A new survey of likely Arizona Republican primary voters shows Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) with a lead over Rodney Glassman in the race for the Republican nomination for attorney general.
According to the poll, conducted by Stealth Analytics, Petersen leads Glassman 35% to 19% while 46% of respondents remain undecided. The poll surveyed 816 likely GOP primary voters from June 2-4 and reported a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
AZGOP Attorney General Primary
Petersen leads Glassman 35 to 19, with just under half of likely primary voters still undecided.
The findings suggest that while Petersen currently holds a significant advantage, a large portion of the Republican electorate has yet to settle on a candidate ahead of the July primary.
The survey also found Petersen with a stronger favorability rating among Republican voters. According to the poll, 46% of respondents viewed Petersen favorably compared to 12% unfavorably, while Glassman recorded a 38% favorable rating and a 22% unfavorable rating.
According to Stealth Analytics, Republican voters ranked illegal immigration (24%), election integrity (23%), water supply concerns (20%), and border security (14%) as the top priorities for Arizona’s next attorney general.
The survey also measured the potential influence of President Donald Trump on the race. According to the results, 67% of likely Republican primary voters said a Trump endorsement would make them more likely to support a candidate, while 20% said it would have no impact and 13% said it would make them less likely to support that candidate.
The poll comes as Republican voters prepare to choose a nominee in one of Arizona’s most closely watched contests.
The two candidates recently participated in a debate sponsored by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission. During the debate, Petersen highlighted issues including public safety, election integrity, and enforcement of Arizona law, while Glassman emphasized his legal experience and criticized incumbent Attorney General Kris Mayes’ handling of the office.
The winner of the Republican primary will advance to the November general election, where Democrat incumbent Attorney General Kris Mayes is seeking another term.
The full Stealth Analytics survey can be viewed here.
President Donald Trump amplified Arizona Congressman Abe Hamadeh’s (R-AZ08) criticism of California’s election system after Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman was projected to advance to a November runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, effectively ending former reality television personality Spencer Pratt’s bid for mayor.
Hamadeh wrote on X that “California is incapable of running free and fair elections consistent with our Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government for states.”
It’s clear, California is incapable of running free and fair elections consistent with our Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government for states. Federalize the election. https://t.co/ppGaJRmKGW
Trump later shared a screenshot of Hamadeh’s post on Truth Social, writing, “No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!”
The comments followed continued ballot counting in the June 2 Los Angeles mayoral primary. The Associated Press reported that Raman, a progressive city council member, will face Bass in the November runoff. The AP reported that the result eliminates Pratt, a Republican and former cast member of “The Hills,” whose campaign drew national attention due to his celebrity and criticism of liberal governance in Los Angeles.
In a follow-up post to Truth Social on Monday, President Trump wrote, “Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. 3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections! Now they’ll be working on great guy Steve Hilton. Won’t have results for, possibly, TWO WEEKS, according to officials. President DJT.”
The Los Angeles mayoral primary is nonpartisan. If no candidate receives 50% of the votes, the top two candidates advance to a November runoff.
The AP reported that early results released after polls closed showed Bass leading, Pratt in second, and Raman in third. Since then, Los Angeles County has continued processing and releasing results from mail ballots that arrived later. The AP reported that election data showed large numbers of Democrats held onto their mail ballots and returned them in the final days of the race to explain why Bass and Raman performed better than Pratt in later vote-count updates.
California’s vote-counting process has drawn renewed national scrutiny because state law allows mail ballots to be counted after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and received within seven days. The California Secretary of State’s Office says mailed ballots for the June 2 election must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received no later than seven days after Election Day. The office also states that all valid vote-by-mail ballots are counted in every election, regardless of the outcome or closeness of a race.
Los Angeles County’s election results page notes that vote-by-mail ballots are included in the first bulletin and that voters who registered after the 29-day registration figure will still have their votes counted, according to the county’s election results text version.
Trump had already criticized the California count before sharing Hamadeh’s post. In a separate Truth Social post, Trump wrote, “Has anybody been watching the CROOKED Election going on in California. Two great Republican Candidates are being cheated, and so is America, which if the Dumocrats are able to fulfill their mission, great trouble and consternation will follow. Watch this ‘Election’ closely!!!”
Trump’s comments referred to Pratt in the Los Angeles mayoral race and Republican Steve Hilton in California’s gubernatorial primary. The AP previously reported that Hilton remained in second place in the governor’s race, ahead of Democrat Tom Steyer, though his lead had narrowed as additional ballots were counted. Democrat Xavier Becerra had already advanced to the general election, while the AP had not yet called the second runoff spot at the time of that report.
The debate has also raised broader questions about California’s use of universal vote-by-mail and extended ballot processing timelines. The AP reported that ballots are mailed to every eligible voter in California and that Los Angeles County processes and counts mail ballots in roughly the order they are received. Early results released after polls closed included mail ballots returned early and votes cast that day, while later updates included mail ballots that arrived closer to or after Election Day.
Raman will now face Bass in the November runoff for mayor of Los Angeles.
Arizona Republican House and Senate leaders announced a compromise budget agreement with Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs on Tuesday and introduced a series of budget bills for consideration in both chambers.
According to a press release by the GOP Senate Caucus, the budget, totaling $18.29 billion, is designed to deliver approximately $1.45 billion in tax relief to Arizonans over a four-year period and to limit state spending growth to 3.05%. The agreed-upon budget also “rejects or modifies more than $3 billion in proposed executive tax increases, fees, and spending expansions over the next three years.”
The legislative GOP leadership and Gov. Hobbs have been embroiled in tense on-again-off-again negotiations since January, with Hobbs announcing a full moratorium on signing legislation, vetoing nearly all bills sent to her desk from April 13 until May 14, including a proposed Republican budget containing over $1 billion in tax relief.
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Arizona Becomes Only State in the Nation to Deliver Historic Trump Tax Cuts As Part of Bipartisan FY 2027 Budget Agreement
“Arizona is leading the nation once again,” Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) said in a statement. “For years, Arizona has built a reputation as one of the best places in America to live, work, raise a family, and start a business. This budget strengthens that foundation. Families are facing higher costs for groceries, childcare, housing, and everyday necessities, and we wanted to provide real relief. By adopting President Trump’s tax cuts at the state level, expanding tax relief for families, and protecting educational freedom, we’re helping Arizonans keep more of their hard-earned money while ensuring our state remains economically competitive.”
Looks like we have a deal on the budget. Arizona will be the first state in the nation to deliver the full Trump tax cuts! Proud of my colleagues in the House and Senate. Expecting to vote it out on Thursday. And this time, it will get signed.
The budget reportedly incorporates full conformity with the tax cuts of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act passed in 2025, which included several of President Trump’s major federal tax provisions, including:
No tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
An increased standard deduction,
A new childcare deduction,
An enhanced child tax credit,
Expanded charitable giving deductions,
Property tax relief for disabled veterans.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) said, “Republicans came into this session focused on affordability, responsible spending, public safety, school choice, and protecting taxpayers from new taxes and fees. This agreement reflects those priorities and shows what can be achieved through serious negotiations in divided government. The process still needs to play out, but this is a responsible budget agreement that moves Arizona in the right direction and puts families and taxpayers first.”
According to the Senate GOP Caucus, the budget agreement will also address the ongoing controversy of data center development in the state through the imposition of “a three-year moratorium on the issuance of new certificates for the data center sales tax exemption while explicitly allowing construction of new data centers to continue.”
In addition to implementing the $1.45 billion in tax relief, the budget will also include:
$112 million for corrections operations,
A 4% correctional officer stipend,
$23 million for victims of crime assistance,
$58 million for child safety operations, including foster care coaching and guardian contract costs,
$25.5 million for county support programs, probation services, coordinated reentry efforts, and sheriff assistance,
$10 million for wildfire suppression efforts,
$4.3 million for rural hospitals.
Reforms packaged with the FY2027 budget also include eligibility verification requirements for Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and protections for the Empowerment Scholarship Account program.
Governor Hobbs praised the bipartisan agreement, saying, “This bipartisan, balanced budget agreement will put Arizona first and deliver opportunity, security and freedom to communities throughout the state. With this agreement, we are delivering a $1.4 billion tax cut for working-class families, investing in job creation, education and water security while tightening our belts, and securing a moratorium on the data center tax exemption so we can develop a responsible path forward that protects our water future and lowers utility bills for Arizona families.”
She added, “This bipartisan compromise shows what we can do when we put common sense before political games and focus on delivering real results for our communities. It will put money back in the pockets of Arizona families and lower costs, make our communities safer, and protect the vital services that Arizonans rely on. In the coming days, I look forward to working with legislators in both parties to pass this bipartisan budget agreement that will make Arizona stronger, safer, and more prosperous.”
House and Senate versions of the budget bills will be considered during a Joint Senate & House Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday, with final votes set for Thursday.
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap rejected the Board of Supervisors’ proposal for a public meeting to discuss unresolved election administration disputes, arguing the offer was intended to create an appearance of cooperation while the Board continued litigating election authority issues.
In a June 5 statement, Heap said the Board’s latest proposal was “not a serious effort to resolve this dispute” and accused the Board of continuing “a pattern of delay, obstruction, and political theater” that has lasted more than 18 months.
For 18 months, the Board refused negotiations. Then they lost in court. Six weeks later, they're still refusing to comply and facing contempt proceedings and sanctions for ignoring the Court's order.
I've offered to sit down with the Board and our respective legal counsel so we… https://t.co/DHiFwzCC5J
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) June 6, 2026
“They rejected proposals, rejected meetings, rejected mediation, and forced taxpayers to fund unnecessary litigation,” Heap said. “After losing decisively in Superior Court, they are now doing everything possible to delay compliance while pretending the problem is a lack of communication. The problem is not communication. The problem is that the Board refuses follow the law and accept Court orders they do not like.”
The dispute follows an April ruling in the litigation between Heap and the Board over election administration duties. The Maricopa County Superior Court issued a ruling in Heap’s favor on April 16, rejecting the Board’s claim of “plenary” authority over election administration, and held that Arizona law establishes the Recorder as the county’s principal elections officer.
The Recorder’s Office said the court ordered the Board to return control of IT staff, servers, databases, software, and election systems to the Recorder or fund their immediate replacement. The office also said the court found that the Board’s control of the Recorder’s IT systems and personnel constituted an “unlawful usurpation” of authority.
The Board has disputed Heap’s characterization of the litigation and said the April ruling could disrupt election operations. In a May 4 release, the Board said it had filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and warned that the ruling could cause “significant disruptions to election operations,” including confusion over chain of custody, on-site tabulation, and the handling of mail-in ballots on Election Day.
The Board has also maintained that it negotiated in good faith with Heap over a Shared Services Agreement. On the county’s election duties dispute page, the Board said it has “consistently negotiated in good faith” to reach an agreement on how to divide election responsibilities and said Heap chose to file a lawsuit in 2025 instead of finalizing a new agreement.
The latest exchange centered on whether unresolved Shared Services Agreement issues should be discussed in a public meeting or through structured negotiations involving counsel.
Heap pushed back in a June 1 letter, saying he had sought discussions and negotiations since the beginning of the dispute, had submitted multiple Shared Services Agreement proposals, had requested meetings with Board leadership, and had offered mediation.
Heap said the Board’s proposed public meeting format was “unlikely to achieve” the objective of resolving the dispute. He wrote that effective negotiations over legal authority, operational responsibilities, staffing, resources, and election administration required candid discussion, counsel’s participation, and a process capable of producing written agreements.
“Public Board meetings are not designed for that purpose,” Heap wrote in the letter. “They are designed for conducting public business. While appropriate for informing the public, they are ill-suited for negotiating and memorializing agreements between parties engaged in active litigation.”
Heap also said the Board could not “simultaneously litigate authority before the courts” while expecting the same disputes to be resolved through informal public meetings rather than structured negotiations involving counsel.
In a June 3 letter, Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko asked Heap to meet in person “as quickly as you are available,” noting that UOCAVA ballots would be mailed within days and that early voting for the primary would begin in three weeks.
What a shocker😀…@azjustinheap puts out a statement on Friday night saying he won't meet with me & @KateBrophyMcGee to resolve elections issues because he doesn't want the meetings livestreamed to the public. Election negotiations should be public. I have nothing to hide.
“The Board seeks, and voters deserve, a resolution to these SSA issues,” Brophy McGee and Lesko wrote in the letter. “There is no time to waste.”
Brophy McGee and Lesko said legal counsel and staff would be welcome to attend, but said the in-person dialogue should be limited to elected officials “empowered by and accountable to the people,” according to the June 3 letter. They also said the discussion should be livestreamed because election administration is a public-facing government responsibility.
“This discussion needs to occur in the light of day, not in secret,” Brophy McGee and Lesko wrote.
In his June 5 statement, Heap said the Board was demanding a public meeting where it would control the agenda, format, questions, and discussion while continuing to litigate the same issues in court.
“The Board has also attempted to portray my rejection of this proposal as opposition to transparency,” Heap said. “That is an obvious lie. I have offered to meet with Board leadership, County staff, and legal counsel for both parties. I proposed specific meeting dates and offered to make myself, my staff, and counsel available at any other time the Board preferred. The Board rejected that proposal.”
Heap said real negotiations require decision-makers, legal counsel, candid discussion, and a process capable of producing binding written agreements. He said public hearings would instead produce “speeches, soundbites, and political posturing.”
The disagreement comes as the Board appeals the April ruling and Heap continues seeking compliance with the court’s order. The Recorder’s Office said in a May 29 statement that Heap had requested the Superior Court hold the Board in civil contempt for allegedly refusing to comply with the April 16 ruling.
The election authority dispute remains pending as Maricopa County officials prepare for upcoming elections without a new Shared Services Agreement in place.
Rep. Andy Biggs is advancing a constitutional amendment to permanently set the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices. He says the proposal would prevent future attempts to expand the Court through legislation.
According to a statement released by Biggs’ office, House Joint Resolution 1 would amend the U.S. Constitution to require that the Supreme Court consist of one chief justice and eight associate justices. The proposal seeks to place the Court’s size in the Constitution rather than leaving it subject to change by Congress.
The resolution was introduced at the start of the 119th Congress and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
On June 3, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-8 to advance the proposed amendment. According to Reuters, the vote fell largely along party lines, with Republican members supporting the measure and Democratic members opposing it.
During the committee proceedings, Biggs framed the proposal as a response to court-packing efforts.
“How can the Supreme Court protect Americans from government overreach if the same government can pack the Court whenever it dislikes a ruling?” Biggs asked. His office stated that the resolution is intended to preserve judicial independence and to prevent future court expansion efforts.
“Our nation’s founders built a system of checks and balances to protect citizens from concentrated power – a central part being the U.S. Supreme Court, whose duty is to defend the rights and freedoms of every American, not to serve as a political tool for any party,” Biggs said. “The judiciary was designed to be the quiet guardian of liberty, insulated from the passions of the moment. Unfortunately, special interests have been increasing their attacks on the Court, threatening to pack this iconic American institution to ensure favorable outcomes for their causes. The goal is not ethics or protecting rights but gaining power and intimidating the Court.”
This week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee passed H.J. Res. 1, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices. Congress has altered the Court’s size several times throughout American history, with the number of justices ranging from five to ten before being set at nine by statute in 1869. The Court has remained at nine members since that time.
Supporters of the amendment have cited proposals by some Democrats in recent years to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. Opponents have argued that Congress should retain its constitutional authority to determine the Court’s size and structure through legislation.
“The ongoing and escalating assault on the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court must stop,” Biggs noted. “That is why I have introduced this constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices at nine. This action will protect the Court’s legitimacy, preserve the checks and balances that safeguard our cherished freedoms, and ensure every American’s rights remain secure – no matter who holds political power. I’m grateful for my colleagues’ support of this amendment, and I look forward to its passage on the U.S. House floor.”
Constitutional amendments face a high threshold for approval. A proposed amendment must receive support from two-thirds of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before being sent to the states for ratification. Ratification requires approval from three-fourths of the states.
The last newly proposed constitutional amendment to clear Congress and be ratified by the states was the 26th Amendment, setting the national voting age at 18 in 1971. The D.C. Voting Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1978 but failed to meet the state ratification requirement before its statutory deadline expired. The 27th Amendment, which bars changes to congressional compensation from taking effect until after an intervening House election, was ratified in 1992; however, Congress originally passed it in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights package.
