Katie Hobbs | Arizona Capitol Times

New law aims to curb squatting in vacant homes

Key Points:

A new law should stop squatters faster and allow property owners to get them out in about five days
Exact statistics don’t exist for the number of squatter cases per year in Arizona, but law enforcement and real estate agents say it is a problem
The new law does not affect rights and remedies under the state’s landlord and tenant act

Goldilocks won’t be squatting for long in any Arizona homes after a new law takes effect.

Sen. Wendy Rogers made the fairy tale comparison herself at a press conference on June 1 after her Senate Bill 1426 was signed into law by Gov. Katie Hobbs. The new regulations intend to make it easier for property owners to evict squatters faster.

“It’s like Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” she said. “This is when Goldilocks goes into a home, enters the bears’ home without permission when they’re out. She eats their porridge, sits in and breaks their chairs, sleeps in their beds, making her the classic intruder squatter.”

It’s what happened to D’Andrea Turner and her then-husband Keith. D’Andrea had been traveling back and forth to Michigan to take care of her elderly mother and also recovering from surgery after an aneurysm. Keith was a long-haul trucker on the road and when he came back, he discovered squatters in their home.

They tried to remove the squatters, but they kept coming back and eventually, the Turners found out their identities were stolen from documents in their home and their home had been fraudulently sold. Affidavits and forms had been notarized and submitted through Maricopa County and the sale wasn’t stopped until the squatters tried to cash the check in the Turner’s names multiple times but were unsuccessful, according to previous media reports.

Turner said the hardest thing was the identity theft and the property being defrauded, plus losing irreplaceable items in their home, such as photos of her children, a teddy bear and computers. They raised their children and lived in their home for over 12 years, she said.

“I had many tearful nights, many terrible nights because of this,” she said. “As working class people that’s putting our money into mortgages and things that we think is going to sustain us for when we’re done. We buy properties so that we can leave it for generations.”

Turner said she’s grateful to Rogers for getting the bill passed. In the Turners’ case, two people were eventually charged with identity theft, forgery and fraudulent schemes. Despite that progress, the Turners are still sorting out the mess with their insurance company.

“I feel very fortunate that someone heard me. It’s like you’re screaming at the top of a mountain and someone can hear you,” she said. “I feel very confident that the senator heard me and she understands that we, as Arizonans, will not accept this.”

A squatter is different from a trespasser. Whereas trespassers usually leave after they’re told, squatters can use tactics to make it look like they live at the property or create a false lease to try to prove they have a rental agreement.

The law requires the court to issue a writ of restitution immediately after the court signs any judgement against an unauthorized person, according to the bill language. It outlines conditions that constitute an eviction lawsuit, such as an unauthorized person unlawfully occupying the property and the property owner has directed the person to leave. Another condition is the person did not have a prior verbal or written agreement to cohabitate with the property owner at a residential property.

The new law would not apply or modify the rights and remedies available to landlords and tenants as prescribed by the Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The law will not affect current or former tenants, immediate family members or people who had a verbal or written agreement to live on the property with the owner.

The law will take effect 90 days after it was signed. This was Rogers’ third attempt to get the bill passed. The bill originally came to Rogers from a constituent who is a real estate attorney and told her it’s a prevalent problem.

“Arizona is sending a clear message. Unlawful occupation of someone else’s property will not be tolerated,” Rogers said. “Our border is secure, but we still have nefarious actors inside our country who would perpetuate this on property owners.”

The game changer this year was an early start in collaboration and most notably, the constables’ support, along with realtors, she said, and added she was pleasantly surprised by the amount of bipartisan support the bill received.

“That’s the way we should get stuff done,” she said.

Tim Beaubian, senior director of government affairs at Arizona REALTORS Association, said the bipartisan support of this bill this year shows what an impact this is going to be for the state of Arizona and that private property rights are a bedrock.

The bill passed with wide bipartisan support in both chambers. Sen. Catherine Miranda cast the lone no vote. She said she understood the need to protect homeowners, but she cited homelessness and a lack of support from the state and the city of Phoenix.

“The state isn’t doing enough to help homelessness,” she said. “I’m not willing to attack any efforts that homeless people are trying to make to survive.”

In October 2025, Hobbs announced $13.5 million in grant funding in the Arizona Promise budget to support eviction prevention, homelessness response and referral efforts across Arizona, according to a news release. At that time, it put the Hobbs Administration’s total investment in services to over $150 million.

Constable Scott Blake, who works in the Hassayampa district in northwest Maricopa County, said the new law should help people remove squatters faster.

Currently, the law says people have to go through an eviction process, starting with a five-day notice, Blake said. A court summons and complaint is required, in addition to showing the judge the “lease” and showing it’s illegitimate. After another few days of waiting, the judge can order a writ and then a constable can come and do the eviction. That whole process takes over two weeks.

“The new law shortcuts all of that, you’re going to be able to get into court and say, ok, this person’s going to have to leave and you’re going to get a writ and somebody’s going to come out there and take care of that,” he said. “I think in less than five days you’d be able to remove somebody who is a squatter and unauthorized occupant.”

It will help a small handful of people right now with the possibility of more in the future as things tighten up, he added.

Blake said another trend he has started to see more often is people squatting on vacant, rural land, which is usually owned by the state or a private property owner. Systemic issues like the increased cost of living will likely keep contributing to people looking for places to live, he added.

“I’m not sure that we’ve seen the end of financial difficult times,” he said.

The new law would require a five-day notice to vacate before going to court. If the criteria listed in the law is met, a judge may order the immediate eviction of that tenant, and it gives the property owner a legal hammer too, the spokesperson said.

There’s technically two different types of squatters: ones with an agreement to live at the property for a limited time and those who do not have an agreement with the property owner, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Justice Courts said. Both types of cases come to justices of the peace.

The second type is what the new law speaks to and is rare. If there is no written, verbal or implied tenancy agreement, the case can come to court, but a judge may dismiss it and say the court has no jurisdiction because there’s no agreement. Then it would be a trespassing issue for the police to write a citation, which is a different court process, they said.

The data on how many squatter cases happen per year in Arizona does not exist because landlords have to deliver a notice to vacate before they go to the courts. The courts don’t track what type of criminal activity or other breach might have triggered an immediate eviction and essentially, it doesn’t matter once the case reaches court, the spokesperson said.

There is a category of evictions called “immediate,” which usually involves a breach of the lease that is not fixable, such as if criminal activity took place. The landlord has to give notice of the breach and may file the court case the same day. If the tenant is found guilty in court a few days later, the judge can order the immediate eviction, which means they have to be out the day following the court appearance.

As for statistics on that type of case, landlords brought 84,805 cases to court and 406 of those were immediate evictions in 2025, but it’s likely few to none of those involved squatters, the spokesperson said.

Say hello to the ‘New’ guy: Comedian aims to shake up Arizona governor’s race

Key Points:

Fictional character New Amato enters Arizona governor’s race
Amato takes aim at real politicians like Gov. Katie Hobbs and Congressman Andy Biggs
Votes for Amato likely won’t count, but real third-party candidates could sway results

In case anyone was worried about a lack of candidates in Arizona’s gubernatorial race, a “New” satirical contender has joined the pack with an offbeat platform and the backing of a “New” party.

New Amato, a businessman based in Lake Havasu City, will join Republican Congressmen Andy Biggs, David Schweikert and No Labels Party candidate Hugh Lytle in challenging Gov. Katie Hobbs this November. Amato has three simple priorities: ending taxes for families and companies, bringing the Seven Wonders of the World to Arizona and shutting down the state’s last Sizzler steakhouse.

“I’ve just grown to love it here. I love the people, I love the climate, and the general energy here,” Amato told the Arizona Capitol Times. “I looked at sort of the problems that the state has been having and realized that some of the great qualities of Lake Havasu that I see every day, we could expand on a statewide level and I’d want to be at the center of that, making that happen.”

Amato said his day one goal will be shutting down the final Sizzler in Flagstaff. He also envisions bringing the Eiffel Tower to Phoenix and the Great Wall of China to the border between Arizona and Mexico. While Biggs supports eliminating the state’s income tax, Amato described it as a “half measure,” saying he wants to get rid of all taxes.

“The two steps we’re going to do as soon as I become governor would be to eliminate nearly all regulations, and then eliminate all taxes on businesses and homes, families, and so that’s going to spur an economic explosion within the state,” he said.

Amato is, of course, not a real candidate, which one might realize after he urges voters to cast their ballot for him in October. He is the fictional creation of comedian Tim Heidecker, known widely for producing the Adult Swim comedy sketch series Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!, who launched the Amato campaign with a stuttering YouTube video and a typo-laden website on May 27.

Heidecker’s character is part of a web series called “On Cinema,” hosted on the comedian’s own streaming platform, HEI Network.

Amato might be fictional, but that did not stop him from taking shots at his opponents — two real Arizona politicians. In his campaign launch video, Amato calls Hobbs “a joke” before accusing her of being “competent, inpo- incompetent and corrupt.”

In an interview with the Arizona Capitol Times on May 29, Amato went even further by comparing Hobbs and Biggs to barnyard animals while stuttering over or even completely butchering their names.

“I like to say, you’ve got Pigs versus Hogs,” Amato said. “In other words, Andy Piggs versus Deborah-Katie Hobbs, Katie Hoggs, I say. So you have basically the same beast, the same animal, pigs and hogs are very similar, and I am a different breed.”

Hobbs has frequently told reporters that she would welcome any candidate into the race to challenge her in November, though it’s likely that Amato was not the kind of candidate she had in mind.

In his campaign launch video, Amato notes he supports the policies of the “current Republican government candidate Andy Piggs and the woman that’s running,” though it’s unclear whether he’s referring to withdrawn Republican candidate Karrin Taylor Robson or the governor. Nevertheless, Amato argues neither have what it takes to “turn things around and take this state to the next level.”

The campaign video makes no mention of Schweikert, Biggs’ current primary opponent. That exclusion, intentional or otherwise, sums up the impact many Arizona politicos predict Schweikert will have on the governor’s race this year.

Amato also plans to create his own party, the “New Party,” which might inspire a feeling of déjà vu in anyone who has been following the Arizona Independent Party saga.

“I think it’s time for a new voice, a new party, the New Party,” Amato said in his campaign video. “As head of the New Party, I will be running for governor as a third party candidate under the New Party banner.”

Amato seemed uninterested in discussing other third party candidates in the race, like Lytle, who will appear on the No Labels Party ballot line following a lengthy court case over the party’s name earlier this spring. He told the Arizona Capitol Times that he’s been too focused on his own write-in campaign.

In all seriousness, third party candidates could play an outsized role in this year’s gubernatorial contest, a fact that both major party candidates acknowledge. In a memo sent to reporters, Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont wrote that the campaign is not resting on its laurels despite polling showing the governor slightly ahead of both Republican contenders.

“While most polling tests Hobbs versus Biggs, they will be joined on the November ballot by No Labels and Green Party candidates,” DeMont wrote. “Arizona statewide races often come down to just a few hundred or few thousand votes, so even a small percentage of votes for a third party cannot be ignored and injects a degree of uncertainty into polling.”

An early May survey conducted by Noble Predictive Insights shows third party candidates could pull up to 6 or 7% of the vote from the Republican and Democratic candidates. Lytle supporters make up most of those numbers, with only around 1% of voters saying they would vote for another third party candidate.

Political consultants agree that third party candidates are more likely to pull votes from a Democratic candidate like Hobbs, given that Republicans still have a slight voter registration advantage over both Democrats and independents in the state. Hobbs’ campaign seems acutely aware of that fact, given that attorneys with ties to the governor aided legal challenges to the candidacies of Lytle and Green Party contender Risa Lombardo.

Election officials seem to agree that it is unlikely that Amato’s fictional campaign will have a real impact on Arizona’s gubernatorial race. Amato is encouraging voters to write him in on their ballots, but according to the Secretary of State’s Office, those votes can only be counted if Amato is registered as a write-in candidate.

After seeing Amato’s video, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes took to social media to encourage voters seeking accurate information about the elections to visit arizona.vote.

“I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy does, but elections in all reality are not a laughing matter,” Fontes said.

The filing period for write-in candidates who hope to appear on the general election ballot opens June 6 and ends Sept. 4, so it’s unclear whether Amato will make a bid for an official appearance. If he does, it’s likely that any write-in votes would be disqualified considering Amato said he has only lived in “Lake Hasafoo” since January and gubernatorial candidates are required to have been Arizona residents for at least five years.

And, at the end of the day, it’s unlikely that Arizona election officials will be able to count votes cast for a fictional character.

Supporters maintain pressure for prison oversight appropriation

Key Points:

Lawmakers push funding for prison oversight office passed into law last year
Advocates cite receivership, violence, worsening conditions in state prisons
Budget negotiations could bring funding, but advocates brace to look elsewhere

Lawmakers and advocates are waiting to see whether the allegedly incoming bipartisan budget will include $1.5 million to actualize an oversight office to monitor state prisons.

So far, the line item has been absent from every budget proposal from Gov. Katie Hobbs and the Legislature.

And though the original legislation did include a provision allowing the office to rely on alternative funding sources, proponents hope the state prioritizes prison oversight, citing an ongoing line of complaints from staff, inmates and their families.

“When you are basically a ward of the state, you should be making sure that things are moving pretty fluidly inside the prison walls and not having fights breaking out, people getting murdered,” Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, said. “The issue is not going away.”

Senate Bill 1507, sponsored by Bolick last session, created the Independent Correctional Oversight Office.

It passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by the governor in July but lacked any funding from the state budget to get started.

Under the legislation, the office would be led by a director, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

The office is tasked with keeping a close eye on the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, with obligations to monitor conditions of confinement, ensure compliance with state and federal regulations, provide information to inmates, family members or department employees and man a hotline and a complaint system.

Each year the office would also have to transmit a report detailing data on complaints received and resolved, inmate deaths, suicides, assaults, drug overdoses, lockdowns, housing assignments, and information on inmate classification policies, staffing statistics and transition and reentry programs.

Staff would also have near-unfettered access to department records and facilities, though all communications with the department are deemed confidential.

Though the office was left unfunded last year, Bolick said she added in a provision in the final language allowing for the corrections oversight fund to consist of legislative funds, federal funding, private grants, gifts and contributions, fearing funding from the state would fall through.

“We got the bills through, and it got signed,” Bolick said. “But it’s on paper only. It doesn’t actually do anything.”

This session, allocating money for the office emerged as an early priority for Bolick and Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who both introduced appropriation bills to funnel $1.5 million to fund the office.

Blackman and Bolick’s bills passed their respective chambers unanimously, but the appropriation has made little legitimate headway in proposed budgets so far.

Hobbs omitted the $1.5 million from her executive budget proposal unveiled at the start of the session, but at a Joint Appropriations Committee meeting in January, budget director Ben Henderson said the governor was open to a conversation “about how to make sure there’s funding for that office.”

The Legislature’s budget, vetoed by Hobbs in early May, skipped funding the office too.

Estrella Lopez, senior state policy manager for Justice Action Network, a criminal justice group that lobbied for the oversight office’s passage, acknowledged the fiscal landscape has become more difficult this year given the limited state coffers.

She compared the corrections budget and ongoing costs accrued from lawsuits to the $1.5 million funding request.

“You can find $1.5 million when you’re talking about a $1.6 billion budget,” Lopez said. “I don’t want to say it’s change in the couch cushions. But if you look at the scale of it, kind of.”

If the office is not funded in the state budget this year, advocates remain hopeful in sourcing funds from elsewhere.

Bolick said she had spoken to a few groups and sensed some appetite for nonprofits to pool resources. Lopez added, however, that stakeholders have not been actively pursuing funds thus far.

“The fact that it hasn’t been in any of the versions so far, I’m not taking that as an indication that all parties won’t come together and fund this important issue,” Lopez said. “We do still have a hope and expectation that the state will find it in this budget, that would be the best place for it.”

At bottom, though, lawmakers and advocates stress the continued need for independent oversight.

Bolick said she continues to get emails and letters detailing issues inside the state prison system. Lopez pointed to a federal judge’s decision to order the department’s health care system under receivership.

John Fabricius, executive director of Praxis Initiative, longtime advocate for oversight and former inmate, pointed to the problems entrenched in the department.

“It is not a rehabilitative engine. It is a mess, and it is a morass that you have to navigate and survive, and it is getting exponentially worse,” Fabricius said. “We can’t kick the can down the road anymore, we’re out of road.”

And though he too hopes for funding in the budget, he voiced a commitment to getting the office running in any case.

“It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Fabricius said.

Can state election officials still exercise their free speech rights?

Key Points:

Arizona election officials may face conflict of interest concerns
Secretary Adrian Fontes endorses candidate who filed campaign finance complaint
Arizona law does not bar election officials from endorsing candidates

A campaign finance complaint filed with the Arizona Secretary of State has unwittingly provoked a perennial election question in Arizona: Can state officials carry out their election duties while also exercising their free speech rights?

To Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who has endorsed the candidate making the complaint, the answer is simple.

“I can chew gum and walk at the same time,” said Fontes, a Democrat who is backing fellow veteran Dan Toporek in a contested legislative district in north Phoenix. “I’m a voter, too, and I have a First Amendment right to express myself.”

There is no clear answer to the possible conflict of interest. Arizona law doesn’t bar endorsements or block an election official’s management and oversight of elections when they themselves are on the ballot.

The National Association of Secretaries of State had a similar assessment when looking at conflict of interest policies nationwide.

However, a recent Utah state law requires election officials to take steps to avoid potential conflicts, said John Milhofer, research director for the association. And, he noted, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who is now running for governor, has said she would formally recuse herself from actions that would affect the gubernatorial race.

While there are guidelines and codes of conduct, in Arizona and elsewhere, it often comes down to the official’s own discretion, said Tammy Patrick, chief executive officer for programs with the Election Center, which is run by the National Association of Election Officials.

“These types of questions arise and surface when we start to talk about our election infrastructure,” Patrick said.

The questions are not new.

In 2000, the issue became a national hotpoint when then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris oversaw the contentious recount of Florida’s presidential election results, and certified George W. Bush as the winner of that state’s votes. Harris also was co-chair of Bush’s campaign in Florida.

Four years ago, then-Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs also faced questions about her ability to oversee the 2022 election, given she was running for governor. Hobbs did not recuse herself and said she would follow ethical guidelines to keep her political ambitions separate from her formal duties.

She followed in the footsteps of her predecessors in the secretary’s office, who continued their work as secretary of state even while their name was on the ballot. They include Jan Brewer, who was re-elected to the state’s top election office in 2006; Ken Bennett in 2010 and Michele Reagan in 2018, who lost in the primary election that year.

Fontes said he is tending to his secretary duties in the upcoming primary and general elections as he seeks a second term.

“No secretary has ever recused for that purpose and that won’t start now,” he said.

It’s similar to what he did in 2020, when he served as Maricopa County recorder.

He was on the 2020 ballot as a candidate, seeking re-election. He lost that race and stepped down, a point Fontes’ supporters say indicates he did not use his post for his own political benefit.

Gina Swoboda, who is running for the Republican nomination for secretary of state this year, said the public doesn’t grasp the fairly limited role the secretary of state plays in elections. The secretary does not run elections; that is done by each of the 15 county recorders. The secretary has an oversight role and is required to certify election results.

“I think there’s a perception these leadership roles have more power than they do,” she said.

That said, if elected, Swoboda said she would refrain from participating in the logic and accuracy tests that are done on ballot-counting machines, arguing it’s not a good look. And she would seek legislative scrutiny of any other “significant” changes to the state’s Elections Procedures Manual that could affect the secretary of state race.

Her Republican challenger, state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, did not return requests for comment.

The focus on the secretary’s office often obscures scrutiny of conflict issues at the county and local levels, where the elected officials actually run elections.

“That can be a particular issue in rural counties, where there aren’t big staffs,” said Patrick, of the Election Center.

If the elected official running the office has a conflict, who handles the work, she asked. She cited a 2022 report from Reed College in Portland that found 34% of election offices nationwide have no full-time staff dedicated to elections.

The Election Center has suggested standards for dealing with conflict issues, encouraging election officials to create guardrails to guide situations where they are on the ballot. Recusal from decisions that directly impact their own race should be one of those guardrails, “to the extent feasible,” according to the center’s report.

Another organization that is working to reduce partisanship in elections has suggested that election officials take a cue from the judiciary when it comes to dealing with potential conflicts.

Federal law, as well as many state and local laws, require judges to recuse themselves in potential conflict situations.

“Election officials are enough like judges that recusal guidelines should at least exist for elections,” the Election Reformers Network stated in a 2024 report.

Patrick said the issue of endorsements is less clear cut than oversight of elections. Elected officials have a First Amendment right to support the candidates of their choosing, but it can create the perception of a conflict.

Fontes said his office is set up so that issues such as the campaign-finance complaint filed by the candidate he endorsed won’t even get to his desk. He had not even seen it, he said on May 15, as his staff is still reviewing it to determine if there is reasonable cause to forward it to the state attorney general for investigation.

“We’re operating under this basic understanding that if there is a political matter, I’m not involved,” Fontes said in an interview. Any decision, if needed, would fall to the assistant secretary of state, he said.

Senate solidifies National Guard leadership despite concerns over combat experience

Key Points:

Arizona Senate confirms Gov. Katie Hobbs’ pick for National Guard head
John Conley’s selection sparks debate over his lack of combat experience
Conley’s tenure as adjutant general may be limited to the governor’s term

The state Senate voted Monday to confirm Gov. Katie Hobbs’ appointee to head the Arizona National Guard.

The approval came despite objections from Sen. Wendy Rogers, a veteran, who pointed out that John Conley has no combat experience. In fact, the Flagstaff Republican said, he’s never actually commanded any troops anywhere.

Rogers did not dispute that Kerry Muehlenbeck, Conley’s predecessor, was also a lawyer, just like Conley, and also had never led combat troops.

But she said that might have been fine, not only when Ducey appointed Muehlenbeck in 2021 but last year when Hobbs tapped Conley to replace her. Now, she said, everything has changed.

“We’re at war now,” Rogers said.

“And this Arizona National Guard is not a weekend paper-shuffling, coffee drinking entity,” she said. “It is a combat unit that can be deployed to combat.”

But Rogers was unable to convince even a majority of her Republican colleagues that Conley’s background and lack of command experience disqualified him from having purview over more than 8,000 soldiers and airmen and all the aircraft and equipment at their disposal. And several of those GOP lawmakers said that, based on what they’ve seen from Conley since he was named acting adjutant general — the official title for the National Guard chief — there was no reason to deny him the job.

During a Republican caucus to discuss the governor’s pick, Rogers, who served 20 years in the Air Force as a jet pilot and retired in 1996 as a lieutenant colonel, insisted Monday that her problems with Conley were not personal.

“This is a situation of what someone’s background is, not so much that person himself,” she told her GOP colleagues.

“The National Guard needs to be led by an operator. That is someone who has operated in a capacity that’s not a support role,” Rogers said. By contrast, she said, Conley, a brigadier general, is an officer in the Judge Advocate General corps.

“A lawyer,” Rogers said. “He is not appropriate for this job.”

The lack of combat experience also bothered Sen. John Kavanagh.

The Fountain Hills Republican told the story of being a young police officer who, because of his experience before joining the force, spent his first years teaching others in the academy about first aid and other subjects. But after three years, and after passing the test to be promoted to sergeant, he said he was passed over because, as a superior said, he had no field experience.

“Unfortunately, he was right,” Kavanagh said.

And he said the same is true of why Conley should not be named to head the National Guard.

“I don’t say he has to be in combat,” Kavanagh said.

“But he’s never actually commanded a group that could go to combat,” he continued. “How could he possibly lead if he’s never done it?”

But Sen. T.J. Shope, who was on the same committee as Rogers that interviewed and screened Conley, pointed out that Conley actually has been serving in an acting capacity for nearly a year.

The Coolidge Republican said he spoke with people who are currently serving in the Guard.

“They had nothing but glowing things to say,” he said.

And Sen. David Gowan said he believes that Conley, who he met, is qualified to head the Guard. The Sierra Vista Republican spoke of an experience at the Tucson guard facilities.

“I saw the general around the soldiers there and you could see there was an air of leadership there,” Gowan said. “So I think leadership is not just on the combat field.”

Rogers, for her part, said she remained unconvinced that a 58-year-old lawyer should be commanding the Guard. She cited comments by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that “we are harkening back to a warrior ethos.”

How long Conley can keep the job, though, is unclear.

The person in that position, who also is the director of the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, serves at the pleasure of the governor. And if Hobbs loses in November, that allows whoever replaces her to choose someone else.

Sen. David Farnsworth said that was a factor when he agreed to support Conley despite any doubts about whether he was the right choice.

“I’m very optimistic that Andy Biggs will be the next governor,” said the Mesa Republican.

Judge looking for swift appointment of new state prison healthcare receiver

Key Points:

Federal judge to appoint receiver for Arizona’s prison healthcare system
Receiver to oversee care for over 25,000 state inmates
Arizona’s prison healthcare system is understaffed and underfunded

The federal judge who ordered the takeover of Arizona’s prison healthcare system earlier this year is looking to quickly appoint a receiver to oversee the care of more than 25,000 state inmates.

Having a receiver in place soon is critical, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver noted, because she wants that person to participate in negotiations between Gov. Katie Hobbs and Republican lawmakers for the next fiscal year starting on July 1.

The goal is to ensure that the new budget has enough money to bring inmate care up to minimum standards demanded by the U.S. Constitution.

Silver issued an order last week telling attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry and lawyers for the inmates who sued to interview the former Ohio corrections director and agree on whether she should get the job by the end of this month.

Silver said she wants the lawyers’ written reports on Annette Chambers-Smith by June 1 and said she’ll also interview her as part of her due diligence in picking someone for the job.

Chambers-Smith was the only person recommended to be receiver by the Department of Corrections. The inmates’ attorneys recommended two people as possible receivers, both former state corrections directors, but agreed to support Chambers-Smith.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs wants the Legislature to add $108 million to the prison healthcare budget this coming year to help it comply with Silver’s orders on staffing and healthcare.

But the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a budget earlier this month that largely ignored Hobbs’ executive budget and did not include the extra money to help comply with the judge’s order. Hobbs promptly vetoed that spending plan.

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh. R-Fountain Hills, declined to say on Friday why Republican lawmakers didn’t include new money to deal with the prison healthcare case, other than to say the state is appealing and it may be premature.

“Since the courts are involved, no,” Kavanagh said. “We’ll seek legal advice.”

He did call Silver’s February decision to appoint a receiver to oversee healthcare “a federal usurpation of state government.”

Hobbs herself issued a lengthy statement after the receiver decision, saying she “strongly disagrees” with it and arguing that it “overlooks the significant progress the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry has made in recent years.”

The case was originally filed in 2012 on behalf of Arizona inmates by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Prison Law Office and other prisoner rights groups.

It alleged grossly inadequate care that harmed and even killed inmates. The state agreed to a settlement in 2014.

But in the following years, federal judges overseeing the case ruled repeatedly that mental and physical healthcare provided to prisoners failed to live up to basic constitutional standards and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. They twice found the state in contempt and issued multi-million-dollar fines.

Five years ago, Silver finally had enough.

She threw out the settlement because of the ADCCR’s “pervasive material breaches” of the agreement. And during a 15-day trial under Silver in late 2021, attorneys for prisoners presented evidence of repeated and horrific consequences suffered due to poor or inadequate healthcare.

In a sweeping 2022 ruling, the judge said care provided by the state at prisons is “plainly, grossly inadequate” and state officials were acting “with deliberate indifference” to the substantial risk of harm to inmates.

The following year, Silver issued an injunction requiring the state to vastly improve its prisoner healthcare system. And while there have been improvements, the state still isn’t providing adequate care. Last year, attorneys sought a court takeover of the system, and Silver agreed to appoint a receiver to run the system in February.

In the 83-page order giving control of the prison healthcare system to a receiver, the judge detailed complaints about continued inadequate physical and mental healthcare at the nine prison complexes across the state.

“But now, after nearly 14 years of litigation with defendants having not gained compliance, or even a semblance of compliance with the injunction and the Constitution, this approach has not only failed completely but, if continued, would be nothing short of judicial indulgence of deeply entrenched unconstitutional conduct,” the judge wrote.

Hobbs has not denied that history but instead insisted, in a February statement, that things are getting better.

“This system was in crisis for a decade, and we’ve worked tirelessly to turn things around,” her statement said. “While progress is not achieved overnight, the improvements we’ve made in a short amount of time are undeniable.”

She said the state had made over $1 billion in new investments over the last three years to improve inmate healthcare, tripling the number of physicians and taking multiple other steps to improve the system. And the governor said Silver’s decision “imposes unrealistic demands and timelines that fail to account for the complexity of these challenges,” pointing to recruiting and hiring challenges.

“Real, lasting change takes time, and we are committed to continuing the progress we’ve made. Arizona’s corrections system is on the right path, and we will not let this decision derail the important work being done to improve outcomes for those in our care,” Hobbs said.

It’s unclear what the governor is prepared to do in budget negotiations to get new inmate healthcare funding.

Hobbs spokesman Christian Slater didn’t respond to numerous messages seeking comment on whether the governor would sign a state budget without the prison healthcare funding she sought in January.

The state filed a notice of appeal on the receiver decision, but has agreed to wait until a one is actually appointed to move ahead.

In the meantime, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments May 18 on a separate appeal of another of Silver’s orders, the one from June 2025 that set minimum staffing levels for doctors, nurses and other providers.

Although she hasn’t yet laid out in detail the receiver’s powers and responsibilities, the judge said in the May 11 order that they would be sweeping.

The most important task for whoever is ultimately appointed will be “correcting the systemic constitutional failures that have plagued defendants’ healthcare delivery for over a decade,” Silver wrote.

They include fixing chronic understaffing and the state’s failure to enforce its contract with the private company overseeing inmate care, ensuring inmates are treated by physicians instead of nurses, addressing persistent failures in system of patient referrals, data collection and reporting and ensuring the medical system has the needed funding and facilities to care for ill inmates.

“Critically, the receiver must have the powers and authorities necessary to address each of these areas,” Silver wrote.

And the judge left no doubt as to how far that extends, saying the receiver “shall be granted all powers vested by law in the Director of the ADCRR, as they relate to the administration, control, management, operation, and financing of the provision of health care services to class members.

“This authority will embrace the power to negotiate, enforce, terminate, or renegotiate contracts in accordance with the law; implement permanent policy changes; manage resource(s), participate fully in budgeting processes; and make recommendations and requests to the Court,” Silver’s order said.

Finally, the receiver will have the job of developing objectives the prison healthcare system must meet before court oversight ends.

Chambers-Smith ran the Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections from 2019 through March, when she left the director’s job and began working with Gov. Mike DeWine on criminal justice policy issues.

As corrections director, she was responsible for overseeing 28 prisons holding about 46,000 inmates. Three of the prisons were privately run.

She was also tasked with overseeing prisoner healthcare, with Ohio budgeting $375 million of the $1.5 billion prison budget for that use. And prior to being nominated as corrections director in 2019, she held other Ohio corrections posts for two decades, including overseeing prison healthcare.

Ohio faced a similar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of inmates in 2002, with the state eventually settling the case in federal court by agreeing to vastly improve its prison healthcare system.

As head of the state prison health bureau at the time, Smith-Chambers was the lead corrections official working with the plaintiffs’ lawyers to ensure changes were made, according to David Singleton, currently a professor of law at the University of the District of Columbia.

Singleton was executive director of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center, which filed the 2002 lawsuit, for 21 years and was intimately involved in ensuring the settlement agreement was carried out in full.

“She was pretty much the point person from the prison system standpoint, in terms of trying to make sure the reforms happened,” Singleton told Capitol Media Services. “It happened in a way that obviously was carrying out the settlement, making sure that incarcerated people got the healthcare they needed, but also responsive to the institution’s concerns. So a tough balancing act, but she was really terrific in that role.”

Singleton lavished praise on Smith-Chambers’ ability to juggle needed reforms with the realities of the prison system.

“I found her to be incredibly pragmatic, solutions-oriented,” he said.

“She’s one of the smartest people that I know, and not in an arrogant way,” Singleton said. “She is whip smart and is always trying to figure out … what is the evidence-based way to do something that is going to ensure that incarcerated people are treated like the human beings that they are as well as being sensitive to the needs of the state. So she walks that line very, very well.”

Arizona is spending about $380 million a year on inmate healthcare out of its $1.6 billion corrections budget for 2026 fiscal year, which ends June 30. The state has fewer prisoners than Ohio, with the latest report from March showing just over 34,000 inmates. About 25,200 are held in nine state prisons and the remaining 9,400 split among six private prisons. Private prisoners aren’t part of the current lawsuit.

Unlike Arizona, Ohio primarily uses state employees to provide care and is partnered with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center to provide surgeries and other acute care services.

Staffing reports filed with the court show Arizona is still struggling to fill positions as required by Silver.

The reports show Arizona’s prison health contractor, NaphCare, has just 14 of 34 required doctors on staff, 7.25 of 29.7 psychiatrists, 70 fewer registered nurses than the 372 it’s required to have, and just 28 of the 102 emergency medical technicians it should have. Other positions are closer to targets, but in all just three of 13 medical classifications are at or above target levels.

Corene Kendrick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who has worked on the case for more than a decade, said it’s well past time to see Arizona prisoners get the care they need. After years of failures, that means getting a receiver in place to make it happen.

She called inmate healthcare privatization, which siphons off money for profits that could be going to care, a big driver of the problem. Arizona privatized prison healthcare under a provision slipped into the 2009 state budget.

Unmet required staffing is a major reason that Silver decided to appoint a receiver who can unilaterally make changes.

“It’s done rarely, but, as (Judge Silver) said in her order in February …. she can’t just sit by and sit on her hands and watch the state of Arizona and the Department of Corrections ignore federal court orders and ignore the Constitution, and people are dying, and so she needed to act,” Kendrick said. “And so that’s where we are.”

Arizona governor announces ‘first-of-its-kind’ AI insurance review for state Medicaid program

Key Points:

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will use AI tool for prepayment claim review
Hobbs announced the tool in response to a directive from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
The governor says the state will revalidate “high-risk” Medicaid providers at CMS’ request

The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will start using an artificial intelligence tool to review payments to healthcare providers to prevent “fraud, waste and abuse,” according to Gov. Katie Hobbs.

In a letter sent to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, Hobbs said the state plans to launch what it believes is the United States’ first “AI-informed Medicaid prepayment review system.” The governor’s letter came as a response to Oz’s April 23 directive instructing all 50 states to revalidate “high-risk providers” in their Medicaid programs.

“Arizona didn’t wait for Washington to call — we’ve been building and deploying the tools to fight Medicaid fraud since I took office …” Hobbs said in a statement. “Now, we’re building on this work and launching a first-of-its-kind AI system that will catch fraud before money goes out the door.”

The tool was created by Alivia Analytics, an East Coast-based company that provides AI data analytics services to healthcare organizations and government agencies. According to Alivia’s website, Missouri’s Medicaid program used the company’s fraud, waste and abuse detection tool to conduct a retrospective audit on its claims to recover improperly used funds.

According to Hobbs’ letter, the AI tool will rank claims by their risk for fraud, waste and abuse before a payment is made to a provider. A human will review the highest-risk claims, while compliant providers will see quicker payment approval.

“This reflects Arizona’s commitment to catching problems before money goes out the door, rather than relying on post-payment recovery, which is costlier, less effective, and yields only a fraction of improper payments,” Hobbs wrote to Oz.

Delays in prepayment review for local healthcare providers became a hot topic in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, led by Sen. Carine Werner. The committee held several oversight hearings on AHCCCS’ response to the tribal sober living home fraud scheme.

Over the course of a year, the committee investigated complaints that the state’s Medicaid agency overcorrected when it attempted to crack down on fraudulent sober living home providers who exploited Native American Medicaid members to collect payments from the American Indian Health Plan. Werner argued that legitimate providers were negatively impacted by the crackdown, leading some to close clinics or stop seeing patients due to months-long prepayment review delays.

The announcement comes while Republicans in the Legislature attempt to implement multiple reforms to the state’s Medicaid program, with some vetoed by the governor earlier this session and others wrapped up in the GOP budget proposal she rejected on May 5. Lawmakers hoped to require AHCCCS to conduct additional and more frequent eligibility checks on members to prevent fraud and abuse.

Hobbs described those reforms in veto letters as “unfunded mandates” and noted that AHCCCS is already struggling to keep up with Medicaid eligibility changes and federal funding cuts made by the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The governor is also fending off attacks from Republicans hoping to unseat her in November who say she has let fraud run rampant at state agencies during her tenure. Congressman Andy Biggs, the frontrunner in the GOP primary, told reporters on May 5 that he’s seen estimates claiming the state has lost $10 billion to Medicaid fraud, though the sober living home scheme is estimated to have cost taxpayers around $2.5 billion.

As far as Oz’s demand for revalidation of high-risk providers, Hobbs said in her May 7 letter that AHCCCS will submit a revalidation strategy in the coming weeks. It will be up to the agency to audit the legitimacy of its healthcare providers and it is unclear which types of providers are considered “high risk” by CMS.

“We ask CMS to engage as a genuine partner that acknowledges the real costs of these mandates, supports Arizona in securing appropriate federal resources, understands the competing demands of H.R. 1 implementation, collaborates on waiver extensions to contain costs for our most acute members, and approaches this work in a manner that is fair to Arizona’s fiscal position,” Hobbs wrote.

Free trade with Mexico and Canada is critical for Arizona farmers, governor says

Key Points:

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs supports extending the USMCA free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada
Hobbs acknowledges the need to consider water usage for agricultural exports, including who benefits
Arizona’s water situation raises questions about growing water-intensive crops locally

Gov. Katie Hobbs says an extension of the free-trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada is critical for Arizona’s agricultural economy.

But the governor also acknowledged that there needs to be a consideration of the water used to grow those crops. And that, she said, includes not just the question of the volume of water but also who benefits.

All this came Friday, with a deadline fast approaching for a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Under its terms, all three countries have to decide this year whether to extend the agreement until 2042 or let it sunset in 2036.

All of this comes amid a continued push from the Trump administration to implement tariffs, or taxes on foreign goods, to protect domestic producers.

“Trade is very important to our economy,” the governor said.

“It is misguided to say that free trade hurts America,” she said. “So we should be focused on trade policies that continue to put America first, that continue to benefit Americans and Arizonans as well as create a strong competitive North America because that benefits all of us.”

Casa Grade dairy farmer Jim Boyle said the numbers mean a lot here.

He said in 1994, as the North American Free Trade Agreement — the predecessor to the USMCA — was being negotiated, dairy exports nationally totaled $250,000.

“We now export $4 billion,” Boyle said, a figure that includes cheese and nonfat dry milk.

Paul Brierley, director of the state Department of Agriculture, said the free trade agreement means the state is able to take advantage of its climate.

Consider Canada.

“They have snow on the ground a lot of the year,” he said, making it difficult for farmers there to produce vegetables during the winter.

“During the summer, we’ve got cantaloupes and tree nuts and dates and all the things that go up there,” Brierley said. “But then we get back from Canada a lot of processed foods, a lot of fresh and frozen pork.”

And all that, he said, benefits Arizona consumers

“We can go to the store now and get anything we want any time of the year,” he said. “Why can we do that? Because we get it from each other at the time of year that’s the right time to produce.”

Still, Hobbs is worried that, even if the administration agrees to extend the USMCA, things may not be the same. That concern arose after a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

“The indication that we got from that office was that, under a renewed USMCA, they don’t see any possibility of not having tariffs,” she said. “That’s concerning for everyone.”

Boyle agreed.

“Tariffs hurt the American farmer,” he said.

“U.S. farmers are the most productive farmers in the history of the world,” Boyle said. “We produce more food than the United States can consume.”

And that, in turn, allows U.S. farmers to feed the world.

“Tariffs, essentially, put up barriers to continuing to do that,” he said.

Hobbs, in turn, discussed how productive farmers are in Arizona.

“Our farmers are essential to feeding America,” the governor said. And she said she hopes that the Bureau of Reclamation considers those farmers when making decisions on who has to bear the burden of cutbacks in water from the Colorado River, which feeds the Yuma area farms that produce so much of the nation’s vegetable supply.

But much of Arizona agriculture is fed by groundwater. And that raises the question of whether it makes sense to grow some water-intensive crops like alfalfa in the desert.

Hobbs acknowledged there are some uses of groundwater that may not be appropriate.

The governor said that’s one reason she canceled the lease of state-owned land by Fondomonte, which was growing alfalfa to feed dairy cattle in the Middle East

But that has hardly stopped the activities of the company, which also is farming on private land. That, in turn, has led to a lawsuit by Attorney General Kris Mayes against Fondomonte, accusing it of creating a “nuisance” because of the amount of groundwater it is pumping.

The case is still pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Hobbs, however, said she doesn’t see a need for the state to dictate to farmers what they should grow.

“We’ve done a lot in Arizona,” she said. “Our farmers have led the charge in innovating in water conservation practices.”

But there’s a related question of whether the state’s water situation should mean that Arizona, rather than growing certain crops locally, should depend on getting them from somewhere else. Brierley said that’s not up to the state to decide.

“I think economics dictates that,” he said.

“The farmers are smart business people and they have their input costs, they know their production costs, they know their markets,” Brierley said.

And if there are limits to water?

“Then I’d say, OK, there’s limits to water,” he said. “But let the farmers decide how can that most productively be used.”

More to the point, Brierley said that the economics support the use of water here.

“There was a study done about how much (Colorado River) water it takes to do $1,000 worth of agricultural output,” he said.

“In Arizona, it takes 1.2 acre feet,” Brierley said, about 400,000 gallons, approximately enough to provide water to about four typical homes in Arizona. By contrast, he said, in the Upper Basin states it takes 7.2 acre feet.

Nor does Brierley believe that allowing companies to grow alfalfa here with Arizona groundwater to feed cattle elsewhere amounts to subsidizing other states and other countries.

“I don’t really see it that way,” he said.

“It’s trade,” Brierley continued. “They’re finding the best market for the product that they’re producing.”

Anyway, he said, this isn’t a one-way outflow.

“We bring in a lot of stuff,” Brierley said. “That’s bringing in things that are produced with water somewhere else.”

And the director said that, in general, the government should stay out of those decisions.

“I’m a free market guy,” he said. “The free market usually tends to weed out things that don’t make sense.”

That free market has produced results for Arizona, according to Farmers for Free Trade, a national organization which says it informs the public of the benefits of expanded opportunities for American farmers.

According to a fact sheet, Arizona exported $1.1 billion in agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada in 2025. That is led by $461 million in vegetables and melons, and $171 million in fruits and tree nuts.

That, however, is a two-way street. Data prepared by the Arizona Commerce Authority for 2024 — the most recent year available — shows Arizona imported nearly $2.1 billion in melons and vegetables, and $487 million in fruits and tree nuts.

Brierley said that just goes to show the seasonal nature of agriculture, where Arizona can export things like melons when they are in season here and then import them when it makes more sense to grow them elsewhere.

Hobbs: Border Czar’s threat to flood sanctuary cities could put Arizona at risk

Key Points:

Gov. Katie Hobbs fears border czar Tom Homan’s threat to flood sanctuary cities with federal agents could lead to problems in Arizona
Homan criticized “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with ICE, vowing to deploy more agents in those areas
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing Homeland Security over its planned migrant detention facility

Gov. Katie Hobbs said she believes border czar Tom Homan’s threat to “flood” the streets of “sanctuary cities” with federal agents could lead to the same kinds of problems in Arizona that left two people dead in Minneapolis.

Homan, in Arizona this past week, lashed out at what he called “sanctuary cities” who have refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their efforts to deport people who the government says entered this country illegally.

“You will see more agents in your neighborhoods, because you forced us into this position,” he told those attending the Border Security Expo.’

Hobbs said she does not believe that there are actually sanctuary cities in Arizona, something her press aide defines as those who actively interfere with federal enforcement of immigration law in violation of state laws.

Still, she conceded that Homan is taking a broad approach, one that may not have room for the nuance of particular cities and counties within states not actively cooperating with ICE. And it is these communities who could find themselves with new deployments of immigration agents.

And, that, Hobbs told Capitol Media Services, concerns her.

“What I hope this doesn’t signal is a return to the kind of enforcement practices that ended up getting two people in Minnesota killed because they were more focused on indiscriminately rounding people up and not on keeping us safe,” she said. “Because those kinds of tactics, they undermine the safety of the communities and law enforcement.”

Homan’s comments come the same week that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes essentially gave the green light to city councils and the board of supervisors to adopt policies that specifically bar cooperation with ICE, particularly if they are involved in the non-criminal roundup of those without documents.

Mayes, in a formal legal opinion, acknowledged there are provisions in both state and federal law that forbid local communities from actively interfering with immigration enforcement efforts.

But Mayes, in an extensive analysis of the laws, said there is nothing that actually requires local governments to help in those roundups. In fact, cities and counties can even make their buildings off limits to civil immigration enforcement and bar ICE agents from using city property, including parking lots, as staging areas, she said.

What it ultimately all boils down to, Mayes said, is the U.S. Constitution.

“Federal government cannot require state cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment,” she said. And the attorney general bristled at the idea that the border czar would threaten communities that are acting within what she believes to be their lawful authority.

“Arizona isn’t going to be intimidated by threats from Homan,” Mayes told Capitol Media Services. “Pima County and the city of Phoenix have enacted lawful measures that reflect the views of their communities.”

Hobbs, for her part, said it’s not up for her to decide when immigration efforts go beyond the reasonable.

“I think that’s for the courts to decide,” she said. “And I hope it doesn’t get there.”

Hobbs said, though, that one way to avoid that confrontation between federal and local authorities is cooperation and coordination.

“I’ll just go to the Surprise warehouse facility as an example,” the governor said.

There, ICE and Homeland Security simply announced that it had purchased a vacant 418,400-square-foot industrial warehouse to house up to 1,500 people detained on immigration violations.

City officials pronounced themselves unable to do anything about it because they have no authority over zoning or land use of federal facilities.

Mayes is trying a different tactic, filing suit in federal court. She contends that Homeland Security did not comply with various immigration and environmental laws.

That case is still pending, though the plans for the warehouse conversion appear to have stalled, at least temporarily.

Hobbs said it should not have had to come to this kind of confrontation.

“When the federal government comes in and they just make this decision and don’t work to gain the support of the community or even talk to the community about the impact that will have, that undermines safety all across the board,” she said.

That also applies to the possibility of some Arizona communities flooded, to use Homan’s term, with ICE agents, the governor said.

“They should be looking at ways that they can work with communities, whether it’s on how they’re going to house migrants or how they’re going to go in and round them up,” she said. “And the more they can do to cooperate and not have cities or jurisdictions feel like they’re just coming in and just taking over, that’s better for everybody.”

And that, said Hobbs, includes local communities — and the peace officers that serve them.

“Our law enforcement are doing everything they can to keep our communities safe,” she said. “And they don’t need other law enforcement coming in from the outside undermining that.”

Mayes has her own fears of what might happen if Homan orders federal agents into the state based on his view that cities and counties are not cooperating.

“Arizonans across the state do not want to see the disastrous policies implemented by ICE in cities like Minneapolis that do nothing to ensure public safety and in fact endanger everyone,” she said.

The governor expressed similar concerns when asked if she fears that having federal agents patrolling streets in Arizona would interfere with local law enforcement.

“Absolutely,” she said. “I don’t think anyone wants to see that here.”

Maren Mahoney: Creating a more resilient Arizona

Maren Mahoney is the director of Gov. Katie Hobbs’ Office of Resiliency, a climate-focused reimagining of the state’s energy office. Since taking the helm in 2023, Mahoney has guided the state’s first extreme heat preparedness plan and its first state energy plan in over a decade, while also demonstrating her own resilience in face of personal struggles.

Questions and answers have been lightly edited for style and clarity.

Can you tell me a bit about your career trajectory?

I went to Arizona State University. That’s where I started my bachelor’s degree. And at that time I had an opportunity to spend one of my semesters at the Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. That was a really pivotal experience for me. I got to really know the desert, I got to love the desert and see the beauty in it, the fragility, but also the hardiness and the resilience of it. While I was there, I also got to do a lot of camping, which was not something that I had grown up doing. I grew up on the East Coast. Then I went to law school, (and) I practiced law in New York for a while, and then I wanted to go back to school, because I really felt this pull toward environmental work. I found out about this school that was just getting started at ASU, so I went back there and I got my master’s degree in sustainability. After that, I got to work at ASU for a few more years, developing and managing an energy policy think tank. I worked under our now-Attorney General (Kris Mayes), and I learned a lot about regulation (and) about energy policy in different states. I had a few other positions through the years, one of which was as a policy adviser at the Corporation Commission. All of those tools and all those experiences have really helped me in this position.

What has it been like building this office from the ground up?

Under Governor (Jan) Brewer, the State Energy Office was thriving. I actually had the opportunity, when I worked at ASU, to help with the energy plan under the then-director Lisa Brugg. Under the previous administration, the Energy Office got put into the Department of Administration and did a lot of capital improvement projects, but not policy or programs. When Governor Hobbs got into office and announced that she was standing up the Office of Resiliency, I was very excited. I said, “I’ll throw my hat in the ring, what the heck?” And I am just grateful every day that I get to be part of this administration and that I get to be a part of this really, really cool Office of Resiliency. We are the State Energy Office, but we also do broader things. The policy advisers for water and transportation and land and energy sit in my office as well. All of those policy areas are intertwined, and I think it makes our office that much more impactful when we work together — and we work together quite well. When I first came into this position, that was when the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act were in full (force), and there was a lot of funding for state energy offices. This was an opportunity for us to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for Arizonans to make their lives better, to improve our energy grid, to increase our energy security. Being able to get into this position at that time was also a really historic opportunity that we knew we had a very short period of time to take advantage of, and I think we did a really good job of making sure we made the most of it.

How have recent changes in federal funding impacted how your office operates?

The change in administration had a significant impact on our operations. In years past, there would be a little bit more of a continuity of operations, but because this administration and the previous one had such divergent visions and priorities, it definitely made it a bit of a challenge for us to make that pivot. In the initial six to eight weeks of this federal administration, they froze our funds. So not only was I not sure how we were going to pay my staff, some of whom I had just hired on, but also we had some program administration that we were doing. We were starting to really build out the networks of stakeholders to ensure long-term success, and unfortunately we had to put a pause on some of those grant programs, which set us back a little bit. But I also think that we handled it as prudently and responsibly as we knew we needed to, because of the uncertainty. Ultimately, several of (those programs) restarted, and we have been able to pick up that momentum and push it forward and continue and building upon the earlier successes, specifically with Efficiency Arizona. I’m just very glad that we were able to continue that program in particular, because it’s making a marked improvement in people’s lives.

What has been your biggest accomplishment and challenge in this role?

So the summer of 2023 was the hottest summer on record in the state. We had just gotten into the groove a little bit, I was still in the middle of hiring, we were still trying to get a lot of those federal funds for Arizonans. That first summer, the governor signed an emergency declaration to unlock additional funding for that emergency response, and then directed me to lead interagency planning so that we could have a more coordinated, focused state response. I worked with various state agencies (and) we also brought in stakeholders, the organizations who had already been out there on the ground doing a lot of the emergency response and a lot of the preparation. We had a very short period of time to get that plan completed. Two months before the plan was due, my husband had a stroke. He is fine now, he’s doing great. That was a very scary time for me. It felt very precarious. I was only able to meet that deliverable because of the people in this office, because of the governor, because of all of the people who have been working on this issue. Everyone was incredibly supportive, and that is a core part of resilience, because nobody can really do things alone. The fact that we were able to deliver (the Extreme Heat Preparedness Plan) that has been impactful, that has actually been effective — I think that is one of the biggest accomplishments.

What helps you stay grounded in a difficult role like this one?

I’m a parent. I have two kids who are in elementary school, and they keep me very grounded. I think about the history that we are all living through, or that we all have in our past. Our ancestors went through a lot of challenges, but our people have also been incredibly resilient and have made amazing advancements. I think we’re all also looking at the kids who are coming up and how do we make their lives better? The decisions we make today are going to determine how good their lives are. So that’s something that keeps me grounded and keeps me going.

What do you wish people knew about energy and climate issues, especially in an era of climate despair?

First of all, climate and energy are both things that impact all of our lives every day. I wish people knew more about the specifics of those issues and how their lives are impacted. I also want people to think about what they can do, because there’s a lot we can all do. It’s easy to get into a despairing state of mind, but there’s also a lot of things to be hopeful for that are happening. And there’s a lot of people working on these issues right now, really smart, really dedicated people. So I see hope in the people, and I see hope in the successes that we’ve already achieved.

Housing Department nominee narrowly clears Senate committee

Key Points:

Ruby Dhillon-Williams was narrowly approved by Senate DINO
Republicans raised concern over past financial mismanagement at ADOH
Dhillon-Williams’ nomination will go before full Senate for final vote

The Senate Director Nominations Committee (DINO) returned this week after a nearly two month-long hiatus, narrowly approving Gov. Katie Hobbs’ second nominee to lead the Department of Housing.

Three of the committee’s five members voted to recommend the confirmation of Ruby Dhillon-Williams, who has been serving as interim director at ADOH since March 2025. It is a small win for an agency that struggled through intense legislative scrutiny in 2025 following its 2024 sunset review audit. ADOH has been without a Senate-confirmed leader since 2023.

Dhillon-Williams came to ADOH in 2020 after several years working in affordable housing development in the private sector. In addition to having a brief stint as a program manager at the department between 2010 to 2012, Dhillon-Williams started at the department as an assistant deputy director before becoming deputy director under Senate-rejected director Joan Serviss.

Dhillon-Williams’ confirmation hearing was not unlike those of the nominees who came before her. Two Republicans voted against the confirmation after nearly two hours of intense questioning regarding her opinions on the homelessness crisis and the effectiveness of government-funded affordable housing projects.

DINO Committee Chair Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, and Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said they came to the April 20 confirmation hearing with the intention of voting in favor of Dhillon-Williams’ nomination, but changed their minds after hearing her answers.

Kavanagh accused Dhillon-Williams of being “evasive,” and Hoffman said she did not provide good enough answers about her attempts to improve financial processes during her time as deputy director. A 2024 auditor general report found two instances of financial mismanagement within ADOH: the approval of $8.1 million in unsupported expenses for grantees and the inadvertent payment of $2 million to fraudsters posing as a nonprofit housing organization.

Dhillon-Williams assured the committee that ADOH has rewritten its financial protocols and wire transfer procedures in the wake of those findings, but Hoffman insisted she should have identified the problems before they occurred since she oversaw the finance division in her role as deputy director.

“There is nothing more indicative of future performance than past performance,” Hoffman told reporters after the hearing. “As I made clear, it was the Legislature and the Office of the Auditor General which identified the gaps in the process. Had the Legislature not intervened through the sunset review process as it did, we have no assurances that the Department of Housing would have made any changes.”

Hoffman also said she seemed to have a “lack of knowledge” on department information after she was unable to give him an exact number for the average cost per unit for the 10,000 affordable housing units ADOH created using the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, known as LIHTC.

“LIHTC solutions have not made housing more affordable,” Hoffman told Dhillon-Williams during the hearing. “They’ve picked winners and losers, and some people have gotten the benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars, in aggregate, of government subsidies.That hasn’t actually done anything to help move the needle in terms of affordability.”

Kavanagh asked Dhillon-Williams to opine on the housing-first versus treatment-first debate in reducing the state’s homeless population, though he referred to it as “housing-first versus cure-first.” The debate surrounds whether individuals experiencing homelessness should first be required to undergo mental health or substance abuse treatment before being allowed to rent an affordable housing unit.

“I believe that it’s really important to evaluate each individual and find the best intervention that helps,” Dhillon-Williams told Kavanagh. “I don’t believe there’s a silver bullet or magic pill that will make sure an individual can move through the housing continuum successfully without evaluating the needs of that individual.”

Kavanagh was not satisfied with that answer and continued pressing her until he felt she answered the question correctly.

“Okay, that’s cure-first,” Kavanagh said after one of Dhillon-Williams’ responses. “A little tough getting that out, I know it can be difficult.”

Sen Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, voted in favor of Dhillon-Williams’ nomination and called out her Republican colleagues for spreading “misinformation” about LIHTC and affordable housing.

“Nobody is going around giving away free apartments to anyone right now, and anyone who thinks that has not had a conversation with those who work in this space and know just how challenging it is for people who are looking for housing,” Ortiz said while explaining her vote. “… and anyone who thinks that LIHTC isn’t making a difference has never talked to a veteran who has been on the waitlist for low-income housing for a year or more, who has been told that they finally have keys to their own place.”

Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, ultimately voted alongside Ortiz and Sen. Flavio Bravo, D-Phoenix, to advance Dhillon-Williams’ nomination out of the committee. Notably, Hoffman commended Dhillon-Williams for her professionalism and her relationships within the regulated housing industry, a departure from his typically adversarial interactions with Hobbs’ nominees.

“To your credit, I think you are a lovely person,” Hoffman told Dhillon-Williams before voting against her nomination. “I think that you certainly have built incredible relationships and I’m sure you know this industry incredibly well. None of my commentary should detract from those things.”

Dhillon-Williams’ nomination will need to clear the full Senate before she is officially confirmed, which likely won’t occur for another week since the Senate is adjourned until April 27.

“At this point I anticipate being a ‘no’ on the floor and I anticipate sharing my great concerns with members of the majority,” Hoffman told reporters after the hearing. “The ball is in their court, they now have to work members to see if they can get (Dhillon-Williams) across the finish line.”

Other nominees, like Department of Environmental Quality Director Karen Peters and Department of Agriculture Paul Brierley, have been confirmed by the full Senate without Hoffman’s support, making Dhillon-Williams’ confirmation unclear but not out of the realm of possibility.

‘Independent’ candidate for governor survives legal challenges

Key Points:

No Labels candidate Hugh Lytle survives legal challenge, secures spot on ballot
Litigation over signatures and petition circulators, incorrect address fail
Lytle must now make it through primary to face off against Hobbs and a GOP candidate for governor

Hugh Lytle has survived several legal challenges to his candidacy and his party’s name, meaning Arizonans may soon have a chance to vote for an independent candidate for governor.

Lytle, a health care executive who entered the race in January, is running as a No Labels party — formerly the Arizona Independent Party — candidate, and said he’s ready to focus on the road ahead now that he will officially appear on the ballot.

“We feel like common sense prevailed,” Lytle said of the legal challenges to his candidacy. “We’ve had to take a lot of daggers to get here, and we’re finally here. So now I’m ready to get going and compete.”

Lytle faced two challenges to his candidacy, with one headed to the Arizona Supreme Court on appeal.

One lawsuit asserts Lytle’s decision to put down a business address on his petition sheets, as opposed to his actual residential address, was fatal to his candidacy. Another sought to strike him from the ballot over failure to secure enough signatures.

Lytle faced a claim from elector Craig Beckman, represented by Austin Yost and Bo Dul of Coppersmith Brockelman, a law firm with past work for Gov. Katie Hobbs.

State law requires candidates to put down their actual residence address. Alternatively, if a person does not have an actual address, they can provide a description and post office address. And if a candidates’ address is protected under state law, they can include a post office box or private mailbox address.

Yost argued Lytle failed to comply with state law by listing his business address.

In arguments on April 13, Yost argued that by doing so, Lytle deprived voters of information, and, if Judge Michael Mandell let the address switch slide, it would “eviscerate the framework the legislature has created.”

“He has a $7 million Scottsdale mansion, and he tried to hide that from voters,” Yost said. “Our position is that he was misleading electors by doing that and by verifying under penalty of perjury that that information was accurate when it wasn’t.”

Mandell asked if it would matter if he had a $300,000 house instead.

Yost said no, but added that the information still mattered to the voters and the Legislature.

“A candidate for statewide office could pluck any Arizona address out of the air and place that on their nomination paper and nomination petition sheets,” Yost said. “That cannot be the law because it would turn these requirements into a dead letter.”

Andrew Pappas, representing Lytle, stressed the address he used had been his private mailbox for 12 years, and he argued the Legislature truly aimed to ensure a candidate lives in the jurisdiction they seek to represent.

“Mr. Lytle, undisputedly, has resided in Arizona for 29 years. He is seeking statewide office. He has lived in Scottsdale throughout the entire relevant period,” Pappas said.

Mandell determined that, although Lytle should have included his residential address, he did not substantially mislead voters.

“No evidence in the record suggests that signers were confused about who was seeking nomination or about whether he had met the residency requirements for Governor,” Mandell wrote.

The case is now heading to the Arizona Supreme Court for final say. Yost and Dul, on behalf of Beckman, filed a notice of appeal on April 16.

Teri Hourihan, Lytle’s gubernatorial primary opponent, also sued, claiming 4,748 of the 6,013 signatures he submitted failed given invalid signatures and the use of circulators with past felony convictions.

But at an evidentiary hearing, Hourihan could not prove circulators alleged to be felons had any criminal record severe enough to discount the signatures collected.

She primarily relied on TruthFinder, an online database of public records, to support her allegations, but Hourihan could not prove arrest or criminal charges resulting in felony conviction.

“Lots of people are arrested for many different things,” Mandell said. “It doesn’t mean they were convicted of a felony.”

James Smith, attorney for Lytle, declined to put up a defense, claiming Hourihan had failed to meet her burden.

“My client has spent an incredible amount of money to chase down ghosts,” Smith said.

In addition to the legal challenges to Lytle’s candidacy, the Arizona Republican and Democratic Parties successfully sued to force his party, the Arizona Independent Party, to change its name back to the No Labels Party. Lytle maintains that the party should be able to call itself whatever it wants, but that the name change kerfuffle won’t negatively impact his candidacy.

“My candidacy is not defined by a label or party name, it’s ironically, No Labels,” Lytle said.

In his first campaign finance report of his candidacy, Lytle reported over $36,000 in individual contributions. He also contributed $1 million of his own funds to the campaign.

“I’ve got a lot of interest and a lot of support in the community, but … I’m not someone who feels right asking people for contributions if I’m not officially on the ballot,” Lytle said of his quarter one fundraising numbers.

Hourihan, meanwhile, is close to $6,000 in debt. In the first quarter, she raised about $17,772, though $17,500 came from her own pocket. She spent $26,105.

For comparison, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs brought in over $2 million in donations in quarter one. Congressman Andy Biggs, who is widely-viewed as the frontrunner in the Republican primary for governor, raised around $855,000 during the first few months of the year.

Lytle and Hourihan will face off in the No Labels primary on July 21. The winner will take on Hobbs and the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary.

“This is the way it should be,” Lytle said. “We should be competitive and not have parties blocking people out and doing maneuvers and using courts and so forth to discourage what is an already big task and hard thing to step in and lead and do. So I mean, I look forward to that challenge.”

Key Points:

A new law should stop squatters faster and allow property owners to get them out in about five days

Exact statistics don’t exist for the number of squatter cases per year in Arizona, but law enforcement and real estate agents say it is a problem

The new law does not affect rights and remedies under the state’s landlord and tenant act

Key Points:

Fictional character New Amato enters Arizona governor’s race

Amato takes aim at real politicians like Gov. Katie Hobbs and Congressman Andy Biggs

Votes for Amato likely won’t count, but real third-party candidates could sway results

Key Points:

Lawmakers push funding for prison oversight office passed into law last year

Advocates cite receivership, violence, worsening conditions in state prisons

Budget negotiations could bring funding, but advocates brace to look elsewhere

Key Points:

Arizona election officials may face conflict of interest concerns

Secretary Adrian Fontes endorses candidate who filed campaign finance complaint

Arizona law does not bar election officials from endorsing candidates

Key Points:

Arizona Senate confirms Gov. Katie Hobbs’ pick for National Guard head

John Conley’s selection sparks debate over his lack of combat experience

Conley’s tenure as adjutant general may be limited to the governor’s term

Key Points:

Federal judge to appoint receiver for Arizona’s prison healthcare system

Receiver to oversee care for over 25,000 state inmates

Arizona’s prison healthcare system is understaffed and underfunded

Key Points:

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will use AI tool for prepayment claim review

Hobbs announced the tool in response to a directive from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The governor says the state will revalidate “high-risk” Medicaid providers at CMS’ request

Key Points:

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs supports extending the USMCA free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada

Hobbs acknowledges the need to consider water usage for agricultural exports, including who benefits

Arizona’s water situation raises questions about growing water-intensive crops locally

Key Points:

Gov. Katie Hobbs fears border czar Tom Homan’s threat to flood sanctuary cities with federal agents could lead to problems in Arizona

Homan criticized “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with ICE, vowing to deploy more agents in those areas

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing Homeland Security over its planned migrant detention facility

Key Points:

Ruby Dhillon-Williams was narrowly approved by Senate DINO

Republicans raised concern over past financial mismanagement at ADOH

Dhillon-Williams’ nomination will go before full Senate for final vote

Key Points:

No Labels candidate Hugh Lytle survives legal challenge, secures spot on ballot

Litigation over signatures and petition circulators, incorrect address fail

Lytle must now make it through primary to face off against Hobbs and a GOP candidate for governor