Katie Hobbs | Arizona Capitol Times

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.”

Arizona lawmakers propose 5 different ways to raise legislator pay

Key Points:

Lawmakers have introduced a variety of proposals to raise legislator pay
Many say the current $24,000 salary, unchanged since 1998, is insufficient
Voters could decide on a raise via ballot measure come Election Day

Katie Hobbs says when she was a state senator a decade ago she was making $24,000 a year.

“It wasn’t enough,” she said in a recent message to followers while asking for money for her reelection campaign.

But Hobbs, now governor and making $95,000 a year, is showing far less sympathy toward lawmakers who are still being paid the same $24,000.

“It’s certainly not sustainable to live on $24,000 a year,” she said in response to a question from Capitol Media Services. “But it is intended to be a part-time salary,” with sessions lasting — at least according to legislative rules — just four months a year, though that hasn’t happened in years.

Still, Hobbs acknowledged that for many lawmakers it ends up “being more of a full-time job,” with other legislative obligations through the rest of the year making it difficult, if not impossible, to convince another employer to allow them to be gone that much.

But don’t look for the governor to champion any of the various efforts being proposed this year to ask voters — who under the Arizona Constitution now have the final say on salaries — for more money. And the reason is strictly political.

“I think if they want Arizonans to pay them more, they need to show up, they need to present their budget, they need to work with me to get a 123 (education fund extension) passed so we can fund public schools,” Hobbs said. “That way they can make the case for voters to give them more.”

The Republicans who control both the House and the Senate, for their part, contend that the Democratic governor is the obstruction.

They say her $17.8 billion budget proposal is based on unrealistic revenue predictions, like getting $760 million in reimbursement from the federal government for money spent on border security. And then there are proposals with no realistic chance of support in the GOP legislature like putting income caps on families who want vouchers of taxpayer funds to send their children to private and parochial schools or home school them in an effort to save $80 million.

And then there’s the fact that it was Hobbs who walked away from budget negotiations.

But none of that is keeping lawmakers — from both parties — from proposing various ways to convince voters to approve plans that would raise their salaries, in some cases by quite a lot.

The current constitutional language says a special commission is supposed to meet regularly and make recommendations on legislative salaries. But anything the panel proposes has to be ratified at the ballot.

Voters approved the last raise in 1998, taking the pay from $15,000 to the current $24,000.

Since then, there have been several attempts to boost the pay, with offers at $30,000, $35,000 and $36,000. All were rejected. And the commission hasn’t met in years because state officials — including the governor — have failed to appoint new members.

Each of the five proposals would ask voters to scrap that system. And, each of them, upon approval, eliminates the need for lawmakers to get their approval for future pay hikes.

Sen. Shawnna Bolick crafted one rather complex proposal to send to voters.

It would set the salaries of state senators at 30% of what members of Congress are paid — currently $174,000 — with state representatives getting half of what senators get.

But there’s more.

Her SCR 1050 would give senators four-year terms, leaving representatives at two. It would prohibit lawmakers from leaving office to take a job in any position created while they were in office, or for four years after that. It would remove drunk and reckless driving from the list of offenses for which lawmakers cannot be arrested during session.

And legislative candidates would have to list on the ballot their education level, any vocational training, professional licenses, whether they served in the military and were honorably discharged, and whether they voted in the last three general elections.

Her proposal never got a hearing.

Phoenix Rep. Stacey Travers proposed setting the salary at $35,000, with automatic cost-of-living increases after that, given voter approval.

To sweeten the deal for voters, her HCR 2002 sought to limit legislative tenure to no more than eight years in the Senate and eight years in the House. There are current eight-year limits — but no prohibition against lawmakers going back and forth between the chambers forever.

Her bill, too, never got a hearing.

The same fate befell HCR 2025 by Tucson Democratic Rep. Chris Mathis, who simply wanted to ask voters to give up their right to ratify legislative salaries and leave it to lawmakers themselves.

Currently, two measures are advancing.

One is a proposal by Sen. John Kavanagh to change the Arizona Constitution to replace the requirement for voter approval of pay hike proposals with automatic inflation indexing.

But what SCR 1020 does not make absolutely clear is that this indexing, if approved in November, would not be prospective only. Instead, it would require a computation going back to that last pay raise in 1998.

The Fountain Hills Republican said that approach is appropriate.

He said that, in approving the $24,000 salary at that time, voters decided that was appropriate compensation. Kavanagh said all this does is respect the will of the voters that $24,000 — in 1998 dollars — is appropriate compensation.

That, however, still leaves the fact that $24,000 in 1998 dollars translates out to about $48,000 now. And that could prove too much of a one-time jump for some voters.

The other measure also awaiting further legislative action is SCR 1012.

Sponsored by Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, it would replace the current commission — the one that hasn’t met in years because of a lack of appointments — with a different panel chaired by the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and made up of members chosen by Democratic and Republican legislative leaders.

They would recommend an appropriate salary for all state elected officials, from the governor on down — but not for legislators. And their recommendations would become law unless amended or rejected by the Legislature.

And legislative salaries? The bill would automatically set the governor’s pay at 60% of whatever the governor makes — a provision that could encourage lawmakers to accept the panel’s recommendation, as it would affect their own pay, with the added political advantage of not actually having to publicly vote for their own pay.

Right now the governor makes $95,000. So, if nothing else changed, that would boost legislative pay to $57,000.

No other state pays its governor so little. That potentially could create pressure on the commission — if SCR 1012 goes on the ballot and is adopted — to boost the salary and, by extension, the legislative pay tied to it.

But Hobbs, after questioning whether lawmakers deserve more money, sidestepped the question of what she considers a proper salary for the governor of Arizona.

“It’s not up to me to decide,” she said.

“I talk to Arizonans every day who are struggling,” the governor said. “And they make a lot less than I do as governor.”

Hobbs, however, said she won’t be making the same promise as gubernatorial hopeful Hugh Lytle who is hoping to secure the No Labels nomination for governor. He has promised that, if elected, he would donate his entire salary to a qualified charity.

“I cannot afford to do that because I am not a billionaire,” Hobbs said.

A campaign spokesman for Lytle said he is not a billionaire but merely a multi-millionaire.

Arizona sees highest reduction in food stamp recipients after HR 1, study finds

Key Points:

Arizona sees largest food stamp drop nationwide with 32% decline
HR 1 law and requirements cause 2.5 million nationwide food stamp reduction
Arizona’s outdated technology and new system problems contribute to delays

A higher percentage of Arizonans have been knocked off food stamps since Congress approved HR 1 than any other state in the nation, according to a new study.

The report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dropped by 2.5 million nationwide since the federal law and its new requirements were enacted in July and December. That translates to about 6% according to figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

But that same USDA data shows a 32% drop in Arizona in the program that provides benefits averaging $312 per month for all households and $520 for households with children.

And it may be even more dire: The study says more recent figures from the state’s Department of Economic Security show a 47% decrease, a reduction of more than 400,000, including 180,000 children — leaving fewer than 490,000 recipients as of February.

Less clear is the “why” behind all of that.

Gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater said some of it is due to the requirements of HR 1. Dubbed the “Big Beautiful Bill” by President Trump, it contained a number of changes to the SNAP program, including expanding work requirements to cover able-bodied single adults up to age 65.

It also included shifting more of the costs of administering the program to states.

But that’s not all. It also says that states that do not bring their error rates down below that 6% mark will have to pick up anywhere from 15% to 100% of the actual cost of benefits, which until now have been fully paid by Washington.

In the 2023-2024 budget year, Arizona had an 8.8% error rate. But for the last fiscal year it was projected to be 10.4%.

A report by the state Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting — an arm of Gov. Katie Hobbs — pointed out that it is still below the national average of 10.9%. But even then, the report said that if the error rate remains at 8.8%, the state could have to cover $195.4 million in the 2027-2028 fiscal year.

And if the error rate hits 10%, that figure could reach nearly $300 million.

None of these penalties are unique to Arizona.

But Slater said what happened here — and at least part of the reason for the sharp decline in recipients — is complicated by two things.

One is that, even before HR 1, about 500 workers at the state Department of Economic Security — about 5% of the workforce — were laid off in the summer of 2025, a move the state blamed on other federal budget cuts. That came at the expense of eligibility workers, with DES saying the number of workers who reviewed food stamps eligibility dropped by 1,370 in July 2024 to 880 this past July.

And an agency spokesman said it was processing an estimated 54,000 new and renewal applications, of which 18,000 were taking more than 30 days.

And that gets to the other half of the problem.

Slater said that Arizona, aware of the penalties for not getting its error rate down, was proactive in doing the greater checks to ensure that only those eligible under the new HR 1 rules are getting the aid. But with fewer staff, that resulted in some applications and renewals being delayed — or denied outright — when people could not provide the required information, with people dropping off the rolls.

In December, Hobbs responded by earmarking $7.5 million in unused federal COVID-19 funds to address what she called “staffing constraints” at DES. That included hiring temporary workers to expand the agency’s capacity to verify applicants’ income.

But even with all that, the data the new report cites from DES shows a continued sharp decline in food stamp recipients, down from 598,852 in December to 485,460 in February.

And there’s something else.

Slater said that other states, for whatever reason, may not have yet made the same changes as Arizona in screening to reduce their error rates. And he predicted that the decline in the number of food stamp recipients now showing up in Arizona is just a precursor of what will be reflected in data from other states in the coming months.

That’s also the assessment of DES spokesman Brett Bezio.

“It is important to note that we believe most of the impact of the changes from HR 1 has been realized, and we will begin to see consistency in the SNAP caseload in the months ahead,” he said. “As other states fully implement the provisions of HR 1 and Arizona stabilizes, we expect differences in caseload decline between other states to more closely align.

Bezio also said that Hobbs has requested an additional $48.4 million for the agency for the coming budget year, including 146 new employees. He said that it should cut delays as well as help ensure the state gets below the error rate at which point there would be penalties.

There is, of course, a political angle to all of this.

Slater said what is happening in Arizona — and what he believes will soon occur in other states — is precisely what was intended by the Trump administration.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, in announcing a 3.3 million reduction in SNAP recipients, called it “a signal that the federal government is once again working for the American public.”

But it’s not just the president. Slater noted that every Republican in the state’s congressional delegation voted for HR 1 — including the food stamp provisions.

Republican Congressman David Schweikert, however, had his own take on the sudden drop in SNAP recipients.

“States were incentivized to reduce errors and manage benefits efficiently,” he said of HR 1. But he said that 10.4% error rate in the most recent fiscal year meant that Arizona had to do a lot more culling of ineligible recipients.

“Arizona’s outsized reductions are a clear outlier, demonstrating the management failures of this governor,” said Schweikert, who is hoping to oust Hobbs in November.

He also pointed out something that even DES has acknowledged: its use until recently of 1980s technology. And while it is being replaced, there have been problems with the new system.

“After seeing billions of taxpayer dollars go to fraudsters through our state’s Medicaid program, Arizonans have been clear that they want substantive reforms targeting waste, fraud, and abuse in all government programs,” said Drew Sexton. He is running the gubernatorial campaign for Congressman Andy Biggs, the other Republican running against Hobbs.

Sexton said Biggs wants to create prosperity and economic growth “where every Arizona family can become self-sufficient while Katie Hobbs wants more people dependent on state government.”

Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, however, had her own take on how the new report shows the effect on her home state of HR 1.

“When Republicans said they are going after ‘waste, fraud, and abuse,’ let’s remember what that really means: children going hungry and families being pushed further into financial crisis,” she said in a prepared statement. “It’s time to reverse these devastating cuts to food assistance and healthcare, and finally focus on lowering costs.”

There appears to be nothing to show that Arizona, before HR 1, had a higher percentage of its residents on food stamps than the rest of the nation.

In a separate report, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says that the number of Arizonans on food stamps — estimated at 923,400 in the last budget year — amounted to 12% of the state’s population. That is in line with national figures showing a 12% participation rate in the program.

It also finds that 68% of SNAP participants are in families with children, compared with 62% nationally. And 40% are in working families versus 38% for the country as a whole.

Chance of Prop. 123 renewal this year ‘almost zero,’ says GOP lawmaker

Key Points:

Key Republican lawmaker says he’s willing to wait until next year to reconsider a Prop. 123 renewal
GOP lawmakers have not found consensus on the education funding measure
Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is up for reelection this November and has prioritized a Prop. 123 renewal in her budget plan

Gov. Katie Hobbs’ proposed budget includes nearly $300 million in funding for the renewal of Proposition 123, but Republicans at the Legislature have signaled that voters might not get the chance to vote on the renewal question this November.

House Education Committee Chairman Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, said on April 8 that he thinks the odds of a Prop. 123 deal getting done between Republicans lawmakers and Hobbs this session is “almost zero.”

Prop. 123 is an education funding mechanism that voters passed in a 2016 constitutional amendment. It increases the annual distribution from the State Land Trust Permanent Fund to public K-12 education from 2.5% to 6.9%, which is about $300 million annually, with the express purpose of raising teacher salaries.

Prop. 123 expired in 2025, and lawmakers backfilled the education funding from the measure through the general fund. Hobbs and Democrats have proposed sending a Prop. 123 renewal to voters so the Legislature can restore the money that’s being backfilled to fund education.

“The governor wants to tie Prop. 123 to the budget,” Gress said. “We do not think that’s a responsible play. We’re talking about a $300 million question mark that will have to be resolved at the ballot.”

House Democrats did attempt to move a Prop. 123 proposal through the House Appropriations Committee on March 31, with House Minority Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, offering a strike-everything amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012 that proposed replacing the measure with one that would extend Prop. 123 with voter approval.

Gutierrez’s proposal comes after Hobbs put budget talks on hold and criticized GOP lawmakers for the lack of a compromise on a Prop. 123 deal.

“I don’t believe the conversation around Prop. 123 renewal needs to be contentious or partisan,” Gutierrez said during the Appropriations Committee meeting.

Hobbs and Democrats have proposed a continuation of the 6.9% withdrawal from the state land trust to fund a Prop. 123 renewal, but Republicans said in a March 20 press release that Hobbs’ office proposed increasing the distribution from 6.9% over 10 years to 10.9% over 20 years, which they argue would “bankrupt” the land trust.

The attempt from Gutierrez failed on a party line vote and a measure on Prop. 123 will have to wait for another time. House Appropriations Chairman David Livingston, R-Peoria, called Gutierrez’s amendment ‘hostile’ to the original measure, which had nothing to do with a Prop. 123 renewal, although he said he was happy to discuss the proposal in committee.

Livingston earlier told the Arizona Capitol Times that he thinks the Legislature can get a budget deal done and signed by Hobbs without Prop. 123 — and a decision about Prop. 123 likely won’t be made by Republicans until the budget is signed.

During the April 8 Appropriations Committee, Gress said he thought the 6.9% distribution was too high and said somewhere between 5% to 5.5% would be more appropriate. He also said he thinks Prop. 123 will be reconsidered next year — potentially under a different governor since Hobbs is up for reelection.

“There are only a few people that care a lot about 123. I’m one of them, and I’m willing to wait until next year,” Gress said. “There isn’t consensus in the caucus right now for that.”

Hobbs’ office has accused legislative Republicans of backing off from Prop. 123 negotiations because Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, wrote in a post on X that he doesn’t want to give Hobbs a win on the issue and would be “effectively underwriting” Hobbs’ reelection campaign.

House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said he doesn’t know how lawmakers will pass a budget without Prop. 123 this year as lawmakers are trying to find a way to pay for federal tax conformity, which is expected to cost the general fund more than $400 million this year.

“I have a hard time seeing a budget without Prop. 123,” De Los Santos said. “Given the serious budget shortfall situation we’re facing, that money is going to need to come from somewhere. This is a way to support public schools and create savings in the general fund without raising taxes.”

Democrats turn to strikers to talk politics under GOP majority

Key Points:

Democrat bills rarely surface in Republican-controlled Legislature
Proposals mostly focus on affordability issues
Replacing GOP bill with Democratic idea is considered ‘hostile’

With only a handful of their bills getting a chance to be heard in committee, legislative Democrats have turned to striker amendments to generate discussion around their ideas.

According to legislative data, House and Senate Democrats have offered 23 striker amendments to legislation this session. Many of them aim to eliminate Republican bills and replace them with Democratic proposals aligned with the party’s “Affordability Agenda.”

However, only one Democratic striker amendment has been adopted so far. Senate Bill 1798, which establishes a financial aid awareness program within the Arizona Department of Education to make college students and their families more aware of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, passed by striker after Democrats overwrote a piece of their own legislation. The original bill was sponsored by Sen. Kiana Sears, D-Mesa, rather than in other instances where Democrats have attempted amendments using Republican bills.

Some of the other proposals Democrats have offered in their strike-everything amendments include prohibiting price gouging of pharmaceutical medications, funding child care assistance through the Department of Economic Security, prohibiting digital shelf pricing, and establishing greater paid family and medical leave for Arizonans.

And as Democratic proposals fail to progress under the thumb of the Republican’s legislative majority, these strikers have become a way for Democrats to force discussion on issues they believe are too critical to ignore.

The chairman of the House Government Committee, Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, said on April 8 he recognized these attempts in his committee and as an increased trend this session from House Democrats.

“What they’re trying to do is have their voices heard through a debate on the floor, knowing that the striker will get killed or they won’t be able to get those across the finish line,” Blackman said. “Because other than that, they won’t be able to get (their) bills heard.”

Of nearly 2,000 bills introduced by lawmakers this session, only 16 Democratic proposals have made it through the other chamber to have a chance at getting to Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk. None of those measures have been the big ticket agenda items that Democrats proposed as their legislative priorities at the beginning of the session.

“We’ve got ideas that are affordability all across the board, and it is very concerning that Republicans, because it happens to be a Democratic idea, don’t want to give them a hearing,” said Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson. “Unfortunately, that means a lot of these issues will not get addressed as long as Republicans are in the majority.

During a special House Appropriations Committee hearing on March 31 specifically hosted to hear bills before the end of regular committee hearings, the committee heard a “hostile” striker from Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe, for Senate Bill 1519, which would extend the number of paid family and medical leave employers must give to employees.

The practice of offering a hostile amendment, or an amendment that the original bill sponsor does not agree to, is generally frowned upon by Republican members of the Legislature. Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Surprise, said he has a policy of voting against all hostile amendments to respect the original bill sponsor. House Majority Whip Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler, echoed his sentiments when she voted against Travers’ amendment and the appropriations committee Chairman Rep. David Livingston described Democratic strikers heard in the committee as hostile.

“It’s not the policy. It’s the process,” Willoughby said.

House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos told the Arizona Capitol Times that his members have offered their amendments in good faith.

“Every single opportunity that Republicans have had to come to the table and negotiate and engage in good faith on these bipartisan solutions to lower costs, they have walked away and voted no,” De Los Santos said.

Most of the Democratic strikers have come from House members. Ten members of the 27-member caucus have introduced striker amendments so far this session. Blackman said he understands some of his colleagues might feel frustrated by attempts to try to “hijack” a bill, adding that most Democratic members have not resorted to that strategy.

“You have a tendency to blame the whole caucus,” Blackman said.

Republicans have a different idea of affordability. They sent Hobbs a tax relief bill within weeks of opening day of the legislative session that included child care deductions, retirement relief and eliminating taxes on tips and overtime. They’ve criticized the governor for vetoing that measure and another that would align Arizona’s tax code with the federal tax policy under House Resolution 1, “the One Big Beautiful Bill,” which is expected to reduce general fund revenue in the upcoming fiscal year by more than $400 million.

Hobbs has said she won’t sign a tax conformity bill until Republicans show how they plan to pay for the expected impact on the general fund.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, and Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, have also criticized Hobbs’ proposed budget. They said in their March 20 statement that it would add $1.5 billion in debt to the state and it counts on unreliable revenue from federal reimbursements for U.S. southern border expenses and a Prop. 123 renewal.

“While the Governor plays political theater, Arizona families are dealing with real consequences. This impacts your cost of living, your paycheck, your kids’ classrooms, and whether Arizona remains affordable for the families who live here,” Petersen and Montenegro wrote in their statement. “A temper tantrum won’t balance the budget, and it is not leadership to rely on voters to pass the funding we need after the fact.”

De Los Santos, offering an alternative, said Democrats could get some of their proposals through the state budget, which will require collaboration between Republican leaders and Hobbs. He credited the Democratic caucus during last year’s budget process for playing a central role in the negotiation process.

Hobbs has proposed a $15 million home energy assistance program in her executive budget plan funded by a $3.50 nightly fee on short-term rental stays in the state. De Los Santos said that he is going to be pushing for that program in budget talks, as well as a repeal of tax breaks for data centers which is expected to generate $38.5 million for the general fund.

“I think most Arizonans would rather spend that money on providing relief to Arizona instead of giving a special corporate tax cut to the data centers. We could fund the affordability fund by just repealing the data centers (tax break) and then still have money left over,” De Los Santos said.

Women’s History Month: A conversation with Sen. Lela Alston

Women’s History Month: A conversation with Sen. Lela Alston

Arizona’s longest serving legislator said this session will be her last, but she looks back on her time in office with fond memories.

Democratic Sen. Lela Alston, representing Legislative District 5 in Phoenix, was born and raised in the neighborhood surrounding the Capitol. She grew up on 7th Avenue and attended school down the street. Her future husband asked her out on their first date on the corner of 17th and Van Buren. She also attended church in the neighborhood. She has two children and six grandchildren.

Alston was first elected in 1976, served her first term in 1977, and remained in the Senate until 1995. She returned to the Legislature in 2010, earning the Legislative District 24 seat in the House of Representatives and stayed there for eight years. She came back in 2019 after winning her current Senate seat with 72% of the vote.

What has kept her coming back are several issues she is passionate about, including public education, homelessness, senior citizens and kinship families. But now, after her years of service, she’s ready to retire and enjoy life.

What first sparked your interest in government and politics?

I, like so many women, had to be asked to run. We found that to be pretty universally the case. I’ve heard it over and over and over the years that most women have to be asked to run. I never expected to do this at all. I was quietly teaching my classes at West High School and didn’t anticipate that, but my colleague and friend Marcia Weeks had already moved back here from Tucson, and her husband had run and won a seat on the Phoenix City Council. And she had run for a State Senate seat and won in her district, which was just north of mine.

I agreed to do that, not thinking I would win. But what I discovered about myself was that I’m pretty competitive. It was a smaller district then, and with my family, myself, my volunteers, we hit every door, Republican and Democrat in the district two and a half times. That’s a lot of door knocking. We had a lot of fun in those early years. That was in 1976 when I first ran.

It was always a big party on Saturday at my house. I had a great volunteer who fixed meals for the volunteers. So we had donuts and coffee in the morning when they went back out and then when they came back, we had a small lunch for them. There was a lot of camaraderie in the campaign and a lot of fun. I put some of my own money into it, and a lot at what would be considered not so much today, but in 1976 was a fairly significant investment. I decided that if we were going to spend that much money, we would have some fun with it, too. We also had kind of like star people come and walk with us that would help draw the crowds. Governor (Bruce) Babbitt walked with us several times.

Do you remember what your first day in office was like?

It was pretty exciting and kind of fearful because I’d never thought I’d win. I didn’t know what to expect. And so I said to the Weeks, to Jim: “OK, what do I do now?” Even though I was really lucky to have a mentor in Marcia, she could be my pal and guide me and that sort of thing. But Jim (Weeks) gave me the best advice I’ve kept all these years: “Just make sure you can look in the mirror every day and like what you see.” That’s kind of been my guidepost for all these years.

You’ve seen cultural and political changes throughout your time in office. What has that been like to watch?

One of the biggest changes is the lack of camaraderie between each side of the aisle. Before this recent bunch, we had mixed seats. Some of my really good friends who, politically, I was totally in opposition with, I’d consider friends. You’d be surprised that some of them are the far right, not all of them, but a few of them. That was a direct result of sitting next to them on the floor. Now we are divided, all the D’s on one side, all the R’s on the other. If I were to give anybody advice that they’d like to listen to, which they don’t, would be to go back to that way of just placing people randomly, but making sure they’re mixed between House and Senate. There was always, in the early days, I think, an underlying, almost universal care about what’s best for the state of Arizona, and less about politics and what’s going to win, and less about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or issues that would divide us.

The best example of that is the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, where diverse interests came together to do what was best for Arizona. That was probably one of the toughest because water remains one of our most difficult subjects to take care of and be thoughtful and wise about.

What has kept you coming back for more?

My first 18 years were all in the Senate because we didn’t have term limits then. At the end of my 18th year here, I ran for state superintendent of public instruction and lost to Lisa Graham Keegan. Then I went back to teaching full time and did some other things. I’m not even quite sure what prompted the “let’s come back.”

I think I always have that in the back of my mind. I decided, and I can’t remember what the prompt was exactly about, but Kyrsten Sinema was running for the state Senate and Katie Hobbs and I were the two running for the House. That was always my dream team, and look where those ladies are today. Well, Kyrsten, not so much, but she has achieved great things.

I consider the governor a dear friend and I never lobby her. People ask me because they know our friendship goes back to Katie’s early days as a political participant. But I figure she needs a friend more than she needs me asking for favors or weighing in. Now I’ll write a letter to the office generally, maybe in support of a candidate, but I never, ever make a direct ask of her. The friendship’s more important. She’s got enough people trying to get her attention, trying to get her to do certain things. I’m not that person.

What is the effort you’re most proud of during your time as a legislator?

It was a vote and it had to do with a sales tax increase and that was back in my first term or group of terms that I was the deciding vote on the tax increase that put ASU West in the ground.

I didn’t start the initiative about ASU West, but as soon as I got elected, I jumped on the bandwagon. Because I had to get my master’s teaching school in three years to keep my job with Phoenix Union. I had to drive summers and nights to ASU Main without a freeway to do my classes. It was Stan Turley, who was president of the Senate, who told me, “OK, if you vote for this bill, we’ll get ASU in the ground.” I think it is my crowning achievement. When these younger people, my colleagues, talk about wins, I tell them, ‘You’re selling out too cheap.’ I got a whole university.

Do you have a favorite memory from your time serving in the Legislature?

Not a specific one time memory, but I think my association with the firefighters has been one of the most meaningful things. In the 90’s I was made an honorary firefighter, and there were only a handful of us, so I got that axe. My friend Mike Colletto, who is probably my best guy friend, was an ironworker who served as the firefighters’ pro bono lobbyist after he fell and broke his back on the job and was on industrial compensation. He has dedicated years of service to the firefighters, and so he’s been great to work on my campaign and bring others in. I think that association is probably the one that I hold most dear.

What are your plans once you’re done with your term?

I don’t know. I’m going to miss it, but it’s time. I have mobility issues. I’d like to do some travel if my health holds out. Somebody asked me that a few weeks ago and I just sort of blurted out, because I think I’ve just parked it back there in my brain somewhere because I haven’t adjusted yet to the notion that I’m retiring. I just blurted out, I’m going to get a piano and a puppy. I knew how to play the piano when I was younger, but haven’t played it for literally years. My dog died last year and I didn’t want to replace him until after our session.

Arizona officials urge counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records

Key Points:

Arizona officials tell counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records
Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cite ongoing federal lawsuit
Arizona officials released documents contradicting claims of widespread election fraud

Fearing an end-run around the courts, two top state officials are telling counties to refuse to comply with any grand jury subpoenas for their voter records.

In a joint letter to county recorders, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes remind them that there is already a lawsuit in federal court over whether the Department of Justice is entitled to a full, unredacted list of voter information. There is no date set for a hearing.

But what has changed since the lawsuit was filed, they said, is that Senate President Warren Petersen, responding to a grand jury subpoena, turned over records related to the Senate’s audit of the conduct and results of the 2020 election. And that, they warned, appears to be part of an end-run around the federal court for the Trump administration to get the documents it wants — regardless of what a federal judge rules.

That’s not all. It also comes as the Department of Homeland Security, apparently conducting its own probe, has asked Mayes’ office for some documents it has related to the 2020 election.

Richie Taylor, a spokesman for Mayes, said it surrendered both a report that was done reviewing the audit by her predecessor, Mark Brnovich, as well as some documents that Brnovich did not make public before he left office at the end of 2022.

Taylor said there was no subpoena, as all those documents are public records. But he said that nothing else has been provided to Homeland Security.

All that, according to Mayes and Fontes, leads them to believe that federal agencies will use the grand jury process — and the ability of prosecutors to subpoena documents — to circumvent the question before the federal judge of whether the agencies have a legal right to demand what they are seeking. And the two Arizona officials said they want to be sure that county recorders do not play a role in letting that happen.

“We reiterate our offices’ position here just in case you may be contemplating disclosure,” the pair wrote. “We write to inform you that doing so would violate both federal and state law.”

The disclosure of the Homeland Security inquiry drew a sharp response from Gov. Katie Hobbs who was the secretary of state in 2020.

“Arizona’s 2020 election has been investigated and verified in Republican-led audits,” she said in a comment March 10 night posted on social media. “Pulling agents off serious work like combating human trafficking to chase debunked election conspiracies is irresponsible and a threat to public safety.”

This all comes as the Trump administration has shown renewed interest in revisiting the 2020 election, particularly in states where he was outpolled by Joe Biden. That occurred in enough states, including in Arizona, to deny him the electoral votes needed at that time for a second term.

Now back in office, Trump has expressed frustration that Attorney General Pam Bondi has not done more to investigate his claim that the election was stolen from him.

Arizona is among 29 states and the District of Columbia where the Department of Justice has filed suit to demand full voter files after state officials refused to comply. That includes not just things that are public like name and party registration, but also what Fontes said is legally protected private information like birth dates, driver license numbers, signatures and the last four digits of Social Security numbers.

The agency, however, has said it is not investigating any particular violations of law but simply fulfilling its mission to be sure that states are keeping voter rolls updated.

Fontes, however, told a federal judge it appears the real goal is for the federal government to amass a national centralized database on millions of Americans. And he said that appears to be part of a plan to check the immigration status of those on the voter rolls.

And now there is the request by Homeland Security to Mayes for information about the 2020 race.

Taylor said that Mayes did turn over some findings released in 2022 by Brnovich in which he claimed his office had “uncovered instances of election fraud by individuals who have been or will be prosecuted for various election crimes.”

That, however, wasn’t all Mayes turned over to Homeland Security. Taylor said they also got a follow-up report she released after taking office in 2023, a report that included evidence that Brnovich and his top aide had been told by their own staffers, even before releasing the 2022 report, that there was no basis for such claims of fraud.

And Taylor said that, in response to further requests from Homeland Security, the Attorney General’s Office last week even prepared a Power Point presentation. But he said that there has been no further cooperation with Homeland Security since then.

Now Mayes and Fontes want to be sure that county recorders aren’t providing anything that is not already a public record — even if they are served with a subpoena.

“I implore you to fulfill your oath by declining any such illegal demands,” the letter to the recorders says.

“If your office receives a federal grand jury subpoena demanding that you turn over voters’ private data, we urge you to notify our offices immediately,” they wrote. “The grand jury should not serve to circumvent Arizona’s ongoing lawsuit, and our offices will pursue all legal actions available to prevent the Department of Justice from misusing the grand jury process.”

What makes the information Mayes turned over to Homeland Security significant is that it represents two different views of what did and did not happen in the 2020 election — views that Homeland Security could choose to use or ignore as it pursues any investigation.

Brnovich, a Republican, was running in 2022 for U.S. Senate. And his report included various allegations that signatures may not have been properly verified on early ballot envelopes and that “there are problematic systemwide issues that related to early ballot handling and verification.”

But Mayes, a Democrat who won her 2022 election to replace Brnovich, disclosed in her 2023 report information she said Brnovich had withheld from the public, including a memo from the agency’s Special Investigations Section — information she said showed that her predecessor knew there was no basis for what the attorney general was reporting in 2022,

That 2022 memo said that agents and support staff had spent more than 10,000 hours investigating and reviewing alleged instances of illegal voting submitted by various private parties. Those came not only from Cyber Ninjas, the private firm without any election auditing experience hired by Senate President Karen Fann to conduct the audit, but also True the Vote which has been at the forefront of denying the results of the 2020 election.

“In each instance and in each matter, the aforementioned parties did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” that memo stated. “The information that was provided was speculated in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”

And there was something else in the memo.

The investigators said that there were elected officials who had made public statements asserting that voting fraud had occurred and that fraud was a factor in the outcome of the 2020 election.

Yet when actually questioned by investigators — under circumstances where they were told they could be prosecuted for making false reports to law enforcement agencies — “the elected officials did not repeat or make such assertions.”

That included Mark Finchem, at the time a Republican representative from Oro Valley and now a state senator from Prescott. Finchem had publicly stated he had a source reporting that more than 30,000 fraudulent or fictitious votes were registered in Pima County during the 2020 general election. Investigators then requested to speak with him.

“During that meeting, Mr. Finchem did not repeat those allegations, specifically stating he did not have any evidence of fraud and he did not wish to take up our time,” the investigators reported.

What he did provide were four ballots he said was evidence of a flawed process for mailing and counting ballots.

The investigators, however, said they found the ballots had been mailed to prior residents of the address on file, the residents had moved, the ballots cannot be forward and they were unopened and not counted.

They also said that Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, who had alleged widespread fraud in the 2020 election “refused to meet with us, saying she was waiting to see the ‘perp walk’ of those who committed fraud during the election.”

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

Key Points:

Lawmakers have introduced a variety of proposals to raise legislator pay

Many say the current $24,000 salary, unchanged since 1998, is insufficient

Voters could decide on a raise via ballot measure come Election Day

Key Points:

Arizona sees largest food stamp drop nationwide with 32% decline

HR 1 law and requirements cause 2.5 million nationwide food stamp reduction

Arizona’s outdated technology and new system problems contribute to delays

Key Points:

Key Republican lawmaker says he’s willing to wait until next year to reconsider a Prop. 123 renewal

GOP lawmakers have not found consensus on the education funding measure

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is up for reelection this November and has prioritized a Prop. 123 renewal in her budget plan

Key Points:

Democrat bills rarely surface in Republican-controlled Legislature

Proposals mostly focus on affordability issues

Replacing GOP bill with Democratic idea is considered ‘hostile’

Key Points:

Arizona officials tell counties to refuse grand jury subpoenas for voter records

Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes cite ongoing federal lawsuit

Arizona officials released documents contradicting claims of widespread election fraud