” Jarrett said.
“I think we’re going to continue to have issues, and I think this is going to be on all sides of the election, with distrust if they don’t like the outcomes.” 

And in some ways, distrust is already popping up.

Kari Lake, former gubernatorial and Senate candidate, who kept steadfast in her claims of a stolen or sabotaged election after her failed run for governor, continues to use her platforms to call for investigations into election fraud, prosecutions for alleged past crimes. 

She recirculated a video from 2022 of the Maricopa County Tabulation Center claiming election workers of “illegally breaking into sealed election machines” and reprogramming them. 

Mark Finchem, an acolyte of the same election skepticism, posted on X that he was “right about the stolen election,” and linked to an article in which Donald Trump called for another look at the 2020 election via special prosecutor. 

Jarrett noted the county’s ongoing effort to keep correct information at the forefront. 

“And as much as we offer these tours and publicize these tours and inform voters of our website, we just don’t compete with the platform that others may have. May have distrust or a reason for why they want to institute distrust in elections,” Jarrett said. 

RightCount has an eye on the same goal of voter education. 

Brewer said the last time she had been to the tabulation center was during her tenure on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  She recalled her time overseeing state elections, too, as secretary of state. 

“I am just impressed with the staff, the equipment and leadership here,” Brewer said. “I have no doubt that our elections are honest and they turn out the right data.” 

As far as the current temperature on voter trust and future work to extend her own sentiment, Brewer said she believed there will always be doubters.

“They don’t understand the elections, and they might repeat something that somebody else has said to them,” Brewer said. “Unfortunately, I think a lot of this rhetoric sometimes is for people to be able to go out there and get a reaction from the public as they campaign. They want that reaction. They’ve got to talk about it so they get fired up, rather than going out there and saying how wonderful it is.” 

As for RightCount, Brewer said she planned to continue to work with her fellow board members to “explain to people what we have known and learned about elections in our time.”

“It works,” Brewer said. “Checking our democracy. And as a prior candidate, and the candidates today, they want to be sure that it works. So they should begin everyday learning more and more about it.”

Here’s why Hobbs vetoed GOP election reform bills — again

Key Points:
  • The governor vetoed bills to create Florida-style election system
  • Hobbs said the bills would restrict access to voting
  • Republicans say bill could rebuild trust and speed up results

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed several bills this past session that were aiming to speed up the state’s election results, forcing Republicans to wait at least another year to implement a Florida-style election system.

The bills would have changed the deadlines for early ballot drop off, required voters to update their names on the Active Early Voting List within a specific timeframe, and allowed schools to be used as polling places.

Another would’ve banned voting centers.

In her veto messages, Hobbs repeatedly cited concerns that the bills would restrict access to voting. Democrats agreed, and routinely voted against the legislation in committees and on the House and Senate floor.

Republicans made faster election results one of their top legislative priorities after many expressed frustration with the state’s slow count of ballots following the November 2024 general election.

“Arizona is a laughingstock across the country for how long it’s taking our state to determine winners and losers in this election,” said Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, in a Nov. 8 news release days after the election.

Mesnard recently said slow election results could cause voters to lose faith in the election system.

“The length of time that it takes to get a result is not just because we’re itching to know the outcome,” he said. “It’s not that simple. It’s because the longer it takes, and the more outcomes appear to shift in the process, the more it breeds mistrust or a lack of faith in the election system.”

Mesnard introduced SB1001, which would’ve required the signature and identification of a voter with an early ballot if they dropped it off after 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. The bill also would’ve removed a voter from the Active Early Voting List if they dropped off an early ballot without identification after the deadline. Mesnard introduced similar versions of the bill in recent years, but amended it this past session in hopes of seeing it through. 

Despite the changes, Hobbs still vetoed the measure on July 1.

In her veto message, Hobbs stated that the bill could have inconvenienced voters who require family members or caregivers to assist them in delivering their ballots.

“SB1001 still presents unacceptable challenges for voters who must rely on family members or caregivers to drop off their ballot and would be unable to appear in person, effectively imposing an earlier deadline for them to complete their ballots than others, or risk removal from the Active Early Voter List,” Hobbs said.

Mesnard disagreed with the idea that the bill would’ve made it more difficult for people to vote, saying the measure aimed to disincentivize people from waiting until Election Day to drop off their ballots.

“The idea is, you’re not mailing your ballot back, which was the point, and contributing to the cause of the delay. And so, if that’s going to be the approach, then we’re going to remove you from the early voting list,” Mesnard said. “It was a pretty soft disincentive, since you can just sign right back up again.”

He was unsure if he would revive the bill next session.

“I don’t know, maybe the third time would be the charm?” he said. “But I’m not sure what I could do differently. I’ve tried two different approaches. I could give some thought to what … another approach would be, but the governor seems pretty against the idea.”

Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, expressed a desire to pursue election reforms next year, although he acknowledged nothing might happen unless a Republican governor is elected in 2026.

Petersen introduced SB1011, which was one of the first election bills to be approved by the Legislature this year.

The bill, along with its twin bill HB2703, would’ve required early ballots to be dropped off at a voting location by 7 p.m. on the Friday before an election. However, it would’ve still allowed early ballots to be delivered or mailed to a county recorder’s office by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

The legislation would’ve also called for early mail voters to confirm their address each election cycle if they lived in a county with more than 500,000 people, or every four years if they resided in a smaller county.

In addition, the bill would’ve restricted a school principal from denying a request to use their school as a polling place.

The bill passed the Legislature in February, but Hobbs rejected it because it would’ve effectively ended the Active Early Voting List, she said in her veto message.

The governor would’ve considered compromises such as implementing the Friday early ballot drop off restrictions while still protecting the early voting list and enacting other provisions such as same day registration.

In her veto message, Hobbs said, “Unfortunately, any potential compromise was rejected, leading me to believe the focus of this legislation is disenfranchising eligible voters, not delivering faster election results for Arizonans.”

Adelita Grijalva sails to victory in CD7 special primary

Key Points:
  • Adelita Grijalva wins two-thirds of initial vote count
  • Daniel Hernandez conceded race shortly after results 
  • Official tally will be days away

Adelita Grijalva beat out four other Democrats in the special primary election to replace her father in Congress, according to election results tabulated on July 15.

Grijalva was the favorite in the Congressional District 7 race since it was called after U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva passed away from cancer in March. She faced competition from former state lawmaker Daniel Hernandez and social media influencer Deja Foxx, but neither was able to match the younger Grijalva’s endorsements, fundraising or connections.

Hernandez conceded the race less than 15 minutes after results came in, with Grijalva easily winning over two-thirds of the vote. The Associated Press called the race at 8:19 p.m. for Grijalva, but official results will be finalized in the coming days.

“This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago,” Grijalva said in a statement. “We didn’t get distracted by the noise or national headlines. We kept our heads down, did the work, and delivered a message rooted not just in fighting back against a dangerous and tyrannical administration – but in fighting for something: for our democracy, for the dignity of working people, and for the values that truly define Southern Arizona – justice, equity, and opportunity for all.”

Foxx’s campaign did not release a statement regarding the results at the time of publication. 

Prominent supporters of Grijalva, like U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, celebrated her win on social media Tuesday night.

“In Adelita, Southern Arizona will again have a dedicated public servant in Congress—one who will always work to protect our state from gun violence,” Giffords said in a post on X. “Now, we must get her across the finish line in September.”

The special primary election drew statewide and national attention in the wake of Democrats’ widespread losses in 2024. It sparked questions about age in Congress and whether the moderate or progressive side of the party should lead the charge into the 2026 and 2028 elections. 

Foxx, known for campaigning on TikTok and getting her start in politics by going viral, attempted to pitch herself as the young newcomer running against an establishment career-politician. Hernandez formed his campaign around his moderate policy stances and ability to work across the aisle in the Legislature.

Ultimately, both of those messages fell flat with the voters in CD7, who seem determined to carry on Raúl Grijalva’s progressive legacy through his daughter, who brings her own fresh perspective to the seat.

Hernandez congratulated Grijalva in a post on X, but said his journey isn’t over.

“The fight doesn’t end here,” Hernandez wrote. “As a lifelong Arizonan, I’ll continue to work for the people of our state—for access to healthcare, strong public schools, and equal rights for all.”

Grijalva is expected to sail through the September 23 special general election given the district’s significant Democratic voter registration advantage. She will then have to run for the seat again in next year’s midterm elections. 

Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut Medicaid, let’s hold him accountable

Athena Salman

Last week, Rep. Juan Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program — all so that billionaires can enjoy bigger tax breaks. 

The GOP bill, which was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, will force 13.7 million people nationwide off their health care coverage. Here in Arizona, 2 million people stand to lose their health care coverage — including 186,000 people in Ciscomani’s district. 

That’s 186,000 of Ciscomani’s own constituents that he happily sent to the wolves. 

If that’s not bad enough, this law will also close 200 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide. Planned Parenthood is Arizona’s largest nonprofit reproductive health care provider. Without it, many Arizonans would have nowhere to go for health care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI treatment and testing. 

The truth is Ciscomani has betrayed hundreds of thousands of Arizonans by voting for this budget. And he knows it, too. 

That’s why he’s been refusing to meet with his outraged constituents. He knows that this wildly unpopular budget will devastate our families and communities. And it’s especially bad for pregnant women and their families. 

About 50% of births in Arizona are covered by Arizona’s Medicaid program called AHCCCS. Put bluntly, Ciscomani’s plan to cut Medicaid would result in more Arizona mothers dying preventable deaths. 

We can’t afford that in a state where maternal mortality rates quadrupled in the past two decades. 

To make matters worse, this budget will close hospitals in parts of the state where health care is already limited. Small hospitals that serve rural Arizonans — known as Critical Access Hospitals — are often the only health care provider within miles. 

In an emergency, every minute matters. With this budget now being law, these hospitals will close, and the lives of rural Arizonans will hang in the balance. 

The reality is we need Medicaid to keep our families and communities healthy and thriving. And Planned Parenthood is just as important —1 in 3 women have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. The majority of Americans see Planned Parenthood as a trusted provider. 

These programs need to be protected — not put on the chopping block. But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing. And instead of facing voters, they’ve resorted to hiding and lying.

Rep. Ciscomani doesn’t have the nerve to meet with his constituents, but he had the nerve to post on social media that the budget he voted for will “strengthen” Medicaid. He is also trying to pretend that he is a champion for protecting Medicaid — these are bold-faced lies. 

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis found that Republicans’ budget would cut Americans’ health benefits, kick them off of their health insurance, and slash payments to providers that are already struggling to stay open. 

And it’s not just Ciscomani who knows the truth. Months ago, Rep. David Schweikert, another Arizona Republican, knew that this bill was so bad for Arizonans, he called it “immoral.” But when push came to shove, neither he nor Ciscomani did anything to stop this wicked bill from becoming law. 

Ciscomani needs to be reminded that he answers to us, the people who elected him — not billionaires who only care about deepening their pockets. 

Ciscomani had the chance to protect our health care, but he ignored us in order to prioritize billionaires. 

He will face us in November 2026 when we vote him out of office.

Athena Salman is Reproductive Freedom for All director of Arizona campaigns.

This 25-year-old candidate for Congress is putting the spotlight on Gen Z

Key Points:
  1. Deja Foxx running to be the first woman of Generation Z in Congress
  2. Average age in AZ Senate is 57, while in the House it’s 51
  3. Deaths have sparked national conversation about age in Congress

When Deja Foxx talks to voters in the 7th Congressional District, she starts her pitch to them the same way nearly every time.

“If elected, I would be the youngest member of the body, the first woman of our generation, Gen Z,” she told one voter on May 16.

Foxx is 25, just old enough to run for Congress. If she succeeds in a July 15 primary for the seat in southern Arizona, she would be one of the only members of Generation Z representing the state at any level of government.

As members of Gen Z continue to come of age, they are left out of most areas of Arizona politics. Meanwhile Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials dominate the state Legislature, statewide offices and congressional seats. According to the Pew Research Center, Gen Z is the generation of people born between 1997 and 2012. Members of Gen Z are currently between 13 and 28 years old.

Those under the age of 30 running for office in the state often face an uphill battle due to opposition from party leaders, low salaries for lawmakers, the cost of campaigning and negative attacks from opponents. 

State statute requires those running for legislative and statewide offices to be at least 25 years old, so many members of Gen Z still are still too young to run for office. But some, like Foxx, will reach that age this year or next, making them eligible to run in 2026. 

“We have to do more than just say we want newer and younger leaders,” Foxx said. “We have to invest in them, and there’s an opportunity here in southern Arizona to meet that moment, to be the first referendum on 2024 and lead 2026 with a strong message to young people all across this country that their voice matters and that they have electeds in their corner.”

Age of Arizona politicians

At a time when politicians — Democrats especially — are dying in office, Foxx says the conversation around age is far overdue.

“Age is a defining factor in our political system, like it or not, it just is,” Foxx said. “This seat has opened up because somebody passed away while in office.”

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., died in March at age 77 after a battle with cancer. He was the eighth member of Congress to die in office since 2022 and the third House Democrat to pass away in 2025, according to Business Insider. 

Those deaths have sparked a larger national conversation about the need for younger representation in Congress. The rest of Arizona’s congressional delegation is relatively young, with U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both Republicans, tied for the oldest at age 66, while U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat, was the youngest at age 33. 

At the state Capitol, all of Arizona’s statewide elected officials are above the age of 50. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is by far the oldest, at 80, while Gov. Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Treasurer Kimberly Yee and Mine Inspector Paul Marsh are all in their 50s. 

In the Legislature, lawmakers have a much larger age range. Democratic Rep. Anna Abeytia is the youngest member in the House, at age 29, and Democratic Sen. Flavio Bravo claims that title in the Senate, at age 31. 

But still, based on the Pew Center’s definition of Gen Z, there isn’t a single person representing that generation in any legislative or statewide office. And the average age for legislators skews far older.

In the Senate, the average age is 57, while the House’s average age is slightly lower at 51. A few lawmakers are older than 80, including Democratic Sen. Lela Alston and Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, which pulls the average age up. 

Republicans in state government have an average age of 57, while Democrats’ average age hovers around 50. 

Hurdles for young candidates

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, is one of the Legislature’s younger members at age 32 and calls herself an “elder millennial.” She ran her first legislative campaign when she was 27 and said her age was often a hurdle she had to overcome when speaking with voters.

“When I first ran, I definitely experienced voters at the door who were taken aback by my age,” Ortiz said. “I had a lot of people say that they thought I was a high school student selling candy, and that’s why I was coming to their door.”

Ortiz said those issues did not stop when she was elected. She said she’s had to deal with pushback from her older colleagues in the Legislature since she first took office in 2023.

“I experience people that try to discredit me because of my age, and that’s something I’m used to,” Ortiz said. “I’ve had to experience that in a lot of different workplaces, and it’s challenging in this environment in the Legislature, but what has given me a lot of hope is all of the young people that have told me that they are so appreciative that I’m there at the table.”

Age can be an issue that impacts Gen Z candidates regardless of party affiliation; however, some of the struggles faced by younger candidates appear to be unique to the Democratic Party. Both Ortiz and Foxx spoke about the difficulty in getting support from the upper echelons of the state party and its leaders.

Ortiz said she has seen the state’s Democratic establishment be reluctant to hire young people as campaign managers or support their campaigns for chairmanships for local legislative districts. Foxx has seen top Democrats in Arizona — like U.S. Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly — endorse her competitor.

“When newer and younger comes around with 10 years of experience (running for) an open seat of a safer, bluer district, (electeds) put their thumb on the scale and make it even harder for somebody like me when we deserve a free, fair and exciting primary,” Foxx said.

That issue does not seem to impact young Republican candidates though. 

Ari Bradshaw, 26, ran for a House seat in Legislative District 2 in 2024, but ultimately lost to Democratic Rep. Stephanie Simacek. He said support for his campaign from the state GOP was easy to come by.

“I cannot be more grateful to the help I got from (House) Speaker (Steve) Montenegro, from (Arizona GOP Chair) Gina Swoboda,” Bradshaw said. “I remember Steve had said multiple times, ‘We need to get this guy in, he’s the future,’ and that meant so much.”

But Bradshaw said he did experience other hurdles that candidates like Ortiz and Foxx also mentioned. Both Bradshaw and Ortiz spoke about how low pay for lawmakers and busy campaign schedules create barriers to entry for Gen Z candidates. 

“I made less money in the two years I ran for office than I did in a quarter of the year that I did before,” Bradshaw said. “I own (a) business, and my own business took a big hit because I couldn’t focus on clients as much, as I was doing campaign work.”

He said he also felt like he went into his campaign a bit naive about how dirty state-level political campaigns can get. Bradshaw ran in one of the state’s swing legislative districts last year, making his race incredibly high stakes for both parties. 

“I was just so caught off guard by it, I wasn’t expecting any of that,” Bradshaw said. “And so I think that’s a hard thing, because young people go in bright eyed, thinking, ‘I can be the change I want to see.’”

The case for younger elected officials

Ortiz said she thinks it is time to have the age conversation at the state government level. Not because her older colleagues aren’t capable, but because they do not have the same experiences as younger candidates even if they share the same political views.

“There are many of us young people who feel like it is up to us to turn things around because the folks who’ve been in power for so long have not done a great job at delivering on the issues that our generation cares about most,” Ortiz said.

Foxx is hoping her campaign will help rewrite the script for Gen Z candidates who come after her, showing those currently in power that doing things the way they’ve always been done isn’t good enough anymore. 

“Some of them are wary or even a little bit frustrated that we’re able to skirt around some of their traditional gatekeeping, because we go straight to people, and we’re able to fundraise largely off of social and Substack, and are reaching voters that way,” Foxx said. “So, there are new tools that I think are a little bit outside of the reach of some of those establishment folks, and the way we’re using them is to go past having to ask for permission.”

And though Bradshaw lost his race in 2024, he said voters in LD2 can expect to see him on the ballot again next year. He hopes other Gen Z-ers also consider running for local or state office, especially if they feel like they’re struggling to make a difference.

“(Young people) feel like, ‘If I get involved, I can’t move the gears that I want to move in order to change the system,’” Bradshaw said. “What they have to understand is, you may not be able to move the gears all by yourself, but you can move them a little bit, or you can oil them up so that way a whole team can move them.”

Give voters a real choice, restore bipartisan compromise

Mark Cable

This May 1st was punctuated by protests around the country. Whether you agree with the protestors or not, we should all agree that these protests are evidence that the system is not providing a government that represents the will of the majority of the people. 

We all know in our hearts that this problem is more than just one man. If Mr. Trump were to disappear tomorrow, it would not solve our political problems. The divisiveness and the lack of accountability of government to the people would still be there. Beyond the Executive Branch, we know there is something wrong with the system when so many of our elected representatives in Congress refuse to meet with their constituents. How can we be living in a representative democracy when the representatives hide from those they are supposed to represent?” 

This situation will continue, and worsen, until we stop treating the symptoms, and start treating the underlying problem.

The problem we face is caused by our election system. As of 2022, here in Arizona, 83% of Arizona legislative districts lean so heavily toward one party that the only election of consequence is a low turnout partisan primary election. Here in Arizona, only about 40% of registered Republican voters vote in the primary, and those individuals tend to be the most extreme of the party. It is that group that decides who will be elected. The situation is similar on the Democratic side. The problem is even worse at the federal level. According to Unite America, in this past election, roughly 83% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were decided by approximately 7% of voters. 

This is why so many of our representatives are willing to hide from their constituents. Our current election system virtually guarantees that they will be reelected if they keep their base happy. It is important to realize that that base is often less than 15% of the people they are supposed to represent. They hide because they can, and they refuse to stand up for the majority of their constituency because doing so increases the likelihood of them being “primaried” in the next election.

Our current system disincentives the tools of better governance, including bipartisan discussion, compromise, and consensus building, and instead incentivizes partisanship, primary threats, hostility and negative campaigning.

The good news is that by changing election laws, we can change the incentives that govern our elected officials and make them accountable to everyone they represent. 

Voter Choice Arizona advocates a system known as Final Five Voting. This system would advance five diverse candidates to the general election. Voters would have the opportunity to rank those candidates. With real options, voters could choose a candidate they really want but then be able to select a backup choice. Voters would no longer be faced with the choice of just picking the lesser of two evils or be afraid that voting their conscience might inadvertently help the candidate they like the least. Voters would have actual choices and be able to focus more on voting for a candidate, and less about voting against their political enemies.

Reforms like this would change the incentives of the people who govern. Because they would be accountable to all of us, our elected officials would be incentivized to work together to solve actual problems, rather than sling mud at each other. Uniting people, rather than dividing them.

Voter Choice Arizona has been working relentlessly to bring about the change that we all deserve. We have a plan, and we continue to build across the state to give voters more voice, more choice, and more accountability in Arizona elections. We need your help to reach the critical mass needed to put the power back into the hands of the people. To learn more about our efforts, please visit vcaz.org today.

Mark Cable is a volunteer and executive team member for Voter Choice Arizona.

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