by Staff Reporter | Mar 2, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) issued its polling place map for early voting, but the Maricopa County Recorder says its uneven distribution may disenfranchise voters.
Recorder Justin Heap issued a letter on Thursday to the MCBOS expressing these concerns. Heap said he doesn’t support the plan.
“I have serious concerns that the proposed early voting plan [the Board] provided makes voting inconvenient and inaccessible for a large number of Maricopa County voters,” said Heap. “I cannot support a plan that does not provide all voters a reasonably equal opportunity to vote. I remain willing to work in good faith. But cooperation does not mean rubber-stamping a plan my office had no role in building, and which fails to adequately protect the voters.”
According to the map, areas with higher population counts have significantly less early voting sites compared to areas with lower population counts. As an example, Tempe (population 180,000) has three designated early voting sites while Mesa (population 500,000) has one.
That Mesa voting site is not in the center of the city; it is located in the southeast corner, meaning most voters would have to travel over 10 miles to reach the location.
“That kind of imbalance makes voting more difficult in large portions of the county and risks leaving a substantial percentage of county voters without reasonable access to early voting,” said Heap. “Elections should be fair and accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live.”
In addition to those alleged troubles, Recorder Heap said that “no staff, funding, equipment, or planning authority” has been transferred to him by MCBOS as of the letter. Per Heap, the MCBOS Elections Director, Scott Jarrett, delivered to him an early voting plan on Monday developed without the involvement of his office and asked for an approval by Friday.
“Maricopa County voters made clear they seek us to have collaboration based on the statutory division of duties, rather than artificial deadlines or public narratives that obscure the facts and cause voter confusion,” said Heap.
Arizona law requires the board to provide funds and resources to the recorder’s office.
In response, Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko issued a joint statement dismissing his claims as “misleading and disappointing.” McGee and Lesko said the board would continue to plan for Election Day regardless of Heap’s rejection of the plan.
“We offered to help him because he’s never done [early in-person voting] before, and time is of the essence,” read the joint statement. “We even gave him a list of more than 160 voting centers he could use or modify, but we can’t force him to accept our assistance.”
The board issued a letter on Tuesday to Heap asking whether he would accept Jarrett’s plan for early in-person voting. According to their letter, the plan opposed by Heap maintained consistency with practices implemented by Heap’s predecessors.
“The Board of Supervisors strongly supports maintaining a comprehensive early in-person program consistent with prior practices,” stated the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 1, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Arizona’s elected leaders reacted along a partisan divide to the U.S. attack to liberate Iran from the Islamic regime.
Arizona’s Republican congressional officials have signaled support for President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a joint military operation against Iran, and called for an end to the partial government shutdown to ensure full funding for this military venture.
Arizona’s Democratic officials oppose the attack. They are looking to compel a vote on the War Powers Resolution, though all conceded their opposition to the continued existence of the Iranian regime.
Early Saturday morning, the U.S. and Israel attacked over a dozen areas across Iran, at least, including the capital Tehran. The attacks resulted from Iran’s failures to meet nuclear negotiations. Iran retaliated with missile strikes without success.
Key fatalities include several senior Iranian officials. The fate of Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remains disputed as of this report. A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry claimed Khamenei was alive. However, President Donald Trump announced on Saturday afternoon that Khamenei was dead.
“[Khamenei] was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do. This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country,” said Trump.
Trump said the bombings would continue until peace was achieved in the Middle East.
Trump urged Iranians to conduct a regime change in an address shared to social media early Saturday morning. Trump said the U.S. attacked Iran to eliminate threats to the American regime.
“I say tonight that the hour of freedom is at hand,” said Trump. “When we are finished, take over your government, it will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. For many years you have asked for America’s help but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.”
To the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, armed forces, and police, Trump advised them to cease their resistance.
“Lay down your arms and you will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death,” said Trump.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08) called on Democrats in Congress to end the partial government shutdown in order to provide full funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ06) said Iran chose this escalation, not the U.S.
“Today’s action by President Trump sends a clear message: the Iranian regime’s aggression and destabilizing threats will not go unanswered,” said Ciscomani. “For decades, the Iranian regime has funded terror, attacked our allies, and threatened American servicemembers.”
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ03) expressed reluctance to recognize Trump’s authority to launch a war without congressional authorization. Ansari’s parents came to the U.S. as Iranian refugees of the Islamic regime.
“Consistent with my previous votes, public statements, and the consensus in my district, I believe no president — Republican or Democrat — has the authority to launch military strikes of this magnitude without Congressional approval,” said Ansari. “I want a free Iran and a future of democracy and dignity for the Iranian people. Those goals must be part of a coherent strategy that does not risk chaos or another endless war in the Middle East and require seriousness and leadership equal to the stakes.”
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ04) said none would mourn the collapse of the Islamic Republic, but that Trump was wrong for launching such an attack.
“[T]he United States cannot be dragged into another open-ended foreign war. Americans know the cost of conflicts with no clear strategy, no defined objectives, and no end in sight, and they do not want to repeat those mistakes,” said Stanton.
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ07) accused Trump of entering the U.S. into another “forever war,” characterizing this latest attack as both reckless and needless.
“Taking the United States into a major military conflict without debate or the consent of the people’s representatives is a clear violation of Congress’s constitutional war powers,” said Grijalva.
Sen. Ruben Gallego claimed there was another pathway for the U.S. supporting Iranian regime change without going to war.
“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people,” said Gallego. “Strikes are underway and Congress hasn’t voted. No President gets to drag working-class Americans into another war without authorization.”
Sen. Mark Kelly, like Grijalva, questioned Trump’s promise of keeping the U.S. out of war.
“The Iranian people deserve freedom. They deserve the right to choose their own leaders. So, what’s the plan for what comes next?” said Kelly. “I don’t think Donald Trump knows the answer, and that’s dangerous when American lives are on the line.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 1, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona House has passed a bill banning gender transitions for minors.
HB 2085 not only bans gender transition procedures to minors, it bans referrals and distribution of public funding to gender transition procedures. The bill defined procedures to include puberty blockers and hormone replacement drugs.
The legislation did include exemptions for individuals who were born with sex development disorders; who were endangered due to a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness; or who sustained an infection, injury, disease, or disorder caused or exacerbated by a gender transition procedure.
It is likely this bill is dead on arrival should it pass the Senate and hit the governor’s desk. Gov. Katie Hobbs supports gender transition procedures for minors, and her husband, Patrick Goodman, assisted children with gender transitions as a Phoenix Children’s Hospital Gender Support Program counselor.
The partisan divide was clear during House floor arguments for and against the bill.
Democrats argued HB 2085 violates parental and medical freedom.
Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D-LD18), assistant minority leader, claimed parents had the right to decide for their children to transition their children.
Rep. Betty Villegas (D-LD20) argued puberty blockers and hormone therapies should be acceptable for gender transitions since they’re used to treat other ailments and defects.
Rep. Janeen Connolly (D-LD8) said gender transitions were a personal decision that should be beyond the scope of lawmakers. Connolly shared that one of her grandchildren, now 17 and identifying as “they/them,” had transitioned genders at 12 years old.
Rep. Stephanie Simacek (D-LD2) argued these decisions to transition genders weren’t made in haste since minors relied on parental consent to make the decision.
Across the aisle, Republicans argued the gender transitions of minors amounted to child abuse.
Rep. Lisa Fink (R-LD27), the bill sponsor, argued that allowing the puberty process to occur uninhibited was the prevailing treatment for gender dysphoria. Fink read off the myriad adverse health effects of puberty blockers and hormone replacement medications when applied to healthy children seeking gender transitions.
Rep. Rachel Keshel (R-LD17) accused those in support of gender transitions for minors of being inconsistent in their logic.
“It is my opinion that a parent that allows a child to permanently alter their body and potentially take away their ability to be parent one day, that is child abuse,” said Keshel.
Rep. Pamela Carter (R-LD4) countered that gender transitions don’t qualify as valid healthcare, and therefore not within the acceptable bounds of health decisions parents may make on behalf of their children.
“The physicians even now are stopping some of these procedures because they see the results of what happens to a minor when they realize what has happened: they cannot have children, or they are marred physically, emotionally for life,” said Carter. “Parents should be in charge of their children’s health, but to me this is not healthcare.”
Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3) questioned how Democrats could support irreversible procedures for minors given the universal agreement on age limits for other activities.
“Point of fact, there are many things our society does not allow minors to do: we don’t allow minors, at least up to a certain age, to drive. We don’t allow them to vote. We don’t allow them to drink. We don’t allow them to smoke,” said Kolodin. “We don’t even allow them to get tattoos because we’re worried that one day they will regret that decision. How much more so then should we not allow minors to engage in elective surgery that permanently disfigures them?”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 28, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona House passed a bill, HB 2762, requiring food labels to disclose cultivated cell use with near-unanimous consent.
Cultivated cells are animal-derived stem cells grown within a lab into a meat alternative substance, or “lab-grown meat.” Unlike real meat, lab-grown meat doesn’t contain components like blood vessels, connective tissue, fat, or muscle fibers and therefore lacks naturally occurring essential nutrients that exist in real meat like iron, collagen, and taurine.
HB 2762, or the Andy Groseta Act, would require lab-grown meat to have the phrases “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured” on their packaging. Groseta was the former president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, and the Yavapai Cattle Growers Association.
State Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) declared in a press release that Arizona families have a right to transparency when it comes to their food.
“Arizona families should not have to decode fine print or marketing claims to know what they are buying,” said Nguyen. “If a food product is derived from cultivated cells, the label should say so plainly and directly. HB 2762 protects consumers from confusion at the grocery store and supports our ranchers and farmers who raise and grow real food under clear standards.”
Three Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill: Minority Whip Quanta Crews (D-LD26) and Reps. Brian Garcia (D-LD8) and Consuelo Hernandez (D-LD21). None explained their vote.
Five consumer products containing cultivated cells have completed premarket consultations with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the first of which was completed in November 2022. Premarket consultations evaluate food safety prior to their release on the market. Three of these products within that stage of premarket consultations are made with chicken cells, one from pork fat cells, and one from salmon cells.
The FDA and Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) established a formal agreement on their regulatory approach to lab-grown meat in 2019. The FDA oversees the collection, banking, and growth and differentiation stages of cells used to create lab-grown meat. FSIS oversees the cell harvesting, production, and labeling stages.
A similar bill that passed the House last year was held in the Senate.
Chairman Lupe Diaz (R-LD19) advised in the bill’s committee hearing last month that Republican leadership is also looking at banning cultivated cell products.
Democrats who voted against the bill in committee ended up voting for the bill on the House floor: Reps. Mae Peshlakai (D-LD6), Mariana Sandoval (D-LD23), and Stephanie Stahl Hamilton (D-LD21).
Sandoval said the bill was “a solution looking for a problem.” Sandoval said Arizona should leave food labeling decisions up to the federal government.
“State-specific mandates risk confusion, federal preemption, and unnecessary barriers to innovation,” said Sandoval.
Not only did Sandoval end up voting for the bill, she introduced the adopted amendment to clarify its language. Originally the bill would have required lab-grown meat to have the following disclosure on labels: “This food product is derived from cultivated cells.” Sandoval’s amendment provided two alternative shortened disclosures: “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured.”
Stakeholders against the bill include Sprouts, the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Arizona Retailers Association, and Good Food Institute. Those for the bill included the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association and Arizona Farm and Ranch Group.
Good Food Institute’s lobbyist Sam Richard said during the committee hearing that they support transparency and labeling for consumers, but argued the current bill limits companies’ access to the Arizona market since the legislation is Arizona-specific and not a national requirement.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 27, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Senate approved legislation to facilitate coordination between law enforcement and federal immigration agents.
SB 1055 passed 16-11, with all Republicans in support and all Democrats against.
The bill requires law enforcement to notify either Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately following the arrest of an individual who is discovered to be an illegal alien.
The bill sponsor, Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), says this will give law enforcement the sense of security they deserve to appropriately process individuals with deportation orders. Rogers said her legislation was necessary to support safe neighborhoods and consistent enforcement within public safety.
“When someone is under arrest and unlawfully present in our country, law enforcement should never have to hesitate, second-guess, or worry about whether doing the right thing will jeopardize their career,” said Rogers. “For too long, unclear policies and political pressure have created confusion that undermines public safety and puts officers in an impossible position.”
Given the partisan nature of the bill, it’s highly likely the legislation will die under Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen should it pass the House.
The first to speak against the bill during Monday’s floor vote was Assistant Minority Leader Catherine Miranda (D-LD11). She said the bill wasn’t needed. Miranda discouraged the idea that Arizona law enforcement needs to support ICE in deportation proceedings, since ICE agents were “terrorizing” communities across the nation.
“[SB1055 is] unnecessary and strives to increase fear in communities and empowers all law enforcement to act as ICE agents,” said Miranda.
During the committee hearing on the bill last month, Miranda said she carries all of her sensitive personal documents in her car — her birth certificate, Social Security card, and passport — just in case law enforcement questions her citizenship.
Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) claimed the bill would cause racial profiling.
“Our communities are already, you know, not feeling well, not wanting to go to work, school, or otherwise because of what is happening in our communities with the federal immigration process that’s happening in and around our communities,” said Gonzales.
Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-LD24) called it an “anti-public safety bill” and “cruel.” Ortiz said the detainment facilities were “death camps.” She opposed the concept of deporting illegal aliens
“It is going to invite a violent, armed paramilitary force to have more unnecessary interactions with our communities,” said Ortiz. “ICE out of Arizona, ICE out of our communities.”
Similarly, Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-LD8) said ICE was too dangerous and relying on poorly trained and violent forces.
Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) said it was effective government to have local law enforcement cooperating with federal law enforcement. Kavanagh lamented the likely veto from Hobbs.
“People who are accused of being here illegally need to be brought to justice,” said Kavanagh. “We shouldn’t be trying to hamper [the lawful execution of our laws].”
Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) reminded his colleagues across the aisle that the bill impacts individuals who were already arrested for committing a crime and in custody.
“It’s absurd that you would not want the criminals who come over illegally removed from this country. Apparently it’s just lawlessness run amok in this chamber. We are hearing [Democrats] advocate for not turning over illegal alien criminals to federal immigration law enforcement,” said Hoffman.
As a response to Democratic lawmakers citing the Minnesota deaths of anti-ICE activists Alexi Pretti and Renee Good, Hoffman read off a handful of the names of individuals murdered by illegal aliens, which prompted an outburst from the audience.
Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18) dismissed Hoffman’s list of victims, saying all illegal aliens who committed those crimes were facing charges unlike the officers involved in the Pretti and Good deaths. Sundareshan took issue that individuals arrested for civil violations, not just criminal violations, may face deportation.
“In this country we are innocent until proven guilty,” said Sundareshan.
Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D-LD12) said this would allow “perfectly innocent” individuals to be arrested and attacked.
“ICE has become an agency of thugs who do not follow the law,” said Epstein. “I am afraid of ICE agents.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
