by Matthew Holloway | Jan 28, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) recently posted a series of messages alleging that some Arizona Democratic lawmakers accepted endorsements from the Communist Party and have not renounced them. His comments came as protests over federal immigration enforcement continued in Phoenix and across the state.
Gillette cited photos in the Arizona Republic, which depicted demonstrators carrying red banners emblazoned with the hammer and sickle, an internationally recognized symbol of communism, during an anti-immigration enforcement protest outside the State Capitol in Phoenix on January 23.
In his social media posts, Gillette asserted that several Democratic members of the Arizona Legislature had received endorsements from the Communist Party and noted that “none of the elected Dems renounced the Communist endorsement,” though his posts did not specify which lawmakers he referenced.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Arizona Reps. Mariana Sandoval (D-LD23) and Lorena Austin (D-LD9) were both endorsed by the Arizona Working Families Party (WFP), which, according to its website, describes itself as “building our own party on top of the two-party system in the United States,” and “organiz[ing] outside the two parties.”
In July 2025, AZ Free News reported that the WFP also endorsed Democrat Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during her candidacy in the special election as well as socialist New York City Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani.
Responding to a commenter who shared imagery of Communist Party founder Vladimir Lenin gleaned from a Working Families Party post, Gillette noted: “They took that down after the original posting. I can work with a Kennedy dem… sure they like big govt, taxes, welfare state, but they can be reasonable and dont [sic] hate America like these woke progressive Communists.”
Gillette’s remarks drew attention against a backdrop of Arizona’s ongoing political debates over immigration, federal enforcement, and state-federal relations. Responses from Arizona legislative Democrats to Gillette’s endorsement claims were not contained in his posts, and follow-up statements from affected lawmakers were not immediately available.
In recent weeks, multiple gatherings have taken place in Phoenix opposing ICE activity and federal immigration enforcement. Dozens of protesters gathered outside an ICE field office near 7th Avenue and Montecito calling for the agency to stay out of Arizona after federal immigration enforcement actions sparked nationwide pushback. Demonstrators marched toward downtown Phoenix as part of the event.
Earlier in January, activists in Phoenix held demonstrations outside an ICE office following the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, joining similar demonstrations in other cities in Arizona.
On January 20th, roughly 200 protesters participated in a nationwide “Free America Walkout” demonstration at the Arizona State Capitol, marked by chants, poetry, and marches around the Capitol grounds. Organizers framed the protest as part of broader national actions coinciding with the anniversary of Trump’s second inauguration.
In the Phoenix area and at nearby university campuses, youth and students also participated in walkouts and demonstrations calling for limits on federal immigration enforcement and criticizing ICE, including protests featuring chants against the agency and President Trump.
The rallies in Phoenix reflect a broader pattern of protests and demonstrations nationwide this month, including protests involving activist groups identifying as socialist or communist, in response to federal immigration enforcement actions and fatal shootings involving ICE agents. National coverage from Fox News noted coordinated events in multiple U.S. cities, with activist groups staging protests in opposition to ICE operations and Trump administration policies.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 27, 2026 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona State Representative Chris Lopez (R-LD16) is leading legislation to establish a Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) program in Arizona, aiming to expand private investment, modernize infrastructure, and support economic growth in Pinal County and across the state.
The legislation, House Bill 2824, would authorize local governments to offer C-PACE financing for commercial and industrial properties. The market-driven tool allows property owners to access low-cost, long-term private capital for projects that improve energy efficiency, conserve water, enhance resiliency, and fund infrastructure upgrades.
According to HB 2824, the “C-PACE Program” in Arizona would be defined as “a special assessment program that provides commercial property assessed capital expenditure financing for eligible improvements” that local governments may establish through voluntary special assessment agreements with property owners.
Eligible projects under the proposed program include investments in energy systems, water and wastewater infrastructure, building retrofits, manufacturing facilities, agricultural processing, and logistics development, all sectors central to rapid economic growth.
“Pinal County is one of the fastest-growing regions in Arizona, and we need smart, market-driven tools to help our communities keep pace,” Lopez said. “C-PACE unlocks private capital for major commercial and industrial projects without raising taxes or creating new government debt.”
Unlike traditional public financing, which leans heavily on incurring public debt, C-PACE financing relies entirely on private investment. Participation in the program would allow property owners to repay the financing through a special assessment tied to the property, a structure which advocates say provides long-term certainty for lenders and developers while shielding taxpayers.
Similar Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) frameworks have already been authorized in other states, including North Carolina, Idaho, and Arkansas. Arizona would join over 40 states that have authorized C-PACE, according to the release from Lopez, “helping unlock billions of dollars in private investment nationwide.”
“As Pinal County continues to attract major employers and advanced manufacturing facilities, we must ensure our communities have the infrastructure to support that growth,” Rep. Lopez added. “This legislation gives cities and counties another tool to compete, attract investment, and build for the future.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 25, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Goldwater Institute is asking a federal judge to allow Maricopa County taxpayers to see how public funds have been spent during more than a decade of federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Tuesday, Goldwater urged the U.S. District Court to reconsider a 2014 order that keeps the federal monitor’s invoices confidential. Under that order, the court-appointed monitor, Warshaw & Associates, submits billing records exclusively to the judge, placing them outside public view.
Scrutiny of the court-appointed monitor has been growing in recent weeks. Over $300 million has been spent on oversight in the past 14 years, with approximately 10% going to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw, according to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin. The Board submitted a court filing in December asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to end federal oversight of MCSO. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell agreed in a post to X, writing, “There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, explained, “That means Maricopa County taxpayers have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent on one of the most important services the county provides.”
“Although the Goldwater Institute has repeatedly requested copies of these invoices, the county does not have itemized statements, and the federal monitor refused to produce them,” he added. “But as we point out in the brief we filed on Tuesday, the government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are. The court in this case has never done so—and even if it had, circumstances have changed in the decade since the lawsuit began.”
The filing comes as Maricopa County separately argues that continued federal oversight of MCSO under the Melendres v. Arpaio ruling is no longer justified. In a pending motion, the county contends that the sheriff’s office has implemented substantial reforms and that the monitorship should be terminated.
In its brief, Goldwater argues that the continued sealing of the monitor’s invoices prevents taxpayers from knowing how their money is being spent and undermines transparency principles embedded in Arizona and federal law.
“History did not end in 2014, and continued federal oversight of MCSO cannot be based on decade-old facts,” the brief states. “It’s crucial that Maricopa County taxpayers be permitted to know where their tax dollars are going — and that’s hindered by the existing orders and continued federal oversight without a full public accounting.”
The court has not yet ruled on either Maricopa County’s motion to end federal oversight or Goldwater’s request for public access to the monitor’s billing records.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 25, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona House and Senate Joint Legislative Committee of Reference (JLCOR) declined to grant the Arizona State Land Department a full, unconditional continuation following its sunset review. Citing systemic compliance failures, Republican legislative leaders are advancing legislation to restructure the agency.
According to a statement from House Republican leadership, the committee voted against a standard continuation during the sunset review hearing, raising concerns over deficiencies in oversight, transparency, and adherence to statutory requirements.
The Arizona State Land Department manages more than 9 million acres of state trust land, with proceeds constitutionally required to benefit public schools and other designated beneficiaries.
Lawmakers cited findings from a sunset review and Auditor General reports indicating the department has failed to comply with statutory requirements governing land disposition planning and long-term development strategy. Committee members said those deficiencies warranted legislative action before the agency could receive a full continuation.
According to House GOP leadership, the proposed reforms would require the State Land Department to:
- Develop and follow five-year land disposition plans as required by statute
- Increase transparency and public engagement related to land sales and leases
- Strengthen requirements for competitive bidding and limit single-bid transactions
- Improve coordination with municipalities and reporting on undeveloped trust land
Alongside the sunset review, lawmakers, led by Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD19), Chair of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and Co-Chair of the JLCOR, introduced several bills to reform the Arizona State Land Department.
HB 2426 would require the department to produce a statutorily mandated five-year disposition plan for trust lands within two years, addressing longstanding planning deficiencies. HB 2427 would compel the commissioner to implement all 51 recommendations from the Auditor General’s July 2025 performance audit, with regular reporting and oversight until completion. Meanwhile, HB 2150 clarifies the department’s continuation under sunset law by setting its termination date and laying groundwork for legislative reconsideration of its structure and authority.
“The Department has had issues for a long time,” Rep. Griffin said. “But they’ve gotten worse under the current administration. Licensing timeframes, five-year disposition plans, and written policies and procedures are essential to upholding the best interests of the trust. These were the top issues. The Commissioner acknowledged these issues during her confirmation hearing and committed to fixing them, but they haven’t been fixed. The captain isn’t steering the ship.”
Supporters of the reform effort said the changes are intended to ensure the department fulfills its constitutional obligation to maximize long-term value for trust beneficiaries, including Arizona’s public education system.
“I see an agency that needs significant reforms,” said Rep. Chris Lopez (R-LD16), Vice Chair of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee. “I think the lack of licensing timeframes is violating applicants’ due process rights. I think the Department’s decision to hold applications permanently in abeyance, so it can avoid appeals, is unlawful, serving functionally as a denial without a written decision. And I think the criteria the Department utilizes to determine which applications move forward are entirely subjective. At a time when transparency is key, I’m surprised the agency hasn’t already been sued.”
Under Arizona’s sunset review process, state agencies may be continued, modified, or allowed to expire based on legislative findings. The committee’s rejection of a full continuation means the State Land Department’s future structure and authority will now be considered as part of the broader legislative process.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 24, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reshaping Arizona’s election system passed its first major legislative hurdle in a hearing on Wednesday, as the Arizona House Committee on Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections (FMAE) approved Rep. Alexander Kolodin’s (R-LD3) Arizona Secure Elections Act.
The Committee advanced House Concurrent Resolution 2001 with a 4-3 vote. It now heads to the House Rules Committee. If approved by both chambers of the Arizona Legislature, the measure would be referred to voters on the November 2026 general election ballot.
Kolodin announced the committee hearing on social media ahead of the meeting.
According to supporters, HCR 2001 is intended to address concerns about voter confidence following recent election cycles. If approved by voters, the constitutional amendment would establish several requirements for statewide election administration.
Those provisions include limiting voter registration and participation to U.S. citizens, prohibiting foreign contributions to candidates or ballot initiatives, and requiring government-issued identification in order to vote.
Additional requirements would mandate that early voting concludes no later than 7:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding a Tuesday general election, prohibit the acceptance of ballots after polls close on Election Day, preserve in-person voting options at accessible polling locations, and require mail-in voters to verify their address each election cycle.
Committee Debate
During the hearing before the committee, Kolodin described HCR 2001 as an effort to overhaul Arizona’s election system by drawing comparisons to reforms adopted in Florida after the 2000 presidential election.
“This year the Arizona State Legislature will give the voters of Arizona the opportunity to transform our system of elections from a national embarrassment to a national model,” Kolodin told committee members, arguing that Florida’s reforms improved election security, sped up results, and increased voter satisfaction.
Kolodin urged lawmakers to advance the measure, saying the proposal would allow voters to address longstanding concerns about election administration.
Democrats raised concerns about voter access and election logistics. Rep. Aaron Márquez (D-LD5) argued that the proposal would effectively end the active early voting list and push large numbers of voters back into in-person voting without funding for additional polling locations, potentially creating longer lines on Election Day.
Kolodin rejected that characterization, emphasizing that HCR 2001 is a constitutional ballot referral rather than a statutory change.
“You have mistaken assumptions right off the bat,” Kolodin said. “It’s not a piece of legislation. It’s not modifying statutory law. This is a constitutional ballot referral.”
Kolodin explained that constitutional amendments are intended to establish broad governing principles, while election administration details are left to statute.
“In a statute, you want to be prescriptivist,” he said. “With a constitutional amendment, you must refrain from being overly prescriptivist,” noting that constitutional provisions are designed to endure for generations.
Addressing concerns about early voting, Kolodin said the proposal would not eliminate early or mail-in voting but would require voters to confirm their address each election cycle before automatically receiving a ballot.
Kolodin also defended the proposal’s voter identification requirements, arguing that the current signature verification system is imprecise and can result in lawful ballots being rejected.
“Our current system of signature verification, which is incredibly imprecise, leads to a large number of valid votes sometimes be[ing] rejected. It’s a very imperfect system. A more precise system, where a definite match can be obtained, where you don’t have to squint at the loops and the squiggles to try to figure out the signatures match, or if a ballot should be sent to curing, and potentially rejected, but where there’s something where it’s binary: it’s either a yes or no. There’s no matter of opinion there [that] will actually lead to fewer votes cast by lawful voters being rejected in the system,” Kolodin said.
Advocacy Groups Weigh In
The Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, represented by Katelynn Contreras, opposed the Resolution during the public comment period, stating, “HCR 2001 does not improve election integrity. Instead, it will restrict access for eligible voters to create confusion and rigid, unworkable rules in the Arizona Constitution. This resolution significantly curtails early and non-voting options that most Arizonans rely on.“ The ACLU representative cited what she described as survey data, claiming that 70 percent of Arizona voters say elections are fair and that roughly 80 percent vote by mail or early, and suggested that the ballot measure would “ban a method of voting that is widely used in the state.”
The figures cited by the ACLU couldn’t be independently verified by AZ Free News.
Asked to clarify the claim, Contreras said the measure would create “new discretionary areas that could be used to restrict mail voting for future.” Kolodin responded, “Mr. chair, I just wish to point out that that is untrue. OK, I just want to put that very clearly.”
The Arizona Freedom Caucus has promoted the proposal on its social media channels since the resolution’s prefiling in November, identifying it as a legislative priority and encouraging public engagement ahead of committee consideration. Arizona House Republican accounts have also circulated prior statements from Kolodin outlining the proposal’s intent.
Arizona Freedom Caucus Chairman Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) urged legislative leaders to advance the proposal following committee review.
“The Arizona Freedom Caucus is grateful that AFC Member Representative Alexander Kolodin has once again provided much-needed leadership in the critical mission to secure Arizona’s elections today and into the future,” Hoffman said. “Once it is heard by the FMAE Committee this week, I urge House Leadership to move it quickly to a floor vote and then send it to the Senate.”
Kolodin criticized the objections raised during the hearing, saying opponents had failed to cite provisions supporting claims that the measure would end early voting.
“We have now reached the point where the opposition to this measure has become truly silly,” Kolodin said, arguing that the proposal would expand, not restrict, voting opportunities.
He added, “It is time for the people of Arizona to have the opportunity to get their kids and their grandkids, my kids and your kids, an election system that we can be proud of, an election system that actually works, instead of inconveniencing and disenfranchising voters, and an election system that provides more opportunities for community participation by casting one’s vote at the polls or to return you ballot to the polls as you prefer. And it’s time, in other words, to take this choice out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of the people who actually deserve to have it: you, the voters of Arizona, and that’s where we’re sending it, despite the opposition.”
AZ Free News previously reported on Kolodin’s election integrity proposals and related legislative efforts, including the prefiling of HCR 2001 and its Senate mirror measure, SCR 1001, in November 2025. The Senate resolution, introduced by Sen. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD20), passed a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee 4-3 on Wednesday and will be heard next by the Senate Rules Committee.
The resolution must be approved by both the Arizona House and Senate before it can be referred to voters for consideration in 2026.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
