Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) criticized Attorney General Kris Mayes last week following reports that representatives of Living United for Change in Arizona, known as LUCHA, contacted her office seeking opposition to the Secure the Border Act in 2024.
Petersen, the Republican nominee challenging Mayes for attorney general, alleged that the communications showed activists influencing the office’s position on the measure.
“When Arizona was facing a historic border crisis, Kris Mayes’ office was coordinated with a left-wing organization to defeat the Secure the Border Act and keep our border open,” Petersen said. “These records raise serious questions about who is driving policy in the Attorney General’s office.”
He continued, “Mayes opposed a measure designed to give Arizona additional tools to confront illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and secure the border at the behest of activists.”
According to the Washington Free Beacon, a lobbyist representing LUCHA emailed Mayes’ office on May 6, 2024, asking whether she would oppose the proposal and issue a public statement. Mayes announced her opposition three days later.
The group in question, LUCHA, emailed Mayes’s office in May 2024 to ask if Mayes would “come out with a statement” opposing the Secure the Border Act, a GOP-led bill that requires immigration status verification for certain public benefits and allows state and local law… pic.twitter.com/ovdjooNmWD
In a statement on May 9, 2024, Mayes cited funding and staffing shortages at law enforcement agencies, concerns about racial profiling, and potential economic consequences. She also criticized the federal government’s handling of border security.
“This referral is a political distraction that will sow seeds of bias and fear without fixing the issues it claims to address,” Mayes said.
Mayes said she would continue pursuing federal border security funding, targeting drug cartels, and working with other law enforcement agencies to stop fentanyl trafficking.
The Free Beacon also reported that LUCHA’s then-political director, Chris Gilfillan, contacted Mayes’ communications director, Richie Taylor, in June 2024 to request a discussion about her approach to the proposal, including its prosecutorial implications. Taylor agreed to speak and provided his phone number.
The Secure the Border Act advanced as House Concurrent Resolution 2060 and appeared on the November 2024 ballot as Proposition 314. Arizona voters approved it with approximately 62.6% of the vote.
The law, which took effect in July, creates offenses involving false documents or information submitted by people unlawfully present in the country when applying for public benefits or employment. It also addresses entry into Arizona outside lawful ports of entry, refusal to comply with return orders, and the sale of fentanyl that causes another person’s death.
In a post to X, Petersen described Mayes as a “public safety disaster.”
MAYES IS A PUBLIC SAFETY DISASTER
”Arizona AG Coordinated With Far-Left 'Abolish ICE' and 'Defund Police' Group While Opposing Border Security Measure, Records Show”https://t.co/RFye2SfApS
This November, Arizona voters will decide whether to amend the state Constitution to prohibit taxes on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and restrict government monitoring of or limits on how much people drive through Proposition 141.
The proposal would bar the state, counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions from imposing a tax or fee based on the miles a person travels in a motor vehicle. It would also prohibit those governments from enacting mileage-monitoring or mileage-limiting laws or rules unless they require the person’s voluntary consent.
The measure reached the ballot through SCR 1004, which passed the Senate on Feb. 20, 2025, and the House on June 13, 2025. The resolution was filed with the Secretary of State on June 16, 2025.
The Legislature advanced the proposal amid debate over mileage-based charges as a source of transportation funding. Such charges assess motorists based on distance traveled.
Supporters describe Proposition 141 as the Freedom to Move Act. In a published ballot argument, Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) President Scot Mussi urged approval for the sake of privacy, affordability, and freedom of travel.
“From wide-open highways cutting through desert landscapes, lanes carving through mountains, bridges traversing valleys and open water, the Freedom to Move is engrained in the American spirit,” Mussi wrote. “Vote YES to preserve your privacy. Vote YES to keep Arizona affordable. Vote YES to preserve your freedom to move,”
Prop 141 protects your freedom to drive without the government tracking every mile.
You already pay at the pump. You already pay sales taxes. You already pay plenty of taxes that help fund Arizona’s roads.
In an August interview with Mussi, AZFEC Vice President Aimee Yentes noted that Arizona’s transportation dollars already come from several taxes, such as the tax on fuel and sales taxes. She added, “…this would prohibit the government from tapping into a new way to tax your driving by taxing every mile that you drive…”
Arizona Trucking Association President and CEO Tony Bradley also submitted an argument supporting the measure, citing reporting, auditing, and administrative costs associated with mileage-based taxation.
“Unlike fuel taxes, which are collected efficiently at the point of sale, mileage-based taxes require ongoing reporting, oversight, and enforcement,” he wrote. “Government agencies must devote resources to audits and compliance, while taxpayers and businesses bear additional recordkeeping and reporting costs. Those dollars are spent operating the tax system instead of improving roads and bridges.”
Under the official ballot explanation, a “yes” vote would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit: (1) taxes or fees based on motor vehicle miles traveled; and (2) laws or rules that monitor or limit motor vehicle miles traveled without consent.
A “no” vote would retain the current constitutional language on taxation.
If Proposition 141 is approved by voters, Arizona would become the first state to embed a ban on VMT taxes and mileage limits into its constitution.
The Arizona Republican Party is targeting Democratic state House candidate Hollace “Holly” Lyon over school choice, circulating a graphic accusing the Legislative District 17 candidate of seeking to take educational options away from families.
In a post to X, the party wrote, “#LD17 voters shouldn’t let the sweet little grandma look fool them….” The accompanying graphic depicts Lyon carrying a bag of money in front of children and a school, with the message, “She Wants To Rob Your Family Of School Choice.”
The graphic’s disclaimer identifies the Republican Party of Arizona, LLC, as its sponsor and states that it was not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s agent. It does not cite a specific proposal or statement from Lyon supporting its characterization.
Lyon’s campaign website lists a pledge to “Strengthen public education and hold ESA vouchers accountable” among her legislative priorities. Her published platform does not specify whether she would seek to repeal universal eligibility for Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
In an interview with Blog for Arizona, Lyon criticized the Republican-led Legislature’s adoption of “universal vouchers” for families whose children already attended private schools. She also accused lawmakers of failing to address fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
Asked about other campaign priorities, Lyon said, “Fully funding our public schools (regardless of the ESA program) is a primary responsibility for the Legislature.” Her interview emphasized greater accountability and public school funding.
In a separate report in the Tucson Spotlight, Lyon said she supports increasing the base-level school-funding formula, improving teacher recruitment and retention through more competitive compensation, and restoring fiscal transparency to the ESA program.
“While funding alone will not solve every challenge in education, we cannot expect schools to succeed without making serious investments in students, teachers, and classrooms,” Lyon said.
The Arizona Department of Education administers the ESA program, which allows participating families to pay for private school tuition, curriculum, home education, tutoring, and other eligible educational expenses.
Under A.R.S. § 15-2402, parents participating in the program must agree to provide instruction in required subjects and use account funds for authorized expenses. The law also generally bars participating students from simultaneous enrollment in a school district or charter school and prohibits accepting a school tuition organization scholarship concurrently with an ESA in the same agreement year.
Arizona voters will decide in November whether to amend the state Constitution to require an Election Day ballot tabulation option at voting locations and government issued identification for every voter, including those voting by mail.
Proposition 144, referred to voters through House Concurrent Resolution 2001, also addresses citizenship requirements, foreign contributions, and the legal standard governing election laws.
Known as the Fast Accurate Secure Transparent Election Results Act (Fast Election Results Act), the proposal would apply to elections taking place on or after Jan. 1, 2028.
Under the final text, all voters would have the option on Election Day to have their ballots tabulated at their voting locations, with procedures prescribed by law. The provision states that its purpose is to prevent administrative delays and ensure timely, accurate results.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC), which supports the measure, highlighted Maricopa County’s use of on-site early-ballot tabulation during the 2026 primary in an Aug. 13 commentary. The organization argued that making the option available statewide would reduce the backlog of early ballots requiring processing after Election Day and allow voters to see their ballots counted.
HOW DID PROP 144 GET ON THE BALLOT?
It took a last-minute fight at the Legislature to give Arizona voters the final say on the FAST Elections Act.
Prop 144 would put major election requirements into the Arizona Constitution, including government-issued voter ID, citizenship… pic.twitter.com/z7FeRfX4FG
In a discussion with AZFEC, Rep. Alex Kolodin (R-LD3) described GOP efforts to get the Proposition on the ballot, saying, “So what we hear from people, that they’re frustrated. They voted for Republicans to deliver things like common-sense election security, but then Republicans don’t give it to them. They just ask for money so that they can do it next time. And I was so sick and tired and embarrassed that we hadn’t done that. And so that’s why I put in all the effort that was required, and it was an enormous amount. But at the end of the day, we got it done.”
Maricopa County reported that 23,400 voters tabulated early ballots at vote centers on Election Day. County officials credited that option, along with improvements in removing ballots from envelopes and sending them to tabulation, with enabling the county to report 99% of results the following day.
Under the county’s 2026 procedures, voters bringing early ballots to vote centers on Election Day can check in, show identification, and use a tabulator programmed for early ballots. The county says ballots tabulated at vote centers are included in election-night results.
Proposition 144 would separately require valid government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot in each election, whether voting in person or through another method. The amendment leaves implementation to law and does not specify a detailed process for presenting identification when voting by mail.
The official ballot language describes this provision as limiting acceptable identification documents to government-issued ID and extending the requirement to mail voters.
The measure would also reaffirm that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections and that elections must be decided solely by eligible citizen voters. It would prohibit foreign nationals from spending or contributing money or anything of value to influence an Arizona election and prohibit anyone from knowingly accepting such contributions.
Another provision would allow the people and Legislature to enact election laws, including those governing early and mail voting, when rationally connected to a legitimate state interest. Listed interests include election security, efficient administration, timely and accurate results, and public confidence.
The official ballot description says that provision would create a new standard for judicial review under the Arizona Constitution that could make election laws harder to challenge.
The Legislature would be required to appropriate money necessary to implement the measure. Its statement of intent also specifies that it does not change federal law governing the overseas military voting process.
A yes vote would approve the constitutional amendment. A no vote would retain the current constitutional provisions governing elections.
Democratic state Rep. Lydia Hernandez (D-LD24) has accused DJ Quinlan, a political consultant identified in state filings as Attorney General Kris Mayes’ campaign treasurer, of contacting her personal cellphone to pressure her over her endorsement of Republican Warren Petersen for attorney general.
Hernandez described the contact in a statement on Facebook accompanied by screenshots of the exchange. She said Quinlan texted her to criticize her decision to support Petersen and characterized the contact as harassment.
“This morning, DJ Quinlan, a political consultant associated with Kris Mayes’ campaign, texted me directly on my personal cell phone to criticize me over my endorsement of Warren Petersen for Arizona Attorney General. There is a difference between political disagreement and crossing the line,” Hernandez wrote. “We are not friends. We are not colleagues. I have never worked with him.”
The screenshots display the contact name “DJ” and the initials “DQ.” Hernandez identified the sender as Quinlan. The first incoming message reads, “Wow, you endorse the guy who told dreamers to be prepared to be deported. Gross. Selfish politician.”
Hernandez’s replies read, “Who is this?” followed by, “A text to insult me? Please refrain from contacting me again.”
The next incoming message reads, “To shame you. But you have no shame.”
A second screenshot shows Hernandez responding with a personal criticism, part of which is redacted. The sender then replies, “Oh, you remembered that we have talked” and “Good for you.”
“Mayes campaign harassing one of my endorsers. Mayes should condemn this unacceptable behavior,” Petersen wrote in a post to X. “This is par for the course for Mayes and her unprofessional team. I will restore respect and professionalism to the office.”
Mayes campaign harassing one of my endorsers. Mayes should condemn this unacceptable behavior. This is par for the course for Mayes and her unprofessional team. I will restore respect and professionalism to the office. pic.twitter.com/PGIZGwBCkx
A campaign finance report for Kris Mayes for Arizona, covering the second quarter of 2025, lists “Quinlan, DJ” as treasurer. Petersen identified the person accused of sending the messages as Mayes’ treasurer in a second post to X.
In his follow-up, Petersen called on Mayes to remove the treasurer, writing, “Mayes should drop him and condemn his unprofessional behavior.”
Kris Mayes treasurer, who didn't notice that Mayes accepted an illegal contribution last quarter, sent harassing text messages to one of my endorsers yesterday. Mayes should drop him and condemn his unprofessional behavior. https://t.co/DEY6ZzhVdD
The accusation follows Hernandez’s endorsement of Petersen over Mayes. Hernandez represents Legislative District 24 and cited public safety and schools in explaining her support for the Republican Senate president.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Mayes Campaign Manager Delaney Corcoran wrote:
“Informing someone who represents Maryvale and Arizona’s Latino community that they have endorsed an extremist who has promised family separations and the mass deportation of 70,000 Dreamers is not a threat. Intimidation is what we’ve seen from Jake Hoffman, TPUSA and other Warren supporters: aggressively attacking and calling for retribution against the 50 Republicans who bravely endorsed Attorney General Kris Mayes. Those are two very different things.”
In the statement shared by Petersen, Hernandez again pointed to school safety and said Petersen had committed to working with state education officials, the Auditor General’s Office, and the Legislature on school oversight and accountability.
“My political endorsements are my decision,” Hernandez wrote. “You can disagree with me politically all you want, but respect my boundaries.”
