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.
The head of the Arizona Republican Party is predicting that Attorney General Kris Mayes will face an investigation of her own for her alleged lack of investigation into Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Sergio Arellano stated in an interview with the “Conservative Circus” on Monday that Arizona Democrats should be “terrified” over the continued inquiries into Mayes.
“Kris Mayes didn’t just make Sunshine Residential Homes disappear; she may have just moved the spotlight directly onto herself,” said Arellano.
The Arizona Republican Party issued a statement accusing Hobbs of leading a “culture of corruption,” and endorsing the Republican nominee for governor, Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05).
Arizonans deserve better than Katie Hobbs’s Culture of Corruption.
Arellano also urged Republicans to issue the transcripts from their investigation into Mayes and Hobbs.
More than two years after launching an investigation based on media reports connecting Hobbs with an unusual rate increase for one of her major donors, Mayes released a short memorandum clearing Hobbs of pay-to-play corruption.
Sunshine Residential Homes, a major group home operator in the state, and its CEO, Simon Kottoor, are among the top donors to Hobbs’ campaign, legal fund, and inaugural fund. The company received substantial rate increases in 2023 and 2024 following years of denials before Hobbs took office.
The most recent denial occurred a month after Hobbs was sworn in. Several months later, following a dinner attended by Hobbs and her campaign chief at Kottoor’s residence, Sunshine Residential Homes received the rate increase it had sought — while other group home operators were denied increases or had their contracts cut entirely.
Mayes’ seven-page memorandum clearing Hobbs was criticized across the board not only for its length but for it allegedly revealing oversights concerning apparent evidence that some corruption had occurred.
Mayes maintained that the scope of her investigation was thorough; it included more than 100,000 documents. The attorney general suggested that the legislature was to blame for the perceived pay-to-play issues, and advocated for improved transparency laws.
Earlier this summer, Hobbs vetoed the sort of legislation Mayes suggested to ensure greater transparency. Hobbs claimed that because the legislation would also bring transparency to the Sunshine Residential Homes debacle, it was a “political stunt.”
Most recently, House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) sent Mayes a letter demanding she provide answers to five questions indicating key contradictions and omissions in her investigation. Montenegro cited evidence from Department of Child Safety employee testimonies and contracting requirements as support for the scope of questioning.
“The Memorandum suggests your Office failed to pursue critical issues and reached conclusions that directly conflict with reliable evidence — including information provided by the very witnesses your Office claims to have interviewed,” said Montenegro. “Those failures raise the specter that your Memorandum was intended to influence the November election by attempting to inoculate the Governor from a perceived political vulnerability.”
Montenegro gave Mayes until Friday, September 4, to answer.
Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) — who is the Republican nominee for attorney general — has also called on Mayes to release the records that informed her decision to clear Hobbs of wrongdoing. Petersen called Mayes’ memorandum a “cliffs notes report” that withheld critical information from the public.
An Arizona House special advisory team and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office are still investigating the pay-to-play allegations against Hobbs, despite an initial order from Mayes to stand down as her office conducted its investigation.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The U.S. House passed legislation mandating victims of certain sexual or violent crimes have lifetime protections against their abusers.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08) sponsored the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, or Kayleigh’s Law, named after Arizona native and survivor advocate Kayleigh Kozak. Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), Eli Crane (R-AZ-02), Paul Gosar (R-AZ-09), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06), and David Schweikert (R-AZ-01) were among the bill’s original cosponsors.
The legislation passed via unanimous voice vote on Monday.
In an address on the House floor, Hamadeh said that the bill would ensure that the criminal justice system would no longer prioritize the desires of abusers over the safety of victims.
In a press release, Hamadeh stated that Kayleigh’s Law would “eliminate the ‘legal tug-of-war’” requiring survivors to face their abusers in court.
“This bill is simple. When a predator is convicted, federal courts must issue a lifelong no-contact injunction. Not until probation ends. Not until some judge decides the offender has ‘moved on.’ For life,” said Hamadeh. “Victims should never again have to fill out another form, sit across from their abuser, or look over their shoulder because the sentence ran out and the system shrugged.”
Kozak has attested in many interviews in recent years that she was victimized by her middle school P.E. teacher who was also her soccer coach. Her abuser requested an end to probation in 2020, 13 years after his conviction, and Kozak was given three weeks’ notice.
“Two times as an adult she was hauled back to look at the man who destroyed her childhood just to keep him away. No victim should ever have to do that,” said Hamadeh.
🇺🇸WATCH🇺🇸
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a former prosecutor and as an Arizonan who has seen what happens when the system prioritizes a criminal over the victim."
Congressman Hamadeh takes the House floor to champion his bill, H.R. 8481, the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026. pic.twitter.com/Yq4fy8PuHH
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) August 31, 2026
Arizona law already requires courts to issue a lifelong no-contact injunction for sex offenders. This federal version would expand that no-contact mandate to certain violent felons.
“Contact” was defined to mean all direct or indirect communication, transmission, or physical interaction, including written, oral, electronic, digital, or physical means and communications executed through an intermediary or technological systems.
The Arizona version of this legislation was enacted in 2022, and is also named Kayleigh’s Law.
Biggs’ running mate for Arizona Governor, Sine Kerr, was the sponsor that led passage of the Arizona version of Kayleigh’s Law.
Today, the U.S. House unanimously passed Kayleigh’s Law by voice vote.
This victim-centered, public safety-focused legislation ensures that victims of violent crime have meaningful protections at the federal level while also serving as a model for states seeking to better… pic.twitter.com/XgJyXsdM8B
According to Hamadeh’s office, more than 1,000 child sex abuse survivors in Arizona benefited from the state’s lifetime no-contact protections within the first year of the law’s enactment.
“Kayleigh’s Law would give every American victim of a federal sex crime or a violent felony that same shield,” said Hamadeh. “Healing cannot begin if the abuser can show up again the day after release. Justice is not complete if the victim still lives in fear. Arizona already closed that gap; it is time the federal government did the same, so no American, no matter which state they live in, is left unprotected after a federal conviction.”
Three of Kozak’s five children were present with her for the passage of the bill.
A related bill, also titled Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, is making its way through the Senate under sponsorship from Utah Sen. Mike Lee. It was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
