by Alexander Kolodin | Jan 26, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
In 1952, Republican Governor J. Howard Pyle appointed a 24-member Underground Water Commission to recommend a new groundwater framework for Arizona. Every member was a farmer or rancher— people who lived and worked on the land and relied on groundwater to survive.
After nine months of work and thirteen public comment sessions, the Commission issued a 172-page report recommending that the Legislature adopt “correlative rights” as the new groundwater law for the state, calling it the fairest and most equitable way to apportion subterranean rights among adjoining landowners on the surface.
Farmers agreed. One testified: “The principle of correlative rights gets closer to solving the problem than any water code.” Another said that courts should eventually recognize that landowners should own the groundwater beneath their land, so long as it does not harm others—like the ad coelum doctrine and “no harm” principle described in Part 1.
Yet, the Legislature failed to act. With Democrats holding 15 of 19 Senate seats and 50 of 80 House seats, lawmakers left the issue to the courts, which rejected correlative rights in favor of “beneficial use,” leaving landowners with no legal means to protect or conserve their supplies.
It didn’t have to be this way.
We can restore private property rights to groundwater
In 1953, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected correlative rights not because the Court thought it was unfair, but rather because the Court believed it was technologically infeasible, saying: “Apportionment of subterranean percolating water between adjacent landowners is often, if not always, impossible.”
Today, that excuse no longer applies. Advances in groundwater modelling have made quantifying and allocating rights to subsurface water completely possible—especially in Arizona’s alluvial fill basins like Willcox, McMullen Valley, and the Big Chino, where the tragedy of the commons is already unfolding.
In 2011, for example, the Arizona Water Resources Development Commission issued a statewide assessment, finding that the Willcox, McMullen, and Big Chino basins contained approximately 42 million, 14 million, and 10 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater, respectively, to a depth of 1,200 feet, providing critical data that demonstrates that implementing correlative rights is entirely feasible.
Since it’s been over seventy years since we’ve meaningfully considered correlative rights, many residents today have likely never heard of this term and would naturally have questions about how it would work, how it would benefit them, and how it would help advance our shared goals of conservation.
Here’s how it would work—using Willcox as an example
Once a basin is closed to new pumping, the groundwater is quantified and allocated to landowners based on the number of acres they own. With 42 million AF underground and about 1.2 million acres on the surface, each landowner in Willcox would receive about 35 AF per acre as a one-time “lump sum.”
For a 4-acre parcel (the minimum lot size in Cochise County), a landowner would receive 140 AF. A 160-acre quarter section would receive 5,600 AF, and a full 640-acre section would get 22,400 AF. This is similar to the proportional share-based approach utilized in oil and gas regulation.
It is also similar to the approach utilized in Arizona’s transportation basins, like Harquahala, McMullen Valley, Butler Valley, and the Big Chino. In Harquahala, the formula is 6 AF/acre annually. More acres mean more rights.
For municipal providers, lump sums would be allocated based on the acres they serve. A larger service area means a larger groundwater allocation. When residents interconnect, their allocations would transfer to the provider—allowing the provider to manage their supplies on their behalf.
State trust lands would also receive allocations, which lessees would be entitled to use through their leases. The more acres leased, the more groundwater available. In transportation basins that have large amounts of state trust land, cities would know exactly how many acres they’d need to lease to secure an assured water supply.
Additionally, landowners would be credited a proportional share of the annual natural recharge. A person owning one percent of the acres would receive one percent of the natural recharge.
Over time, these credits would add up. After five years, a person earning 0.2 AF/year would acquire a full acre-foot, while a resident with 28 acres would earn enough water annually to meet all of their household needs from recharge alone, allowing them to live off their recharge without touching their lump sum.
For lump sums, a minimum 4-acre lot would provide enough water to last 424 years. Adding recharge makes supplies last even longer. Additionally, increased recharge from proactive investments would be credited to the investor, incentivizing the development of new recharge projects.
Because the basin is closed to new pumping, existing landowners would be protected against subsequent users, like prior appropriation but without the complications. Additionally, because rights are transferable within the same basin, economic growth is still possible. Newcomers can enter, but only if they purchase land or water rights from existing users first.
To enforce all this, annual reporting requirements would be implemented, ensuring that no one pumps more than his or her fair share. Meanwhile, minimum well spacing requirements would be implemented to help ensure an even distribution across the basin, reducing impacts to existing well-owners.
Well monitoring has been a controversial issue in the past, largely because it has been seen as the camel’s nose under the tent for greater bureaucratic control. Here, however, users get certificated private property rights that can never be revoked and thus more, not less, freedom in exchange for their trouble.
For residential well owners, shared infrastructure is already possible through the adoption of water districts. A shared well drilled to 1,200 feet can provide greater long-term security than 100 wells drilled to 120 feet—allowing each landowner to access their full supply but at a substantially reduced cost.
Lastly, there would be no “safe yield” requirement. While states like California have applied correlative rights to only annual recharge, this model would not work in Arizona. In fact, the 1952 Underground Water Commission specifically rejected the California model, noting it would not provide enough water in our arid climate.
Instead, a hybrid approach is required, one that allocates rights to both the subterranean resource and the annual recharge, thereby maximizing the amount of water granted to each landowner and ensuring that every drop is accurately accounted for. That is the approach described here.
Your water, your choice
The most intriguing aspect of correlative rights is that, once the groundwater has been allocated, it’s yours to keep—permanently. If you don’t use it, there’s no risk of loss; it will still be there 10, 20, or 100 years into the future.
This stands in stark contrast to the current free-for-all described in Part 2, where leaving groundwater in the basin simply leaves more for someone else to take. Because there’s no forfeiture, landowners are free to use, conserve, lease, or transfer their water within the same basin as they see fit. The choice is theirs.
For farmers, this creates new incentives. A 160-acre farm with a center pivot may have enough water to last several years, while others may need to scale back, shift to less water-intensive crops, or acquire additional rights from others. Commercial farming is still possible, but only if land and groundwater use align, encouraging open space and land conservation.
Thus, the motivation to conserve is simple: when the property is yours, you—and you alone—are responsible for maintaining it. Once an allocation is gone, it’s gone for good, forcing users to make tough decisions and encouraging wise use. That’s the power of private property: when you own it, you protect it.
Turning water into wealth
For many rural residents, correlative rights would instantly turn an uncertain water future into a secure financial asset, creating real value that can provide both long-term water security and financial independence.
With a single AF selling at roughly $400 today, a 40-acre parcel would suddenly hold $560,000 in water value—plus an additional recharge credit worth about $200 a year, acting like an annual dividend. For someone living on a fixed income, that’s transformative.
A 160-acre quarter section would receive $2,240,000 in water value, plus $800 in annual credits, while a 640-acre full section would sit on nearly $9 million and receive $3,000 in annual recharge credits.
With outright ownership, landowners could monetize their allocations or borrow against them without pumping a single drop. Here, water is not a commodity—it’s a currency: the currency of your future, allowing rural residents to build real equity and generational wealth.
The question is: what would you do with your share?
Correlative rights can save our aquifers, farmers, and ranchers—it’s time to adopt them
For over seventy years, Arizona tried top-down bureaucratic approaches to addressing the tragedy of the commons in groundwater—but to no avail. As discussed in Part 3, what Arizona needs now is the only solution that we haven’t tried but should have adopted when rural farmers and ranchers recommended it in 1952: correlative rights.
By closing our alluvial-fill basins to outsiders who seek to pump them dry for short-term profit at the expense of others, and restoring private property rights to the groundwater beneath our feet through correlative rights, we can unlock millions of dollars’ worth of groundwater that will last thousands of years and finally give landowners the legal right and incentive to protect and conserve their supplies for themselves and future generations.
The Legislature can act. As the Arizona Supreme Court itself said in 1953: “If any change in the law is necessary, it should be made by the Legislature,” including the power to “invest” groundwater with the “character” and “attributes” of “private ownership.”
The moment to act has arrived. Imminent cutbacks to our Colorado River supply mean that our state can no longer afford the inefficiency of centralized bureaucratic control over our most precious resource. It’s time to end top-down bureaucratic control, give private property rights to groundwater back to the people, and fix a generations-old mistake.
Alexander Kolodin serves Legislative District 3 in the Arizona State House and has been practicing election law in Arizona for over a decade. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Secretary of State.
by Alexander Kolodin | Jan 19, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
From harvesting timber in national forests to grazing cattle on the open range, our nation has faced many tragedies of the commons over the years. Whether hunting big game in the wild or extracting oil and gas from underground reservoirs, each example presented our leaders with the same, fundamental issue: if nobody owns it, everyone will overuse it.
For rural Arizona, groundwater is no different. As explained in Part 2, Arizona’s groundwater challenges are a tragedy of the commons, stemming from the fact that groundwater is a finite resource with multiple landowners on the surface, any one of whom can tap into the common supply.
How we approach this tragedy moving forward will determine not only the health of the aquifers but also the future of our rural communities. While some proposals have been offered to date, none have been sufficient to earn legislative support, and most have been wrong for our state.
To get it right, we must consider the approaches that have been taken in other contexts to see which have worked and which have not, allowing us to determine which could be the best fit for groundwater.
There are generally two approaches
According to Dr. Stephen Hicks—professor at Rockford University, critic of socialism, and supporter of individual rights—every solution for the tragedy of the commons falls into one of two categories: a socialist approach and a property-based approach.
The socialist approach views self-interest as the problem. It seeks to control human behavior through mandates, permits, and fees. Whether renewable energy standards for climate, catch limits for fisheries, or sustained yield mandates for national forests, all prioritize resource preservation through government control—maintaining communal ownership and regulating beneficial use through bureaucrats who decide who can use what, when, and how much.
The property-based approach, on the other hand, views communal ownership as the problem. It seeks to eliminate the tragedy by establishing private property rights to the resource, allocating individual shares and allowing users to manage and conserve their own supplies, limited only by the fundamental principles of private property rights, such as the “no harm” principle and “right to exclude.”
Mining claims have operated on “first in time, first in right,” and grazing allotments grant exclusive rights to leaseholders, thereby reducing conflicts among users and making individuals responsible for their own supplies.
To address rural groundwater, Arizona leaders must decide which of these approaches they will take.
Socialist options don’t work
Quod nullius est, est domini regis. It means: “What is the property of no one, belongs to the king.”
In 1976, after the Arizona Supreme Court declared groundwater a public resource, the Court said: “The legislature has the authority to determine which groundwater uses are most important to the general welfare and to allocate the state’s groundwater resources accordingly.”
This statement illustrates the truth about communal ownership: if no one owns the resource, then the government has absolute authority to act as king over its use. This is why the Arizona Department of Water Resources frequently reminds landowners that their right to use water is only “usufruct” to the land they own: meaning they don’t own the groundwater itself, the state does.
Like wild animals in Old England, communal resources belonged to the Crown—hunters could only hunt when, where, and how the king said they could. Those systems, like today’s socialist groundwater regimes, treat resources as communal property controlled by government fiat.
Such approaches typically fail because they lead to higher scarcity, higher prices, and worse outcomes for the resource itself. The federal government’s centralized control over national forests, for example, has produced catastrophic wildfires, endangered protected species, and restricted affordable timber.
In Arizona, the infamous “management area” is the hallmark socialist approach to groundwater— including 1948 “Critical Management Areas” and 1980 “Active Management Areas.”
According to Dean E. Peterson and Larry L. Deason in Arizona’s Groundwater Problem & Proposed Legislation, the 1948 Critical Management Areas “did not adopt any of the basic principles of water law,” but rather were an “exercise of the general police power of the state” through centralized restrictions.
In 1980, Arizona doubled down on its socialist approach with the Groundwater Management Act, establishing “Active Management Areas” that centralized control into the Arizona Department of Water Resources. This gave the agency near-absolute power over groundwater in AMAs, allowing its director to effectively act as king over the common supply.
In both cases, users rushed to drill before grandfathering deadlines, and corporate and municipal users entrenched their historical pumping, distorting market incentives. After 40 years, the 1980 Act has failed to achieve “safe yield” in most AMAs.
Despite their clear failures, proponents today continue to argue that Arizona should “finish what was started” with the 1948 and 1980 groundwater acts by expanding socialist-style control statewide through “Rural Groundwater Management Areas” and “Local Groundwater Stewardship Areas.”
These proposals must be rejected, as they would only impose new bureaucracies, tax personal groundwater withdrawals, and mandate volumetric reductions while maintaining the same communal ownership model that led to the tragedy in the first place.
Property-based solutions are best
Meum et tuum. It means: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours.”
According to John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, the role of government is not to seek to control human behavior, but rather to protect private property by using the limited power of government to quantify and secure individual rights, prevent takings, support transferability, and uphold the “no harm” principle and biblical golden rule between and among property owners.
Rather than mandating conservation through coercion, property-based systems embrace human nature and seek to harness the power of self-interest to guide the invisible hand toward voluntary conservation.
History has proven that this approach works. When socialist mandates in American fisheries led to overfishing, policymakers switched to property-based catch shares and individual transferable quotas, which restored fish populations.
When hunters arrived in the New World, they rejected the Old English system and adopted the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes transferable hunting permits, helping to maintain healthy wildlife populations while providing a fair system of access.
Even “adopt a highway” programs harness self-interest to address trash and litter on public highways, granting exclusive naming and advertising rights to private parties in exchange for maintenance.
Overall, individual ownership protects scarce resources better than bureaucratic control because direct ownership creases individual responsibility. Where individuals are given ownership and responsibility, conservation increases because what belongs to someone is protected by someone.
Arizona needs correlative rights
To solve Arizona’s groundwater tragedy, we must remove it from communal ownership and apply a property-based approach. One solution designed specifically for finite underground resources like groundwater is “correlative rights.”
Derived from oil and gas law in resource-rich states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, correlative rights allocate proportional shares of the resource to adjoining landowners on the surface, based on the amount of land they own. If a person owns five percent of the surface, then they own five percent of the oil and gas below, plain and simple. This is consistent with the ad coelum doctrine described in Part 1.
In many of these resource-rich states, policymakers have already adopted correlative rights for groundwater. In Texas, for example, the Edwards Aquifer Authority uses correlative rights to allocate groundwater. In Nebraska, natural resource districts administer correlative rights.
Because allocations are treated as real property, users are free to trade their shares among themselves within the same basin—allowing market forces, rather than government bureaucracy, to dictate the most efficient use of limited resources.
This is why correlative rights have been such an effective way to prevent the tragedy of the commons in finite underground resources to date. As a proven, property-based framework rooted in America’s traditional values, correlative rights are the right approach for Arizona.
It’s time to restore private property rights to groundwater
When the Arizona Supreme Court enshrined “communal ownership” into law, it likened groundwater to a wild animal, saying it was “free to roam as [it] please[d]” and the “property of no one” until “captured.”
In so doing, it wrongfully embraced the Old English model that Americans rejected and failed to follow the American path that utilizes private property rights to advance the public good. This must be undone.
To address the tragedy of the commons in Arizona, we must recognize the harms of communal ownership and reject the socialist schemes that seek to maintain it. Only by restoring private property rights to groundwater through the adoption of correlative rights can Arizona finally address the tragedy and allow landowners to protect and conserve the supplies beneath their feet.
It’s time that Arizona leaders consider a new approach to groundwater supplies. As Arizona Justice Duke Cameron wrote in 1976: “The time has come to consider again the doctrine of correlative rights.”
Alexander Kolodin serves Legislative District 3 in the Arizona State House and has been practicing election law in Arizona for over a decade. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Secretary of State.
by Alexander Kolodin | Jan 12, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
Across rural Arizona, wells are going dry. Unmitigated groundwater pumping is depleting aquifers and leaving rural communities helpless.
In places like Sunizona and Salome, large industrial users are to blame. As corporate interests come in and drill thousands of feet deep, everyday residents on the surface are left with dwindling supplies.
Meanwhile, in areas like Prescott and Paulden, it is the proliferation of domestic wells that is putting strain on the local aquifers. As new residents move in, they drill faster than nature can keep up, adding hundreds of new wells without considering the impact to existing residents.
Rural groundwater is a “tragedy of the commons”
All of these challenges reflect one simple fact: Arizona’s groundwater basins are limited, subterranean resources with multiple landowners on the surface.
If anyone with a well can access the common supply, then there is nothing stopping people from pumping themselves—or each other—dry. That’s what legal scholars call the “tragedy of the commons.”
Lack of private property rights is the problem
The cause of this tragedy is not the large industrial users or new residents themselves, but rather the legal system that allows new users to come in, drill new wells, and pump more groundwater without having to demonstrate a water right first.
This is not accidental. It is the consequence of the “beneficial use” doctrine discussed in Part 1, which eliminated John Locke’s “no harm” principle and the “right to exclude” others from the groundwater beneath our feet.
As Arizona Justice Duke Cameron explained in his 1976 dissent, beneficial use “encourages wasteful over-consumption and proclaims a right that cannot be protected.”
“Two adjacent landowners may pump each other dry to the detriment of themselves and everyone else,” noting that “access to water is not based on ‘first in time, first in right’ … [but] rather … by a race for consumption controlled … by … the physical ability to extract water from the common supply.”
“To the small or family farmer,” he concluded, “[T]he right to water then becomes a cruel illusion, proclaimed by law, but unobtainable in practice.”
People know something is wrong
Rural residents understand intuitively that the lack of property rights is the cause of this situation, but no one has been willing to articulate their desired solution in clear terms—until now.
When rural residents say things like “we were here first,” “they’re coming into the basin,” and “they’re taking our water,” they are not asking for more bureaucratic regulation or government control; they are calling for prior appropriation.
Under prior appropriation, whoever is there first wins
Qui prior est tempore potior est jure. It means: “First in time, first in right,” and it represents the system of property law used in western states to effectively allocate shares of surface water, like streams and rivers, to landowners based on who was there first.
Under prior appropriation, when a user diverts water first, the user receives a senior right and can force others to cut back in times of need—avoiding the tragedy of the commons in streams and rivers.
When it’s applied to groundwater, senior users can prevent others from drilling new wells if there isn’t enough to go around, thereby protecting existing rights and upholding John Locke’s “no harm” principle.
This is exactly what residents in places like Prescott and Paulden have been asking for.
Arizona had a chance to adopt prior appropriation
Between 1931 and 1969, nearly all western states—including Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico—applied prior appropriation to groundwater. But Arizona did not, making it the only state in the broader Colorado River basin that does not recognize priority rights to groundwater.
When the Court was evaluating Bristor v. Cheatham in 1953, it had a chance to adopt prior appropriation, but it chose beneficial use instead, leading to the bifurcated system we have today.
This was the ‘original sin’ of Arizona groundwater law
From this misguided decision, all other groundwater challenges have followed.
From the growth of industrial agriculture in Sunsites and Salome to the proliferation of domestic wells in Prescott and Paudlen, all of Arizona’s most pressing challenges can be traced back to this fateful decision.
Had the Court established prior appropriation, many of these challenges could have been avoided. Residents in Sunizona and Salome could have stopped new industrial operations from coming in, while residents in Prescott and Paulden could have stopped new residential wells from being drilled.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to adopt prior appropriation today. Doing so would require a complete legal overhaul and would likely take years to implement.
And even if it could be implemented, there are very real questions about how it would work, such as whether thousands of well owners could be forced to cut back if a single, shallow well owner went dry. Additionally, prior appropriation is subject to the “use it or lose it” rule, which is not ideal for finite groundwater resources if the goal of adopting a new framework is to promote conservation.
Despite these challenges, some form of private property rights is needed; without them, there is little that rural residents can do to stop the tragedy of the commons from occurring in their basins.
Restoring private property rights is the only way
To truly address the tragedy of the commons, we must recognize it for what it is and explore solutions that are specifically designed to address it.
Ultimately, Arizona will be required to choose between two fundamentally different futures: one ruled by centralized bureaucratic control, or one that restores real, enforceable rights to the groundwater beneath the surface, allowing landowners to protect and conserve their supplies for future generations.
Without such a solution, the right to water will remain nothing more than a cruel illusion, “proclaimed by law, but unobtainable in practice.”
Alexander Kolodin serves Legislative District 3 in the Arizona State House and has been practicing election law in Arizona for over a decade. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Secretary of State.
by Alexander Kolodin | Jan 5, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos. Also known as the ad coelum doctrine, it means: “Whoever owns the soil owns everything up to the heavens and down to the depths.” This includes gold, silver, oil—or groundwater—that may be below.
In basic property law, the ad coelum doctrine comes with the “right to exclude,” which is the right for landowners to keep, sell, use, protect, and conserve their property—including preventing others from taking it.
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, also known as the “no harm” principle, means: “Use your own property in such a way that you do not injure the property of another.” This includes groundwater.
Articulated by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, the “no harm” principle represents the biblical golden rule: “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.”
These principles form the foundation of American property law. And in Arizona, they were part of our groundwater code—that is, until 1953, when they were taken away.
Arizonans had property rights to groundwater
According to the Arizona Supreme Court in Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources (2009), Arizona’s common law on groundwater “evolved from the territorial-day view that a landowner has a property interest in groundwater underlying the surface estate.”
Indeed, as Ted Steinberg wrote in Slide Mountain: “Private property in the underground was real all right. At least there were a lot of people in Arizona who believed in it.” According to him, Arizona farmers swore they owned the groundwater beneath their feet, just like the ad coelum doctrine said they did.
In 1904, the Territorial Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed farmers’ beliefs, stating in Howard v. Perrin that “percolating waters are the property of the owner of the soil.”
After statehood, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the territorial view, stating in Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co. (1931) that groundwater was “the property of the owner of the land,” subject to the rules of the common law, which included the “no harm” principle and biblical golden rule.
These affirmations confirmed what landowners already knew: that the groundwater was theirs, and they had a right to use it as long as they did not harm the rights of others.
But this framework is very different than the ‘free-for-all’ we have today, which does not recognize private property rights or the golden rule.
What happened? How did we get here?
Arizonans’ property rights were taken away
In the mid-1900s, a dramatic shift occurred. Armon Cheatham, an industrial cotton farmer, sunk eleven wells near Laveen, creating a large cone of depression that dried up thirty-eight other landowners’ wells.
The small landowners had been using their water for modest means, like household use and ranching. Tom Bristor, one of those landowners, sued to protect his private property rights, enforce the ad coelum doctrine, and uphold the golden rule.
But in a sudden reversal of precedent, the Arizona Supreme Court in Bristor v. Cheatham (1953) rejected the territorial view and replaced the golden rule with a new doctrine called “beneficial use.”
This dealt the first blow—eliminating John Locke’s “no harm” principle and opening the door for anyone to pump as much as they wanted, “without limitation and without liability to another owner.”
Twenty-eight years later, the Arizona Supreme Court dealt the final blow, declaring in Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott (1981), that “there is no right of ownership of groundwater in Arizona prior to its capture and withdrawal from the common supply,” eliminating the ad coelum doctrine in our state.
Here, small well owners in Chino Valley sued to stop the City of Prescott from taking their water and piping it 17 miles away under the state’s new 1980 Groundwater Management Act.
Although their wells hadn’t gone dry yet, they argued that the city’s scheme (and the state’s new groundwater law) constituted a “taking” that required just compensation, including for future groundwater supplies that hadn’t been pumped but that residents wanted to ensure would be available for future use.
Unfortunately, the Court sided with big government and the city, ruling that the water beneath their property wasn’t theirs until they pumped it—ending the ad coelum doctrine and handing full control over to the government.
This was the final nail in the coffin for private property rights—eliminating the right to exclude and declaring all groundwater a public resource, shared by all but owned by none, preventing anyone from protecting or conserving a discrete supply and leading to the situation we have today.
Ownership of subsurface groundwater should never have been taken away
The judges who decided the 1953 case were all Democrats, and the governor who adopted the 1980 law was Democrat Bruce Babbitt. They broke from our state’s traditional values and sided with corporate industry over small landowners, leaving everyday citizens helpless against the political and financial elite.
Had Arizona’s leaders maintained the traditional values that founded our country, we would not be in the situation we’re in today.
Fortunately, the detrimental effects of these negative decisions can be reversed. We can correct the mistakes of the past and return private property rights back to the people.
Only then can we ensure a fair system that restores what was taken, upholds our founding values, and allows property owners to protect and conserve the groundwater beneath their feet.
Alexander Kolodin serves Legislative District 3 in the Arizona State House and has been practicing election law in Arizona for over a decade. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Secretary of State.
by Alexander Kolodin | Aug 14, 2022 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
Today every Republican finds themselves asking a new question: “If I speak out, will the FBI come for me next”? Recently, the LD3 Republican Committee heard a “Resolution to Censure the FBI as the Arm of the Leftist Police State in Maricopa County.” The fear in the room was palpable, for nobody knows any longer where the First Amendment ends and “sedition” begins. Yet nonetheless, one brave man, the songwriter Bruce Arlen, stood up and began to read.
He read a damning condemnation of the weaponization of the DOJ and the perversion of the law. And he read a clear and resounding call for the Legislature and Governor of Arizona, through both words and actions, to provide the citizens of our state with the “double security” against invasion of their liberties for which the federal system was designed. His courage inspired others. The motion carried. Bravery is contagious.
I am also afraid. I have seen the mechanizations of the DOJ and J6 Committee up close and know that this is no idle political witch-hunt but a coordinated and deadly serious effort to decapitate the Republican Party’s leadership and cow ordinary Republicans into silence and inaction. To be sure, some of the rioters on January 6th appear to have broken the law. But most of the “crimes” that Washington’s tyrants are now investigating amount to no more than allegations that political opponents said things that they do not like. The others are mere pretexts to prosecute people for the same reason.
Over the past few months, I have fielded too many questions from the Republican grassroots about whether they can still communicate with party leadership safe from the prying eyes of the FBI. And as a lawyer, I have had too many citizens come to me to ask, “can I say this”? One is too many.
So let me be clear: President Trump has a constitutional and God-given right to say that the 2020 election was stolen. So do you. And President Trump, like all Americans, has a constitutional and God-given right to petition Congress to take action on the basis of that belief or any other. Had Congress acted, those acts would, perhaps, have been proper subjects of judicial review. The rights to expression and petition are not. They are absolute.
Unfortunately, citizens are increasingly aware that if they are unlawfully targeted for their speech, they can no longer rely on the procedural protections of the American justice system as they once might have. The left has long intimidated and harassed attorneys willing to represent conservatives through the traditional Soviet tactics of the midnight phone call and anonymous threat. With the 65 Project, the left has institutionalized this harassment through a coordinated and well-funded effort to “shame” such attorneys, “make them toxic in their communities,” and curtail their ability to practice law by filing bar complaints against them. Attorneys willing to defend conservatives, never many in number, are becoming a rapidly dying breed.
In a few months, I will place my hand on the Bible and swear to defend the constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Then, despite my fear, duty will no longer permit me the luxury of inaction. I have heard the cries of the people of my district and will make every effort to fulfill my sacred obligation to defend the liberties of the citizens of Arizona.
It is a fact unknown to most that the federal and state criminal codes are so lengthy and complex that almost everyone is a criminal. It is, for example, a federal offense to slice canned peaches incorrectly. When everyone is a felon, prosecutors have unfettered discretion to prosecute their political opponents for perfectly “real” crimes. To protect our rights to freedom of speech and association, I will work to reform the law to ensure that only things that you and I would perceive as morally wrong can be prosecuted.
Ten years ago, Congress caught the FBI teaching agents that they could “bend or suspend the law.” Its academy is notorious for teaching trainees that suspects have “forfeited their right to the truth.” Thus, should the FBI continue down its dark path, I will go further and heed the calls of my PCs to introduce legislation prohibiting the State of Arizona from sharing information with the FBI that might help facilitate their reckless political prosecutions.
I call on liberals of good faith to join in these efforts. The FBI began its metamorphosis under Hoover. I am not blind to the fact that it was one of my favorite Republican presidents, Calvin Coolidge who appointed him. The erosion of our constitutional liberties was furthered by Dick Cheney’s push to expand the power of the secret FISA courts to spy on American citizens. His daughter Liz Cheney now continues his dastardly work by serving on the J6 committee. Today they are coming for Trump and the GOP leadership. But tomorrow the midnight knock could be at the door of my home. Or yours.
Do not let yourself become used to these escalations. Do not let your anger diminish with each new outrageous assault on your rights. Do not allow your liberty to be slowly boiled away like the life of a frog in a pot. The time to stand is while the noose sits but lightly about the neck. The time to fight is now.
Alexander Kolodin is a constitutional attorney and a Representative-Elect to the Arizona House.
Page 1 of 11
