Republican State Rep. Alex Kolodin (LD3) is one of two contenders vying to unseat incumbent Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
Kolodin, a longtime election lawyer, has been in the Arizona legislature since 2023.
Kolodin has previously defeated Fontes under different circumstances.
In 2020, Kolodin won an Arizona Supreme Court case against Fontes which determined the latter, while Maricopa County Recorder, had wrongly told mail voters that crossing out votes wouldn’t spoil their ballots. That ruling allowed Arizonans to further challenge election officials on unlawful actions.
In 2024, Kolodin again defeated Fontes in court, securing a requirement for the latter to comply with duties under the National Voter Registration Act.
Earlier this year, Kolodin successfully passed an election integrity bill (HB 2022) to ensure Arizona’s election timeline aligned with federal requirements and protected military members overseas from disenfranchisement.
Kolodin also led on HCR 2001, the Arizona Secure Elections Act, which promises to strengthen voter ID requirements through an amendment to the Arizona Constitution. The measure passed the Arizona Legislature and is now headed to the statewide ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would mandate voter ID, declare citizenship as a mandatory qualification for registering and voting in elections, ban foreign funding in elections, and limit ballot acceptance times to Election Day.
Facing off against Kolodin in the primary is former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda.
Kolodin and Swoboda debated last month, with PBS moderating. Both said voters desire more reasons to trust their elections: competence, transparency, reliability, and experience.
Swoboda acknowledged that many voters believe elections have been rigged in recent years, but that the state has addressed issues with the administration, Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), and equipment through legislation and court challenges.
“The way I say it is, when people say, ‘Was it stolen?’, they were stolen fair and square,” said Swoboda.
Swoboda said issues with the EPM would always exist, but that the only issues that matter are those that affect the outcome of the election.
“We just won everything that was winnable in [20]24,” said Swoboda.
Kolodin disagreed with Swoboda’s view that the issues with the elections system, namely the EPM, have been resolved. He pointed to the Pima County GOP lawsuit against Fontes which alleges that Fontes’ EPM threatens voters’ free speech.
“The voters of Arizona are ready to move forward and have an elections system that we can be proud of,” said Kolodin.
Kolodin also questioned why Swoboda continues to defend the exclusion of political party observers in the EPM. Swoboda said she was merely backing what the law was at the time.
Swoboda criticized Kolodin for his 2023 admonishment by the State Bar of Arizona. Kolodin was punished for participating in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election.
Kolodin defended mail-in voting as the right of Arizona voters, and said that his efforts in the legislature have been to make that voting method more secure.
“Arizonans love our mail-in voting. Most Arizonans use mail-in voting, and nobody is coming to take that away,” said Kolodin.
Similarly, Swoboda said that Arizona has used mail-in voting for a while and does it well, and indicated that Arizona has further to go to secure the voting method against potential fraud.
The two contended whether the ballot referral under HCR2001 would “crush” mail-in voting. Kolodin claimed Swoboda was “misleading” voters on the referral, which he said was measures to improve the security of mail-in voting. Swoboda claimed the county recorders stand opposed to the referral.
“The voters of Arizona are the only stakeholders that I care about,” replied Kolodin.
Kolodin said it was “extremely important” to boost voter participation, especially in rural areas. However, Swoboda said it wouldn’t be her job as the secretary of state to ensure voter turnout was high.
In closing statements, Kolodin said his focus was on restoring public perception of integrity in Arizona’s elections.
“What the voters have been waiting for is elections that we can be proud of again,” said Kolodin.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
For more than 50 years, 89-year-old Robert Young has owned the historic Louis Emerson House. He was married on its front steps, and to him it is a priceless vestige of pre-statehood Arizona.
But Arizona State University (ASU) intends to force Young to put a price on his memories and Arizona history. ASU wants to build a new headquarters for ASU Health and a new AI-driven medical school, and Young’s home is in their way.
The Louis Emerson House predates Arizona’s statehood by a decade. It was built in 1902, and has a historic designation with the Phoenix Historic Property Register. Clark Churchill — adjutant general and attorney general for the territory of Arizona in the late 1800s — developed the property in 1888. Much of this history was recovered by Young, who told 12News that he’s spent much of his 50 years as the house’s owner preserving its history.
“I would describe it as being one of a kind, because Clark Churchill decided that he was going to have an important connection with a street railway right here; it was called the ‘Brill edition,’” said Young.
The home’s namesake, Louis Emerson, was a butcher with Phoenix’s Palace Meat Market. Emerson lived in the home with his wife, Clara, until his death in the 1920s. Clara remained there until the early 1930s. That’s what Young told the Arizona Republic in a 2013 feature on his home, along with his belief that at least two others may have lived there prior to the Emersons.
ASU has offered Young about $800,000 to sell, but Young denied. Young has said he may be open to an offer that could cover the costs to have the house relocated, which he said would cost between $2 million and $3 million.
“You can’t get back history,” Young told the State Press. “You can’t recreate a historical treasure.”
Following Young’s refusal, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) filed an eminent domain lawsuit with the Maricopa County Superior Court to force Young to take the money.
ASU said in a statement that they issued several offers to Young based on an “experienced, state-certified appraiser,” some of which included options for moving the home, but didn’t offer further details.
The city of Phoenix has invested $50 million into the ASU Health development, though city officials have said in statements to the media that ASU’s proposal to them didn’t include Young’s house.
ASU Health will span 200,000 square feet and house the John Shufeldt School of Medicine and Engineering, which the university says is “a new kind of medical school” teaching the prioritization of data in medical decision-making, and blending medicine with engineering, technologies such as artificial intelligence, and humanities.
ASU plans to open ASU Health in the fall of 2028.
Over 3,700 community members have signed an online petition to save Young’s home as of this report, endorsed by Preserve Phoenix, city of Phoenix’s Historic Preservation Office, and Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition.
A hearing on the fate of the Louis Emerson House is scheduled for June 19.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A bipartisan bill aimed at expanding Arizona’s emergency medical workforce has been sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs for consideration.
SB 1235, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, passed both chambers with bipartisan support.
The legislation didn’t receive unanimous support from Kavanagh’s party, however. 13 Republicans (three in the state senate, 10 in the state house) voted against the bill. There were no floor or committee discussions on the bill to explain opposition.
SB 1235 would enter Arizona into the Emergency Medical Services Personnel Licensure Interstate Compact, which would allow non-Arizona emergency medical service (EMS) personnel the privilege to practice in Arizona, and Arizona EMS personnel the privilege to practice across state lines in compact states without a requirement to engage in the licensure process for each state.
25 states have adopted the compact, representing approximately 400,000 providers: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
If approved by the governor, Arizona would agree to standardized EMS licensure requirements and oversight by the Interstate Commission for EMS Personnel Practice.
Any state or states in which an EMS worker maintains active licensure would become a home state or home states. Privilege to practice would only extend to “remote” states: those states where an EMS worker doesn’t have a license. The state license trumps the privilege to practice, and the compact can’t expand the scope of an existing license.
Remote states may investigate and impose restrictions for violations of laws and regulations, but ultimately the compact only allows home states to retain control over an individual’s license. If one state suspends an individual’s privilege to practice, that automatically extends to all other member states until resolved.
The compact would also require FBI-compliant background checks for new licenses.
Kavanagh said during the Senate committee hearing on the bill that the legislation afforded something similar to the reciprocity enjoyed currently by doctors and nurses. Reciprocity requires applications for licenses in other states based on an individual’s existing license, while the compact doesn’t require licensure for other states.
Kavanagh also shared that he was one of the country’s first EMTs at 17 years old while living in New York City. At the time, communities funded their own volunteer ambulance corps.
Among those who signed on in support of the bill were representatives of the Department of Defense, Arizona Ambulance Association, American Medical Response, Healthcare Innovations, and Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.
In a press release, Kavanagh said the bill allowed for the reduction of bureaucracy in order to save lives in emergency medical situations. Further, Kavanagh said the legislation would enhance licensure opportunities for military members, veterans, and their spouses.
“When seconds matter, government red tape should never stand in the way of qualified emergency medical professionals helping people in need,” said Kavanagh. “By cutting unnecessary barriers without lowering standards, Arizona is taking a responsible step toward a stronger, more flexible, and more prepared emergency medical system.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Republican state lawmakers are challenging Gov. Katie Hobbs to sign into law a government transparency bill amid the ongoing “pay-to-play” scandal involving the governor.
This past week, the Republican-led legislature sent SB 1186 to Hobbs’ desk. The legislation was inspired partly by ongoing legal challenges to the legality of the Arizona Medicaid program’s contract award system, and partly by ongoing allegations that Hobbs arranged for a unique rate increase to one of her top campaign donors.
Sunshine Residential Homes, a group home operator, donated more than $400,000 collectively to Hobbs’ gubernatorial campaign, Hobbs’ inaugural fund, and the Arizona Democratic Party.
Once Hobbs took office, the Arizona Department of Child Safety gave Sunshine Residential Homes a 30% rate increase, though no other group homes received rate increases and over a dozen contracts were terminated. This was reported initially by the Arizona Republic in 2024, along with another key detail indicating a close relationship between the governor and the company: Hobbs fine dining at the mansion of Sunshine Residential Homes CEO Simon Kottoor.
Hobbs’ inaugural fund — which reached nearly $2 million — was another funding source that was shrouded in secrecy. The inauguration event cost about $200,000, leaving the million-plus as a nonprofit source of funds to be spent at Hobbs’ discretion.
Attorney General Kris Mayes, a fellow Democrat, has maintained that her investigation into the alleged pay-to-play arrangement remains ongoing. Hobbs has yet to take Mayes up on her request for an interview.
The proposed legislation from Arizona’s Republican lawmakers would require companies that obtain state contracts or certain state grants to disclose anything of value provided in the previous five years to the governor, campaign-related entities, inaugural funds, and organizations making independent expenditures supporting or opposing the governor or their political opponents.
The legislation would also prohibit state agencies and employees from destroying notes created during the evaluation
The bill sponsor, State Sen. T.J. Shope (R-LD16), said financial disclosures should come before the state awards any contracts and grants, in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
“Arizonans have watched one contracting controversy after another and are rightly asking whether political connections are influencing decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Shope. “Governor Hobbs now has an opportunity to show Arizonans she supports transparency in government by signing this legislation.”
An advisory team was formed in the House to address this alleged pay-to-play scheme by Hobbs, and they also have their own investigation underway. The lawmakers hired outside counsel from out of state — Justin Smith with the Missouri-based James Otis Law Group — to conduct an independent investigation.
Smith led a battery and defamation lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll, an accuser of President Donald Trump.
That independent investigation initiated by lawmakers is ongoing. All findings from the outside counsel go to the advisory team and House leadership.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and Auditor General Lindsey Perry are also coordinating on an investigation into the matter involving Hobbs and Sunshine Residential Homes. The House advisory team announced last year it would coordinate with Mitchell and Perry on their investigation.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case determining whether Arizona State University (ASU) can mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings for its employees.
Professor Owen Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after ASU required him to take a DEI training called “Inclusive Communities” (ASU referred to their version of DEI as “DEIB,” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging”).
ASU requires the Inclusive Communities training as a condition of employment upon hire and every two years.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, filed on Anderson’s behalf. Goldwater Institute attorney Stacy Skankey said the case represented Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable for violating the law.
Arizona law prohibits any mandatory trainings which impart “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.”
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job,” said Skankey. “That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all.”
The Inclusive Communities training included materials which taught that white supremacy exists as a structural phenomenon, minority faculty don’t have authority or control due to structural inequalities like racism and sexism, white privilege and white fragility exist and impact communities, white people have a duty to combat their privilege, racism can be implicit even if not intended, and sexual identities yield power.
Transcript examples from the training materials were included in the Goldwater Institute’s filing within the Arizona Supreme Court.
Along with the training, ASU formerly required employees to pass an accompanying module quiz. This exam graded certain answers as correct which served to advance DEIB ideology; the Goldwater Institute argued this final test further proved the training served as an impermissible mandate for employees to accept blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Anderson said ASU’s mandate violated state law because the training assigned “race blame” based on skin color.
Anderson added that ASU’s training was rooted in a Marxist dichotomy reducing the world to oppressor versus oppressed, and that the training imparted impermissibly discriminatory teachings that conflicted with his religious and political beliefs. Anderson is a tenured faculty member who teaches philosophy and religious studies.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” said Anderson. “Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue — it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Anderson’s lawsuit. The court ruled that the law doesn’t have a provision allowing individuals like Anderson to seek legal recourse.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
