Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Shawnna Bolick

Ethics complaint filed against senator for sharing ICE location online

Key Points:
  • Sen. Jake Hoffman seeks to eject Sen. Analise Ortiz from Senate over an immigration enforcement post
  • Hoffman files ethics complaint, alleging disorderly behavior and violation of public trust by Ortiz
  • Ortiz faces potential federal investigation for alleged interference with ICE operations

The head of the conservative Freedom Caucus is moving to eject Sen. Analise Ortiz from the Senate because she informed followers on her social media about immigration enforcement in her community.

In an ethics complaint filed on Sept. 3, Sen. Jake Hoffman contends that the action by the Phoenix Democrat fits within the definition of disorderly behavior. The Queen Creek Republican also said it runs afoul of Senate rules for violating the public trust and for being “unethical or unprofessional conduct.”

But Hoffman, who is asking for expulsion, acknowledged that he probably doesn’t have the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate where Republicans hold only 17 of the 30 seats. So instead he wants something just short of that, including kicking her out of her office space, removal from all committees and even stripping her of any staff support — all things that could be done either by Senate President Warren Petersen himself or with a simple majority vote of the Senate.

An inquiry by the Ethics Committee, however, may be just part of the problem facing Ortiz.

Sen. Shawnna Bolick, the Phoenix Republican who heads the Ethics Committee, not only agreed within hours of Hoffman’s complaint to open a probe but is suggesting that Ortiz violated a state law that makes “doxing” a crime. That involves the electronic release of personal identifying information on someone without that person’s consent with the intent to provoke harassment.

Bolick, however, did not respond to questions about how publishing the location of something occurring in public — and without the names of those participating — runs afoul of that law.

But Bolick also could make a federal criminal case out of all this.

She sent a letter Sept. 3 to Timothy Courchaine, the new interim U.S. attorney for Arizona installed by the Trump administration, asking him to launch his own investigation to determine if Ortiz violated federal law. She said that what Ortiz has admitted doing — telling constituents about ICE officers near a school — could be considered “interference with federal law enforcement operations.”

The Democratic senator is unapologetic, saying all she did is repost something online that already was online that “masked, armed men were outside a school in our community.”

And she reacted angrily to the suggestion that she was violating any laws.

“They know damn well that sharing public information about visible law enforcement activity in our communities does not constitute as doxing,” she told Capitol Media Services. In fact, Ortiz contends, it is Republicans and their allies who, in publicly claiming she is doing something illegal, who are crossing the ethical line.

“I have received threats to my personal safety because of this lie in saying that masked agents outside of a school is equivalent to doxing when it absolutely is not,” she said.

“By continuing to perpetrate that lie, Senator Bolick and her Republican colleagues are continuing to incite political violence against me,” Ortiz continued. “It’s quite frankly disgusting that this is how low they are willing to go to score cheap political points.”

But Hoffman, in his complaint, said it is Ortiz who has acted improperly — and in a manner that he said he believes makes her unfit to serve.

“Although Senator Ortiz continues to feign moral superiority in this manner, it should be noted that it is she who is out of touch with reality,” he said.

Hoffman said all nations have — and enforce — immigration laws.

“Those who find themselves oppositional to the basic premise that foreigners should not be able to violate the laws of a nation with impunity are unfit to make laws for everyone else,” he wrote in his complaint.

What started all this was Ortiz sharing a post from someone else that alerted people on Aug. 5 that ICE agents were outside an elementary school on the southwest side of Phoenix.

“I reshare different content from different accounts,” she said. For example, there’s a recent post about a Maryvale Resource Fair on Sept. 6.

“They are going to extreme levels of intimidation to block me from doing my job in LD 24 because they want police operations to happen in secret,” she said. “And they want people to be terrified by what they are witnessing in our communities.”

But what happened this time, Ortiz said, is that LibsOfTikTok, a site that posts conservative viewpoints, posted that Ortiz “is actively impeding and doxxing ICE by posting their live locations on Instagram.”

Things escalated from there.

“Yep,” Ortiz responded online. “When ICE is around, I will alert my community to stay out of the area, and I’m not f****** scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons.”

When Hoffman interjected himself with his own press release, she followed it with another social media post.

“Bring it on, Jake,” she wrote. “ICE alerts keep people away from the area since these lawless thugs are gleefully disappearing people, including US citizens and lawful residents.”

All that, Hoffman wrote in his complaint, shows Ortiz “is openly and brazenly advocating for lawlessness, even at the potential cost of violence against those charged with the solemn and often dangerous duty of enforcing our nation’s laws.”

“The consequence of her action is not only evasion of the law, but potential danger posed to officers of the law,” he continued. “This is unacceptable behavior for an elected official who similarly has sworn an oath to the U.S. and Arizona constitutions and is charged with upholding the duly enacted laws of our state and nation.”

Hoffman did not respond to repeated messages asking how publicizing or reporting something that is occurring in public view — as was the case with the ICE agents — is in any way unethical or improper, much less illegal.

Ortiz, for her part, called the move to expel her or discipline her in any way for doing something she said she believes is completely legal “authoritarian tactics.”

“It’s disgusting and it’s scary,” she said. “This is an escalation and it needs to be talked about as such.”

Bolick said she is preparing for the Ethics Committee probe, including adopting the rules for the panel.

“Until then, the process remains with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, whose review will inform the committee’s next steps,” she said.

There was no immediate response from Courchaine or anyone in his office to questions about what, if anything, he intended to do with the complaint.

Sen. Bolick is a champion for Arizona’s small businesses

Danny Mazza

As a small business owner, one of my top priorities is providing quality health benefits to my employees while keeping costs manageable. But rising health care costs are taking a toll on families, including increases at the pharmacy counter. I know firsthand that access to medications at an affordable price is key to helping my employees and their families stay healthy. And healthy employees keep my business running strong. That’s why I’m writing to thank Senator Shawnna Bolick for standing firm against big government mandates that could harm small businesses and Arizonans.

Small businesses are the backbone of Arizona’s economy and are already concerned with their ability to provide affordable, quality coverage to employees. To manage costs, my business relies on flexible health care options that address the unique needs of my staff and business. Ensuring I can offer competitive health benefits also allows my business to attract and retain talent. Unnecessary government overreach into our health care system undermines the way that my business can provide lower-cost prescription drug options to our employees and their families.

In recent years, some lawmakers have introduced proposals that would have  dramatically raised costs for employers and employees. Thankfully, Senator Bolick has been a champion for small businesses like mine by rejecting such efforts, including during the most recent legislative session. We need more legislators like her who will stand up for common sense, not industry talking points.

I ask all of our elected leaders to push back against measures that would impose any new mandates or regulations that would increase costs. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and increased government intervention is not the solution to the rising costs we face. Arizonans and their families deserve the right to spend more of their hard-earned dollars on priorities other than health care expenses whenever possible. At the same time, employers need as much flexibility as possible to continue investing in their small businesses that power our economy and communities across the state.  

Thank you, Senator Bolick, for continuing to protect businesses, employees, and our families from higher health care costs, which in turn keeps our state and workforce productive and healthy.

Danny Mazza is a business owner in Arizona.

Prison oversight reform is long overdue in Arizona

Shawnna Bolick

On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed the bipartisan First Step Act into law, marking a significant step forward in federal sentencing reform. Just weeks later, we took our first oaths of office in January 2019. That milestone marked the beginning of our shared efforts to advance meaningful criminal justice reform in Arizona. In early 2020, we met with Matthew Charles, a man who served over two decades in federal prison without a single disciplinary infraction. His success after release reaffirmed our belief in redemption and fueled our resolve to bring reform home.

Walt Blackman

During our first year, we were honored to be named “Rookies of the Year” by the Republican Party of Arizona. That summer, we submitted a letter to House leadership and Speaker Rusty Bowers, requesting approval to host a bipartisan Earned Release Credits for Prisoners House Ad Hoc Committee. We held public hearings, reviewed policy gaps, and took a critical tour of the Florence prison complex with then-Director Charles Ryan. The director’s resignation was inevitable, considering reports of serious safety issues in the prisons. Just hours after that visit, he submitted his resignation notice, having served as the ADC Director for ten years. The ad hoc committee released its final report later that year.

Later that fall, we visited the Lewis complex in Buckeye and observed widespread security lapses, broken cell locks and compromised safety. These firsthand encounters laid the groundwork for the creation of the House Committee on Criminal Justice Reform in January 2020, where we continued our work as Chair and Vice Chair. The committee remained active into the 2021–2022 legislative session, continuing to examine sentencing policies, reentry coordination and prison oversight.

When COVID hit, our efforts didn’t stop. In 2020 and 2021, we held remote oversight discussions, including briefings with then-Director David Shinn. From 2021 to 2022, Senator Bolick served on the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, weighing critical funding for health care services and ADC settlements. A pivotal moment came in the fall of 2021, when the Arizona Auditor General released a report detailing the Department of Corrections’ failure to meet performance benchmarks, delayed releases of eligible inmates and a general disregard for prior audit recommendations.

In June 2022, Senator Bolick blocked passage of the ADC budget until those reforms were addressed. In December 2022, just before leaving the House, we toured Lewis again and issued a joint press release after meeting with inmates who raised security concerns, including allegations of sexual violence.

In January 2023, as Senator Bolick transitioned to the upper chamber and toured juvenile corrections alongside Representative Blackman, Governor Katie Hobbs signed Executive Order 6, establishing the Independent Prison Oversight Commission. The commission was designed to strengthen transparency and accountability within Arizona’s corrections system. Tasked with inspecting prison facilities, reviewing records, and speaking directly with inmates and staff about health care, safety, educational programming, and access to necessities. The commission — despite its initial lack of funding — marked a critical step toward institutionalizing meaningful oversight. The commission released its report in November 2023.

Throughout this period, we visited private prisons and attended reentry graduation ceremonies, where we met Arizonans trying to turn their lives around. We received hundreds of letters from families of inmates, corrections officers and community advocates calling for stronger oversight, improved mental health care and meaningful rehabilitative programs.

In May 2025, we sent a letter to legislative leadership urging the formation of a bipartisan ad hoc committee to investigate persistent security failures. In the years since, we’ve met with whistleblowers, reviewed internal ADCRR reports, and pushed for public testimony from leadership, staff and impacted families. All these efforts culminated in the 2025 passage of Senate Bill 1507, creating a permanent oversight office. 

However, passing SB 1507 is only the beginning. The oversight office must be funded — estimated at $1.5 million annually. We can’t go back and change the outcomes for those who have already lost their lives in state custody, but we can act now to prevent future tragedies. Recent deaths in the Arizona Department of Corrections include Indalecio Garcia, 31, who died at the Lewis complex on June 23; Ernest Walker, 60, who died June 28, 2025, at Banner Casa Grande Medical Center; Danny Jones, 60, who died June 24, 2025, at ASPC-Tucson; and Daniel Montoya, who died while incarcerated at Lewis Prison. Others — Saul Alvarez, Thorne Harnage, and Donald Lashley — were killed behind bars. These are not isolated cases. 

With proper funding, SB 1507 can provide the real oversight and accountability needed to prevent future tragedies.

Shawnna LM Bolick is the State Senator for LD2, and the chair of the Senate Committee on Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency.

Walt Blackman is the State Representative for LD7, and the chair of the House Committee on Government.

2 justices won’t rule in retention case

Two Supreme Court justices who would be most immediately affected by a proposed ballot measure will not participate in deciding its legal fate.

But the other justices who would be affected by the outcome of Proposition 137 – eventually – will not step away from the case.

A new scheduling order from the court shows that Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King have recused themselves from hearing a challenge by Progress Arizona to changes in the system proposed by Republican lawmakers by which sitting judges stand for reelection. Neither provided a reason.

But what is clear is that if the court allows Proposition 137 to be on the ballot and it passes, it would allow both to get new six-year terms – even if voters were to separately decide to remove them from the bench. And that gives them a more immediate stake in the case.

The other five justices also have a stake if they, too, want new terms when their current ones end in 2026 or 2028.

At this point, however, all will decide the case.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

But Paul Bender, a professor at the Arizona State University College of Law, told Capitol Media Services it is a “serious question” of whether they also should recuse themselves given how it would affect their own future elections.

That, however, still leaves the question: If not the current Supreme Court justices, then who?

One option, said Bender who is a former dean at the college, could be retired justices who would have no stake in the case.

There actually are rules for that. In fact, Timmer tapped retired Justice John Pelander to sit in in an upcoming hearing on a dispute over the use of the wording “unborn human being” by lawmakers to describe Proposition 139 dealing with the right to abortion. That is because Bolick stepped away as his wife, Sen. Shawnna Bolick, sits on the legislative panel that approved the controversial wording and also is a defendant in that case.

Replacing all the justices in this case, however, is not going to occur. Nor is there even a request they do so from Jim Barton who is representing challengers to Prop 137.

“We are not going to ask for a fresh panel of justices like was evidently done in the past when a matter related to their pensions was before them,” he said.

That refers to a case years ago involving legislative changes to the pension system for judges.

All but one of the justices on the high court were replaced, at least temporarily, by other lower-court judges who were not affected. Only Justice Bolick got to remain because he was not on the bench at the time the challenged pension changes were approved.

Hanging in the balance in this case are what Barton says are two significant changes in the judicial election process.

Strictly speaking, judges on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and superior courts in Pima, Pinal, Maricopa and Coconino counties are not elected. They are named by the governor who has to choose from nominees submitted by special screening committees.

Under the current system, however, superior court judges from the affected counties have to face voters every four years on a retain-or-reject system. Those who fail to get enough votes lose their jobs and the selection process begins again.

At the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the terms are six years. But the process is the same.

Prop 137, if approved by voters, would change that to say that judges can remain on the bench as long as they want, at least until mandatory retirement at 70, if they don’t get into trouble. That is defined in the proposal as things like a felony conviction, personal bankruptcy or their performance on the bench being found lacking by the Judicial Performance Review Commission.

Only then would they have to face voters.

Barton said there’s no problem with that, at least from a legal perspective. He said it’s a policy question for voters whether they want to give up their right to vote on each judge and justice.

But he said Prop 137 also includes a provision which for the first time would let the majority party in the House and Senate to select members for the Judicial Performance Review Commission. And it would also allow any of the 90 legislators to force the commission to investigate any allegation of “a pattern of malfeasance in office.”

In his new pleadings, Barton told the justices that lawmakers are free to put a measure on the ballot asking voters to make that change. But what they can’t do, he said, is put it into a single take-it-or-leave-it ballot measure with the proposed changes in the retention system.

“A voter who wants greater judicial independence by creating a system wherein there are on for-cause retention elections cannot vote for this system without also accepting a new avenue for interference with the judiciary by the legislative branch,” he wrote.

“The court should not ignore the dilemma this creates for voters,” Barton said. “Altering the makeup of the JPRC is not related to holding judicial retention elections.”

Where King and Bolick specifically fit in has to do with something else the Republican-controlled Legislature added to Prop 137: a retroactivity clause.

The election will be on Nov. 5. But proponents crafted it in a way to say that if it is approved it applies retroactively, to Oct. 31.

And if that’s not clear, the measure spells out that the results of this year’s retention elections, the one including King and Bolick, would not be formally recognized if Prop 137 passes even if voters turn both out of office.

That, too, is part of the all-or-nothing package that the measure would present to voters.

While not part of the legal dispute before the Supreme Court, the whole issue has political implications.

If either justices is turned out of office, that would allow Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to replace the pair who had been tapped for the court by her predecessor, Republican Doug Ducey. And that possibility already has resulted in conservative political activist Randy Kendrick, wife of Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick, to set up and fund a committee to try to convince voters to retain the two Ducey picks.

Tight races could leave Senate equally divided

With Democrats aiming to flip the Legislature and Republicans defending their slim majority, consultants said the Senate could see an equally split chamber for the first time since 2000. 

The 2022 legislative districting map has brought up highly competitive general races in key districts – and similar campaign strategies. 

Democrats are vying for the majority after more than 20 years of Republican control. The GOP majority has slimmed in the past 10 years, but Republican candidates championed a two-seat lead in both the House and Senate in the 2022 general election. 

With most primary election results called, GOP consultant Chuck Coughlin said the Senate could see an equally split chamber for the first time since 2000. 

As it stands, the chamber is led by Republicans with a 16-14 majority and Democratic campaigns are applying pressure to every legislative district that could sway blue.

The minority party is running heavily-funded candidates for Senate seats in six close competitive districts. Campaigns on both sides of the aisle are encouraging voters in highly contentious districts to reject their opposing general election candidate for being too “extreme” for the area they seek to represent. 

In the Republican-leaning Legislative District 17, former lawmaker Vince Leach ousted incumbent Sen. Justine Wadsack in the GOP primary. Leach is a less controversial general election candidate than Wadsack, Coughlin said, thus reducing the tightness of the race for Democrat candidates. 

“There are other races that, at this juncture, look less competitive,” Coughlin said. “I forecast 15-15 right now.”

Mike Noble, CEO of Noble Predictive Insights, also said that primary results forecast a tighter battle for the majority. 

“Pre-primary there was a decent shot, however, post-primary I’d say the field goal just got moved to the 50-yard line – not impossible, but a challenge,” Noble said of Democrats winning a tie in the chamber. 

Though Leach is viewed as a less beatable candidate to some, the Arizona Democratic legislative campaign committee said in a written statement that he is “one of the most extreme legislators in his party and consistently prioritized special interests over his constituents.” John McLean, a businessman, is Leach’s Democratic competition. 

The Democratic committee has undertaken a similar tactic at battleground districts across the state, urging voters to side with the less “extreme” candidate, but most of their target districts lean slightly Republican.  

Noble and Coughlin both said a tie in the chamber could come down to Legislative District 2. The district, which encompasses northern Phoenix, is highly competitive and leans very slightly in favor of Republican candidates, according to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 

Sen. Shawnna Bolick is the GOP incumbent of LD2. She beat her primary opponent, Josh Barnett, by about 7% of votes.  Coughlin said the Senate seat is shaping up to be “Democrats’ number one pickup opportunity,” where the party is running Rep. Judy Schwiebert.

Democrat political action committees from in and out of state have funneled thousands into Schwiebert’s campaign effort. Bolick had $164,386 on hand, according to pre-primary finance reports, while Schwiebert led by nearly double with $327,518 on hand. 

The Republican Arizona Senate Victory Fund PAC announced their own version of the “reject extremism” campaign strategy on Aug. 6, which specifically targets Legislative District 4. The slightly-GOP district is represented in the Senate by Democrat incumbent Sen. Christine Marsh, who they dubbed “Extreme Christine.” 

The “Extreme Christine” campaign website took a similar strategy to ADLCC by telling voters to “send extreme Christine home” and lists her voting record on issues like immigration, school choice and taxes. 

The only time a chamber has been tied in Arizona was in the Senate from 2001 to 2002. Republicans lost control of their majority during the 2000 general election. 

At the time, Democratic lawmakers negotiated with former Sen. Randall Gnant, a Republican, and convinced him to be the president of the chamber on the condition that committees be split. 

Former state Sen. Pete Rios, a Democrat, said in a 2011 interview with the Arizona Memory Project that Gnant was their first choice because he seemed “moderate enough for Democrats to work with.” 

Rios recalled the dinner where Democrats convinced Gnant to lead the chamber: “I said, ‘Randall, if you say you’re going to do it, you’re going to do it, and we’re not leaving here until we sign this thing in blood. Once we leave here, you’re going to be president, you’re going to take a lot of heat, your people are going to call you every name in the book like God’s child, so you better be ready.’ He said, ‘I know it, I know it.’”

Bolick recuses himself from abortion ballot measure decision

PHOENIX — Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick has taken himself off the case of whether the Legislative Council — a panel that includes his wife, Shawnna — acted improperly in...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Abortion ban repeal headed to governor

State senators voted Wednesday to repeal the 1864 abortion law, leaving just a procedural move to send it to the governor for her anticipated signature. The 16-14 vote came after...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Shadow of uncertainty hangs over abortion ban enforcement

The chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood Arizona said Thursday that abortions could soon become unavailable – at least for some period of time – even if state lawmakers repeal...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Tempers, retribution come with vote to repeal abortion ban

The third attempt at repealing Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban in the state House of Representatives succeeded Wednesday with some Republicans joining Democrats in passing the measure.   The measure, HB 2677,...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

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