The Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is lowering its standards and shifting hiring practices in order to recruit and hire more female cops by 2030.
PPD leadership explained during a city council meeting that they are working to align with the 30×30 Initiative, in which participating law enforcement agencies pledge to have female officers make up 30% of the force by 2030 at minimum.
PPD Commander Warren Brewer confirmed that the department aims to have 30% of academy classes consisting of females by 2030.
“That is a focus for us hiring,” said Brewer. “Hopefully we will stay in the double digits when it comes to hiring the female applicants.”
11 other law enforcement agencies in Arizona have signed onto the 30×30 Initiative pledge: Apache Junction Police Department, Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, Arizona State University Police Department, Gilbert Police Department, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Mesa Police Department, Queen Creek Police Department, Tempe Police Department, Tucson Police Department, University of Arizona Police Department, and Yuma Police Department.
Nearly 400 law enforcement agencies across 46 states have signed onto the 30×30 Initiative pledge. The only states without any law enforcement agencies signed onto the pledge were Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
PPD’s latest academy class had 14 females enrolled, which Brewer said was “the highest” he’d seen in a recruiting class since he’s been in the department. The next class coming in has seven female recruits enrolled.
PPD confirmed that they’ve already begun lowering fitness standards to boost female recruits.
Megan Avalos, PPD’s assistant director for human resources, explained that PPD has lowered pre-academy testing standards for physical agility and ability.
“Pre-employment, we’re giving them an additional 12 seconds because they believe that they can get them ready for that test at the academy,” said Avalos.
PPD’s Physical Ability Test previously required candidates to complete a course simulating essential job functions within two minutes and six seconds. In order to hire more women, PPD has increased the time limit for pre-academy testing to two minutes and twenty seconds.
The test requires candidates to complete an obstacle navigation through climbing over barriers and maneuvering through tight spaces, pursuit simulation through short-distance sprinting and directional changes, victim rescue through dragging a weighted dummy to safety, and equipment carry through lifting and transporting weighted objects.
Per PPD, the test is designed to reflect the real-world physical demands of policing.
This year, PPD once again failed to fill its sworn hiring target of 3,125.
Total recruits in the academy fell from the July 2025 total, but were higher than they were in July 2024. There were 127 recruits in the academy as of July, compared to 135 last July and 70 in July 2024.
Total filled sworn positions also fell for the third year in a row, from 2,527 in July 2024, to 2,501 in July 2025, and then to 2,467 this July.
There were 2,594 total filled sworn positions and recruits this July, which was below July 2024 and July 2025 levels: 2,597 and 2,636, respectively.
However, PPD did report that year-to-date applications represented a 9.6% increase over 2025, and that monthly application totals in 2026 have consistently exceeded or met prior-year performance.
Avalos emphasized that PPD has worked at streamlining its recruitment and hiring processes to encourage candidates and prevent the loss of applicants along the way.
Councilmember Jim Waring was skeptical of PPD’s narrative that recruitment and hiring processes were causing low recruitment. Waring said that recruitment was “worse off” than it was two years ago.
Waring contended that the ongoing recruitment woes were the continuation of a social shift that occurred in 2020, citing the much higher recruitment numbers for the decades leading up to the pandemic.
“Something changed in 2020 that made people not want to be Phoenix police officers, long before the incident that was mentioned or a lot of incidents that have been in the media, or whatever,” said Waring. “If we could figure out what that something is and address it, because that’s your problem. I don’t think it’s processes and so forth, that didn’t seem to effect things for the 20 years I’m looking at before. We used to kind of routinely get 300 people to fill up the classes without really putting a lot of effort into it, and now we’re not.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A superior court has halted a case to determine whether utilities may use an annual rate adjustment mechanism to determine utility rates.
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) adopted the policy in December 2024. According to the ACC, the goal was to allow electric, water, wastewater, and gas companies to determine utility rates in a manner that would reduce costs, regulatory lag, and potentially rate shock for ratepayers.
Major utilities have integrated the mechanism into their rate case applications, including Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Southwest Gas, Arizona Water Company, and EPCOR Arizona.
The Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO) filed a lawsuit in the Maricopa County Superior Court last year challenging the ACC over its adoption of the policy.
RUCO advocates for residential utility ratepayers before the ACC, which includes court intervention — though only in the largest utility rate cases which impact the most utility customers in the state, as RUCO director Cynthia Zwick advised lawmakers last year.
RUCO maintains that the ACC should have adhered to the formal rulemaking process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act instead of adopting the annual rate adjustment mechanism as a policy statement.
The superior court dismissed the lawsuit last summer. However, RUCO appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals sided with the agency last November. The appeals court remanded the case back to the superior court to determine whether the policy should have been adopted as a rule.
Now, the Maricopa County Superior Court has issued a stay pending the decision of the appeals court. The superior court ruled that their handling of the case at this point would be a waste of judicial time and resources. It will now be up to the appeals court to make a decision.
ACC Chairman Nick Myers said in a statement that the commission is still in support of the challenged policy and would continue to defend it in court.
“The use of adjustments, including the ARAM, is an important policy in reducing rate shock to consumers and reducing regulatory lag,” said Myers. “We will continue to utilize this mechanism and defend it in court.”
“ARAM” refers to “annual rate adjustment mechanism.”
Attorney General Kris Mayes has also recently entered the fight against the ACC’s contested policy, but on the basis of the policy itself and not whether the ACC should have gone through the formal rulemaking process. In March, Mayes filed a challenge against the ACC’s approval of the mechanism for UNS Gas. Mayes argued that the mechanism would result in “unjust and unreasonable rates.”
Myers responded the next month in an Arizona Capitol Times guest column arguing that the Arizona Constitution grants the ACC authority to decide on their preferred rate design. Myers questioned whether Mayes was targeting the ACC to bolster her reelection campaign.
“No one is suggesting that the attorney general should remain silent. Legal challenges, when grounded in clear violations of law, are appropriate,” said Myers. “But a pattern of selective, high-profile litigation combined with public messaging that mirrors campaign rhetoric raises legitimate questions about whether that line is being crossed. There is little doubt the lawsuits amount to lawfare, not advocacy for consumers or utilities.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce is advising residents opposed to data centers to go offline to prove their commitment.
The chamber issued a press release on Tuesday advising that those who wish to see a data center moratorium should “take that position to its logical conclusion” by entering its newly launched Arizona Offline Pledge.
The pledge requires participants to give up all technologies and services which rely on data centers, including social media, artificial intelligence, streaming services, online banking and digital payments, cloud storage, GPS navigation, video conferencing, and telehealth.
The chamber said data center expansion is necessary for modern life.
“Arizona can address legitimate concerns about data center growth without hitting pause on the infrastructure modern life depends on,” said the chamber.
For anyone ready to put a moratorium on new data centers, here’s your chance to really commit.
Take the Arizona Offline Pledge and give up the everyday benefits digital infrastructure makes possible: smartphones and social media, streaming and GPS, telehealth and online… pic.twitter.com/idU6D6PVUb
Courtney Coolidge, chamber executive vice president, said that halting in the face of opposition wasn’t an option.
“Concerns from communities shouldn’t be dismissed, and we aren’t suggesting a data center belongs on every corner,” said Coolidge. “But Arizona has never responded to difficult growth challenges by simply stopping. We solve problems.”
Among those leading on the call for a moratorium are Attorney General Kris Mayes, who called it “the only sane thing to do.” Mayes said Arizona was guilty of “excessive data center development” and was vulnerable to some of the most negative impacts from it.
“The Colorado River is in serious distress, and Wall Street firms are seeking to ship La Paz County’s groundwater to Phoenix to fuel the Valley’s growth — against the wishes of the county’s residents and leaders,” said Mayes. “We owe it to our communities, homeowners, and future generations of Arizonans to better manage our water and power needs before any new data center approvals are issued.”
The only sane thing to do is to pause the approval of new data centers.
Data centers are power- and water-intensive, and Arizona is challenged on both fronts right now.
Arizona may be one of the most exposed states in the country to the negative impacts of excessive data…
Earlier this summer, Gov. Katie Hobbs approved the budget passed by the Republican-led state legislature which included a three-year freeze on tax breaks for new data centers, but which did allow the construction of new data centers to continue.
Hobbs has also advocated for a water usage fee for new data centers — one cent for every gallon used, on par with what the average Arizona family pays — and the money collected would go into the Colorado River Protection Fund.
When we put people over data centers, the change isn’t just a line item—it’s felt at every kitchen table. I signed a 3-year pause on new data center tax breaks and invested that money into making childcare affordable and protecting healthcare and food assistance for Arizonans. pic.twitter.com/IRHTr3ehWg
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) July 7, 2026
President Donald Trump issued a statement on Monday criticizing those opposed to data centers as desirous of “end[ing] up being backwards and poor,” and that these developments would result in “far lower” taxes and a greater number of jobs.
“If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” said Trump. “China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!”
Questions are being raised after records revealed Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes paid out nearly $250,000 in a no-bid government contract to a close political ally for consulting work.
Senate President Warren Petersen (LD14), who is the Republican nominee running against Mayes, released the records. Petersen said taxpayers “deserve” to know her rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to her campaign communications strategist, Stacey Champion.
“After taking office, Mayes gave her close friend a sweetheart deal at taxpayers’ expense to help advance the same costly energy agenda she pursued on the Corporation Commission: higher rates and expensive mandates for Arizona families,” said Petersen.
Petersen also questioned why Mayes allowed Champion to use a private email address instead of a government one while conducting attorney general business.
Press release: Kris Mayes gave close friend and political consultant Stacey Champion nearly $250,000 of taxpayer money in no-bid contract. Taxpayers deserve to know why. pic.twitter.com/7RH6MEkKlu
According to the records published by the Petersen campaign, Mayes gave the contract to Champion shortly after taking office in 2023. For a minimum of 80 hours of work per month to start, Champion was awarded $10,000 per month for independent consulting services to include research, advice, and written reports.
Champion would work under this contract within the attorney general’s executive office until about two years later, in January 2025. She also received a pay bump to her contract in 2024, from $10,000 to $15,000 per month.
Email records revealed that Champion would conduct attorney general’s office business using her personal email, forwarding contact requests from Mayes’ campaign page to Mayes and attorney general staff.
And while maintaining her other role within Mayes’ campaign, Champion worked on what Petersen called “politically sensitive” issues overseen by the attorney general’s office. Records of several email exchanges indicated Champion had advance knowledge of grand jury proceedings in the 2020 fake electors case.
“A great opportunity, but I agree that the timing would just put AG in the firing line for questions about you know what,” said Champion concerning a request from PBS to interview Mayes.
Six days after that email exchange, Mayes announced grand jury indictments for the electors.
After formally ending her contract in January 2025, Mayes and Champion entered another contract in which Champion agreed to be paid on a project-by-project basis from February 26 to August 31, 2025.
One record reflects that Champion received $5,000 for event and consultation services provided from February through March 6, 2025.
In addition to Champion’s use of personal email while working for the attorney general’s office, questions have arisen regarding the timing of payments from Mayes’ campaign to Champion while Champion was still contracted with the attorney general’s office.
Mayes’ campaign paid Champion $18,000 for consulting on March 10, 2023, one month after Champion signed the contract to work with Mayes for the attorney general’s office.
The campaign then paid Champion $18,240 in April 2025 and $5,724 in July 2025, during the contract period for the project-by-project agreement. Altogether, Champion’s firm received more than $23,500 from the Mayes campaign in 2025.
Champion served as a communications consultant for Mayes during her attorney general campaign in 2022. Champion’s public relations firm, Champion PR + Consulting, created Mayes’ campaign website which included a link which directed press inquiries to Champion’s firm email.
Champion made it clear at the time that she was not a spokeswoman for the campaign.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Goldwater Institute attorneys urged the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson to pursue his lawsuit alleging that the school’s “Inclusive Communities” employee training violated state law.
During oral arguments in Arizona Board of Regents v. Anderson, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches argued that the Arizona Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal analysis when it concluded that Anderson had no implied private right to enforce the statute in court.
If a legal right exists, so does the right to enforce it.
That's the case we made before the Arizona Supreme Court today on behalf of @dr_owenanderson, a professor at ASU who is fighting for his right NOT to be forced into discriminatory DEI training. pic.twitter.com/OoPngHtixm
“Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy, is one of the oldest maxims in Anglo-American law,” Riches told the justices. “For decades, this court has applied that principle to find implied causes of action where a statute does not expressly create them. Yet without citing a single one of this court’s cases, the lower court did exactly what this court commanded it not to; it treated legislative silence as dispositive as to whether a statute creates a cause of action. But as this court [has held], legislative silence begins rather than ends the inquiry.”
In a post to X on Tuesday, Anderson invoked the legal maxim in Latin, writing, “‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ if there is a right there is a remedy. A cornerstone principle of common law. Yet @ASU and @AZRegents are asking the @AZCourts to suspend this principle and keep me as an employee from holding them responsible for racist DEI training.”
Anderson also shared a clip from the hearing in which Justice Clint Bolick characterized the right-remedy maxim as “the indispensable common law principle” and invoked Chief Justice John Marshall’s discussion of the principle in the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.
Following the hearing, Anderson posted a statement saying, “That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts. Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly as to say, ‘I forgot the question.’ Oops! Now we wait for a decision.”
That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly…
The Supreme Court limited its review to whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the factors established in the court’s 1988 Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Courtdecision before finding that A.R.S. § 41-1494 provides no implied private right of action.
Those factors include the statute’s context and language, its subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the law’s overall purpose. Riches argued that the lower court improperly treated the Legislature’s silence about a private cause of action as conclusive instead of beginning the broader analysis required under Transamerica.
The Arizona Board of Regents asked the justices to uphold the appellate ruling. In its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court, the board argued that courts should begin with the statutory text and consider secondary factors such as legislative history, consequences, and purpose only when the text is ambiguous.
The board maintained that § 41-1494 regulates government conduct without creating a private right or remedy. It also pointed to the statute’s annual compliance-reporting requirement and argued that lawmakers left enforcement to elected officials. The board said nearly all surrounding statutes contain express private rights of action, indicating that the Legislature deliberately omitted one from § 41-1494.
The statute prohibits the state, its agencies, and political subdivisions from requiring employees to undergo training, orientation, or therapy that presents blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex. It also prohibits the use of public money for such training and directs the Arizona Department of Administration to submit an annual compliance report to the governor and legislative leaders.
Anderson’s case began after ASU informed employees in October 2022 that they were required to complete its “Inclusive Communities” training. Anderson, a philosophy and religious studies professor, filed suit against the Board of Regents in 2024, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Anderson alleges that the training presented prohibited concepts involving race, sex, and identity. His court filings cite training materials discussing “whiteness,” white supremacy, heterosexual privilege, land acknowledgments, and efforts to “decolonize the university.” The accompanying examination identified designated answers concerning systemic bias, transformative justice, and the incorporation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging throughout the university.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the statute contained no express private cause of action but concluded that it implied one for employees subjected to prohibited training. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, finding that the statute “unambiguously does not create a private right of action.”
The Court of Appeals left Anderson’s underlying allegations about the training unresolved. The Supreme Court’s current review also concerns the enforcement question rather than whether the content of ASU’s training violated § 41-1494.
The Board of Regents has disputed that the training was mandatory. Anderson said the alleged injury arose from being required to undergo the training.
“Well, I think the hurt is in taking the training, and so I would ask them to consider it from their perspective if they were asked to sit through hours of training that involved racial discrimination against a group they identify with, they would be offended by that and feel hurt,” Anderson said. “So the hurt — the consequence — is just in the fact that I had to sit through that.”
Anderson previously asked the Supreme Court to accept the case after the appellate ruling, arguing that public employees would otherwise lack an effective way to enforce the training prohibition. Goldwater’s petition sought recognition of an implied private cause of action allowing employees to challenge alleged violations by government employers.
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement following Tuesday’s arguments. Anderson said that he intends to proceed toward trial if the justices recognize his right to bring the claim. The court has not announced a deadline for its decision.
Federal officers arrested a man identified as a person of interest in the fatal shooting of Tucson Police Department recruit Carlos Ramirez as he attempted to enter the United States through the Douglas Port of Entry.
Alexis Monter, 30, approached the port’s pedestrian lane at approximately 7:53 p.m. on Sunday. During the inspection process, a CBP officer checked Monter’s information and received an active National Crime Information Center (NCIC) warrant, according to a CBP announcement.
The warrant identified Monter as a person of interest in the shooting of a Tucson police recruit and advised officers to consider him armed and dangerous. CBP officers detained Monter and contacted the Douglas Police Department, which took custody of him at approximately 8:42 p.m.
“The vigilance of our officers at the Douglas Port of Entry is critical to the safety of our communities,” Douglas Area Port Director Martin Gomez said. “By identifying and apprehending this individual, our officers have ensured that a dangerous subject is removed from the streets and held accountable for his alleged actions.”
CBP described the underlying investigation as the shooting of a Tucson police recruit without identifying Ramirez by name. KVOA connected Monter’s arrest to the Ramirez case, and KOLD reported that Monter was arrested in connection with the Aug. 19 shooting.
ANOTHER ARREST IN TPD RECRUIT KILLING: We just received this release from CBP saying 30-year-old Alexis Monter was arrested in connection to the death of TPD recruit Carlos Ramirez. We've asked PCSD why we're just finding out, and how many suspects there actually are in this… pic.twitter.com/7Tr2ylkt4g
The CBP announcement did not specify Monter’s suspected role in the shooting, disclose the offense listed in the warrant, or identify any charges filed against him following his transfer to Douglas police.
Ramirez, 23, was found shot to death inside his home in the 7700 block of South Enchanted Spring Drive during the early morning hours of Aug. 19. His pregnant fiancée, a Pima County Sheriff’s Department corrections officer, was shot in the shoulder. She and her unborn child survived.
An interim complaint filed in the case states that Ramirez’s fiancée heard banging outside their bedroom before Ramirez told her to retrieve a gun from a safe because two masked men were inside the home. Ramirez fought with the masked men before shots were fired.
Investigators obtained surveillance footage showing a dark Acura SUV leaving the area. Additional footage showed Alex James Barnett and Santiago Jorge Rogers at a gas station near West Valencia Road shortly before the shooting.
Rogers, 39, was arrested on Aug. 22 at a hotel near South Palo Verde Road and charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault. A judge ordered him held without bond. Barnett, 33, surrendered on Aug. 24 following a three-hour standoff at an apartment complex near Broadway Boulevard and Camino Seco. A judge set his bond at $2 million in the Ramirez case and ordered him held without bond for an alleged probation violation.
Ramirez had completed 23 weeks of training at the Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center and was scheduled to graduate on Aug. 27 with Basic Recruit Class 26-1. His classmates honored him during the graduation ceremony, where his brother, an Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper, accepted Ramirez’s badge and presented it to his fiancée.
The investigation into Ramirez’s killing remains ongoing.
