Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses is calling on Gov. Katie Hobbs to meet with advocates, saying more than 70 requests for a meeting have gone unanswered as the planned September removal of horses from the Salt River herd draws closer.
The organization issued the appeal Monday, one week after Hobbs formally launched her “Arizona Over Party” coalition, which her reelection campaign described as a group of Republican and Independent leaders, community members, and business leaders supporting her campaign.
“My focus has always been on delivering results for Arizona families,” Hobbs said when announcing the coalition. “That’s what Arizona Over Party is all about: putting the people of Arizona ahead of partisan politics.”
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses cited the coalition in its Monday press release, saying its members span the political spectrum and have repeatedly sought an opportunity to speak with Hobbs before horses begin being permanently removed from the herd.
“We are not asking Governor Hobbs to agree with us,” a spokesperson for the group said. “We are simply asking her to listen before an irreversible decision is made.”
The organization said it has submitted more than 70 requests for a meeting with the governor through letters, emails, and other channels over the past several months.
During the group’s July 22 “Preserve the Herd — Follow the Science” rally at the Arizona State Capitol, advocates displayed more than 50 written requests seeking a meeting or assistance from the governor. Organizers said at the time that the requests had gone unanswered.
The dispute centers on a five-year herd management agreement awarded by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) to the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group in February. The management group has said the plan calls for reducing the herd from approximately 274 horses to 120 through fertility control, natural attrition, and gradual relocation of horses to sanctuaries.
The Salt River Wild Horse Management Group said it plans to relocate approximately 25 horses annually to protected sanctuaries, with the first relocations planned for September. The group has opposed reducing the herd to 120 while saying it agreed to the plan as a compromise that would limit the number of horses removed each year and keep family bands together.
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses said Monday that the herd currently numbers approximately 269 horses and reiterated its request that Hobbs pause permanent removals until an independent scientific review determines whether the population remaining along the Salt River would be genetically viable and self-sustaining.
“The burden should be on the state to show the science before taking an irreversible action,” the organization said. “The public should not have to accept assurances when the future of a protected herd is at stake. We are asking to see the independent scientific evidence supporting these reductions.”
The group has previously raised concerns over the proposed population level alongside wildlife ecologists and equine genetics specialists. In July, equine population geneticist and Texas A&M University professor emeritus Dr. E. Gus Cothran warned that a population of 120 could pose long-term genetic concerns, saying a population of approximately 150 to 200 animals is generally considered a minimum for maintaining genetic health over an extended period.
The Agriculture Department has defended the management process. When the contract was announced, AZDA said the proposal was evaluated by a panel that included veterinarians, a rangeland management scientist, and a federal wild horse manager, and said the gradual reduction was intended to balance available resources within the herd’s range while preserving its genetic integrity.
The department also told the Arizona Capitol Times in April that it had not independently established or mandated a 120-horse target. According to AZDA, the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group proposed reducing the herd to 120 over the five-year contract period. The department said sustainable management requires considering both the ecosystem’s capacity and the size and genetic diversity of the herd.
A spokesperson for Hobbs’ office said at the time that AZDA conducted a thorough procurement process and that the state was committed to sustainably managing the herd to protect the long-term health of the horses and their habitat.
The question of whether additional scientific review should precede removals also reached the Legislature earlier this year. A House-amended version of SB 1199 would have required AZDA to contract for an independent genetic assessment examining effective population size, allelic diversity, and inbreeding coefficients within the herd. It also would have temporarily prohibited population control removals while the herd maintained a negative growth rate, except when necessary to prevent or alleviate the suffering of an individually assessed horse and not for population control.
The House approved the amended legislation 43-10 on June 9 and returned it to the Senate, but senators did not take a final concurrence vote before the Legislature adjourned.
Current Arizona law prohibits harassing, shooting, injuring, killing, or slaughtering members of the Salt River herd and prohibits interfering with, taking, chasing, capturing, or euthanizing the horses without written authorization from the Department of Agriculture or Maricopa County sheriff, which may be granted only for humane purposes. The statute also authorizes the state to enter agreements with private entities concerning management of the herd.
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses said its request to Hobbs remains open ahead of the September removals.
“Before the September removals, please meet with us,” the organization said. “And before another healthy horse is removed, please show Arizonans the independent science supporting that decision.”
AZ Free News requested comments from Gov. Hobbs’ Office and the Arizona Department of Agriculture; as of publication, no responses were received.
Gov. Katie Hobbs confirmed that the rumors of her lieutenant governor pick were true: John Giles is her running mate.
Hobbs went public with her decision the weekend following an initial deadline from the secretary of state’s office, reportedly established to ensure the state had adequate time for ballot printing.
Giles is the former mayor of Mesa and a recently registered independent who voted in the Democratic primary this year. Giles voted for Joe Biden in 2020, endorsed Sen. Mark Kelly in 2022, and Kamala Harris in 2024.
During the 2024 election, Giles led the Arizona Republicans for Harris organization and spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Giles said in Tuesday’s announcement that those with the Republican Party were “extremists” that prevented good governance.
“I was a lifelong Republican before becoming an independent because extremists shouldn’t stand in the way of getting things done,” said Giles.
Arizona deserves leaders who put our state ahead of partisan politics.
That’s why I’m proud to have former Mesa Mayor @johngiles4AZ by my side as my pick for Lieutenant Governor.
Together, we’ll put Arizona first, deliver real results, and keep moving our state forward. pic.twitter.com/TddoGok0Ve
Not long after going public as Hobbs’ running mate, Giles announced he would fall in line with Hobbs’ preferred non-engagement approach to campaigning and announced he would not be participating in any public debates.
Sine Kerr, Republican nominee Andy Biggs’ running mate, had stated shortly after Hobbs’ reveal that she was eager to debate Giles.
“We should discuss my Arizona Women’s Bill of Rights legislation and SB1583, which protected children from predators,” said Kerr. “Katie Hobbs vetoed both. Maybe John Giles can explain why.”
Kerr said Hobbs and Giles avoiding debates was unfair to voters.
“It’s really unfortunate that they don’t want to stand for a debate. They don’t want to answer tough questions,” Kerr said. “I think it’s very disrespectful to the people, to the voters of Arizona.”
The Arizona Clean Election Commission scheduled a debate between the lieutenant governor picks to occur on October 5.
Looking forward to the Lt. Governor’s Debate on October 5th with Democrat primary voter John Giles.
We should discuss my Arizona Women’s Bill of Rights legislation and SB1583, which protected children from predators.
Hobbs told Arizona’s Family that she selected Giles because he, too, has a history of governing beyond political party.
“I believe Arizonans deserve leadership that puts them ahead of the partisan politics. That’s how I’ve governed,” said Hobbs.
Hobbs dismissed the notion that issues facing Arizonans, including traditionally partisan ones like abortion, were not actually partisan.
“[P]rotecting reproductive freedom, which is not a partisan issue. It’s something that a vast majority of Arizonans support. We’re on the same page,” said Hobbs.
Giles said that the topic of abortion should be left to the voters, which is why he supported Proposition 139.
“I’m a Republican with standards,” said Giles. “In recent years, I felt like some of the folks at the top of the ticket and the Republican Party were just below the bar with regard to character and commitment to the Constitution and rule of law.”
Many of Giles’ most significant policies and initiatives as mayor of Mesa aligned with Democratic Party priorities. In some cases, Giles preempted Hobbs on progressive policy.
In 2021, Giles led the passage of an ordinance to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s nondiscrimination laws. The ordinance was similar to those adopted by the cities of Phoenix, Flagstaff, Tempe, and, later, Chandler.
Residents opposed to the ordinance cited concerns of males entering spaces historically reserved for females, such as restrooms and locker rooms, and that businesses would face religious persecution. Giles dismissed those concerns as not based in reality and told those opponents that the city had considered the ordinance since he joined as a city council member in 2014. About two years later, Hobbs’ first executive order prohibited gender identity discrimination.
“We’re not breaking any ground here,” said Giles. “This ordinance is moderate and reflects the input from the community. This is a mainstream ordinance that hasn’t been dictated to us from any outside groups.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Democrat’s nominee for the 6th Congressional District refused to elaborate this week on why she opposes a measure that would prevent males from entering female-only spaces and sports.
JoAnna Mendoza ignored public questioning when asked about her opposition to Proposition 318, a ballot initiative that would require schools and athletic associations to restrict individuals to private spaces and sports teams designated for their biological sex.
The proposition, titled “Require Schools and Athletic Associations to Restrict Use of Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Other Privates Spaces Based on Sex,” would also define sex as the biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the original birth certificate.
Yesterday, YES on Prop. 318 – Protect Girls Sports released a new video entitled "Pretending.” Please watch and share.
The opposition's website copies the YES on Prop. 318 website- violating Arizona election law, as well as, consumer protection and copyright laws.
Mendoza indicated in a statement to American Journal News last month that she opposed the proposition. Mendoza implied that the question shouldn’t be decided by a ballot vote but should instead be decided by parents, coaches, and sports associations.
“As a mom, I know that parents just want to protect their kids on the playing fields and across Arizona,” said Mendoza. “Rules about keeping sports fair and safe for young people should be made by the people who know the most — parents, coaches, and sports associations — not politicians.”
Mendoza is running for the 6th Congressional District to unseat its Republican incumbent, Rep. Juan Ciscomani.
Mendoza had previously stated during the 2020 campaign for the state legislature that legislation requiring strict biological gender adherence for sports teams was “toxic” and non-inclusive. In deleted interview footage, Mendoza said public schools and sports needed to be inclusive of transgenderism.
“And I believe that we need to ensure that our students from all backgrounds from the LGBTQ community should feel accepted and safe in their environments and at school,” said Mendoza.
The National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Ben Petersen said Mendoza was a “far-left lobbyist” that has strategically toned down her rhetoric on these politicized issues.
“Lobbyist Mendoza called concerned parents ‘toxic’ for wanting to protect girls’ sports, and now she won’t even explain why she opposes this common sense ballot initiative,” said Petersen.
It was also during her 2020 campaign that Mendoza advocated for legalizing prostitution, especially for transgender women of color and other communities she characterized as marginalized.
Mendoza has received backing from major Democratic donors.
Mendoza raised more than $7.3 million. Some of her biggest single contributors have been the House Victory Project 2026, JStreetPAC, New Politics Next Mission Fund, Dem Rising 2026, Emily’s List, Invest to Elect Illinois Battleground Support 2026, and VoteVets Hellcat Victory.
Mendoza also received funding from the Soros family via George Soros’ son Jonathan Soros.
In recent weeks, Mendoza has faced questions over her campaign salary and financial disclosures changes. In her 2026 candidate financial disclosure filed last month, Mendoza reported receiving a salary of more than $35,000. Other campaign finance filings reflecting regular payroll payments to Mendoza indicated that she was compensated much higher: approximately $102,000 annually before taxes.
OpenPolitical’s federal campaign finance data reflected that Mendoza’s campaign reported nearly $300,000 in payroll-related expenditures.
Ciscomani has raised more than $6.1 million. His biggest single contributors so far have been the Ciscomani Victory Fund, Grow the Majority, Defend Our Majority, and Emmer Majority Builders.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Republican secretary of state nominee Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3) accused Democratic incumbent Adrian Fontes of trying to avoid a general election debate after Fontes proposed holding the debate on Sept. 21, which falls on Yom Kippur.
In a post on X, Kolodin wrote, “Adrian Fontes is trying to duck out of debating me.” He said Fontes had requested a change to the debate date and made himself available on Sept. 21, which Kolodin described as the “one and only date” offered. Kolodin also shared an image of an email from Gina Roberts, Voter Education Director with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, showing September 21st at 6 PM as the only date and time.
Adrian Fontes is trying to duck out of debating me.
And he’s doing it in the most pathetic and religiously insulting way possible.
Adrian Fontes has requested a change in the debate date and made himself available on the one and only date that religious obligation would prevent… pic.twitter.com/L1L0VYcex9
Yom Kippur, which means the Day of Atonement, begins at sunset on Sunday, Sept. 20, and ends at nightfall on Monday, Sept. 21, in 2026. It’s the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and work is prohibited during its observance. Kolodin said he observes the holiday and would be unable to debate that day because of his religious obligations.
He wrote:
“Adrian Fontes has requested a change in the debate date and made himself available on the one and only date that religious obligation would prevent me from debating him.
“September 21st is Yom Kippur, a religious holiday that is adhered to by Jewish residents of the State of Arizona, including myself. Jews are forbidden from performing work of any kind on that day. Adrian Fontes already knows this, which is why the singular date he offered up was that date.
“This is cowardly, pathetic, and un-American.”
Hey Alex, the day Phoenix freezes over is the day I refuse to debate you. Stop lying to Arizonans.
We’re working to lock in a date that works for the production team and gives voters a chance to tune in.
I already beat you at the Farm Bureau. Can’t wait to do it again on TV.
Fontes responded on X later Tuesday, rejecting Kolodin’s accusation that he planned to avoid the debate.
“Stop lying to Arizonans. We’re working to lock in a date that works for the production team and gives voters a chance to tune in,” he wrote.
The Arizona Media Association’s current public schedule lists the 2026 secretary of state debate date as “TBD.” The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which is producing the statewide debate series with the association, said candidate coordination would guide the final schedule and that the debates would be produced at SNEAKY BIG studios.
The published schedules leave the previously proposed date and the candidates’ private scheduling exchanges unspecified. Kolodin’s post included no correspondence from Fontes, Clean Elections, or the production team. Fontes’ response gave no proposed dates.
Kolodin said he would clear his calendar for a debate on another day. He also used the post to renew campaign allegations concerning Fontes’ handling of proof-of-citizenship requirements, voting eligibility for law-enforcement officers, county election canvasses, and voter security. His post included no supporting documents for those four allegations, and Fontes’ scheduling response did not address them.
Kolodin, a Republican state representative for Legislative District 3, defeated former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda in the Republican primary. Fontes, a Democrat, has served as Arizona’s secretary of state since 2023 and is seeking a second term.
The state’s election calendar sets Oct. 5 as the voter-registration deadline and Oct. 7 as the start of early voting in Arizona’s general election.
As of Tuesday afternoon, the secretary of state debate remained without a publicly announced date.
The campaign supporting Proposition 318 filed a campaign finance complaint with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on Monday, alleging an opposition website copied its name and visual presentation while failing to disclose who paid for the site.
The two-page complaint accuses the unidentified operators of ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote of violating Arizona campaign disclosure requirements and attempting to mislead voters about the November ballot measure.
The complaint compares the opposition site with the Yes campaign’s ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote, including screenshots showing similar turquoise, pink, black, and white branding and versions of the phrase “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona.” La Sota alleged the opposition site copied the Yes campaign’s “trade dress” and selected a web address closely resembling the campaign’s own domain.
“In addition, the website address itself is meant to mislead,” La Sota wrote in the complaint.
According to the complaint, the opposition site uses ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote, while ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.com redirects visitors to the same website. The Yes campaign operates ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote.
“The group I chair has existed since June,” La Sota wrote. “What these fraudsters obviously did was go to our website and copy our trade dress and even our name, and intentionally found a website address that was as close to ours as possible.”
The complaint alleges that the opposition website does not identify a person or organization that paid for it.
Under A.R.S. § 16-925, a person other than an individual who makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fundraising solicitation must include the words “paid for by” followed by the name of the person making the expenditure. Electronically delivered advertisements are required to make the disclosure clearly readable.
Arizona campaign finance law defines an “advertisement” as information or materials, excluding nonpaid social media messages, that are published, displayed or otherwise placed in a communication medium for the purpose of influencing an election. A “ballot measure expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates support for or opposition to an identified ballot measure.
“The only conceivable way that there would be no disclosure requirement would be if a single individual person was behind this shameful effort,” La Sota wrote. He added that publicly available registration information did not reveal the identity of the person who registered the domain.
Whether the website violates state campaign finance law has not been determined. The identity of its operator and the amount spent to create or maintain the site were not established in the complaint.
La Sota also cited A.R.S. § 16-905, writing that registration and campaign finance reporting requirements could apply depending on how much money has been spent on the effort.
Arizona law requires an entity to register as a political action committee when its primary purpose is influencing an election, and it crosses the applicable contribution or expenditure threshold. The Secretary of State lists the adjusted threshold for the 2025-2026 election cycle at $1,500.
The complaint also cites A.R.S. § 16-1006, which makes it unlawful to use specified corrupt means to influence an elector and prohibits deceiving an elector into voting for a different measure than the voter intended. A violation is a class 5 felony.
La Sota acknowledged in the complaint that the Secretary of State does not have criminal enforcement authority and cautioned against broad application of the statute because of its potential effect on protected political speech.
“Obviously this statute must be used with the utmost caution because it could easily be turned into a weapon against protected speech,” La Sota wrote. “But this is about as compelling a case under this statute as I have seen given the obvious attempt to defraud voters.”
The Yes campaign separately said it is asking Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate whether the opposition website violates state consumer protection laws. The campaign did not include a separate Attorney General complaint among the materials provided to AZ Free News. Its Monday press release described the campaign finance complaint as filed with the Secretary of State and said the campaign was “asking the Attorney General to investigate.”
The campaign announced the complaint during an event at the Arizona State Capitol, where it also named Christine Jones and former Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit as honorary co-chairs of the Yes on 318 campaign. State Senate President and Republican Attorney General nominee Warren Petersen, Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Andy Biggs, and Republican Secretary of State nominee state Rep. Alex Kolodin also voiced support for the measure in the campaign announcement.
“Arizona parents should not have to wonder whether a political website is deliberately deceiving them or who is hiding behind it,” Petersen said. “Attorney General Kris Mayes must immediately investigate these allegations and determine whether Arizona’s campaign finance and consumer protection laws were violated.”
The campaign also released a 39-second advertisement titled “Pretending”, which places screenshots of the Yes and No websites side by side and draws a comparison between the dispute over the opposition site and the campaign’s arguments concerning transgender participation in female sports. The advertisement ends with a disclosure stating that it was paid for by Protect Girls Sports in Arizona, received zero percent of its funding from out-of-state contributors and was not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Glad to see my bill to protect girls’ sports and female spaces has been given a title and is now known as Prop 318. But now seeing a disgraceful trick by the opponents to copy our official website – Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona. With look-alike graphics and no “Paid for”… pic.twitter.com/zHqIGDiZty
Proposition 318, referred to voters by the Legislature as HCR 2003, would amend Arizona law governing student athletics.
According to the Secretary of State’s official ballot language, the measure would require public schools, private schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on biological sex as recorded at birth and would prohibit males from participating on female teams. It would also prohibit schools and athletic associations from authorizing individuals to use private spaces, including restrooms, that are not designated for that individual’s sex.
Current Arizona law applies the athletic-team designation requirements to public schools and private schools whose teams compete against public schools. Proposition 318 would broaden the statute to additional schools and athletic associations and expressly add restrictions governing restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private athletic spaces.
A “yes” vote would enact those changes beginning Jan. 1, 2027, while a “no” vote would maintain current Arizona student-athletics law, according to the Secretary of State.
“Today we celebrate sports for all, as we begin the campaign to protect both girls’ sports and the right for everyone to participate,” Jones said Monday. “Prop 318, the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act will designate sports Male – Female – Co-Ed, ensuring fairness for females, and the opportunity for everyone to play.”
The complaint urges Fontes to take action on the alleged disclosure violations and ensure transparency surrounding the opposition website. La Sota asked the secretary to give the matter his “utmost attention,” writing that voters should not “unwittingly lose their vote on this ballot measure.” As of publication, no determination that a campaign finance violation occurred had been announced.
The Biden administration publicly lauded the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine — but privately, they shared concerns similar to those they worked to dissuade.
A text exchange released during an ongoing congressional investigation into Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the doctor was aware that COVID-19 vaccines could cause miscarriages. Fauci texted Rochelle Walensky, former Centers for Disease Control director, that the side effects from the vaccine could be severe enough to kill an unborn child.
“[A]nother issue came up that you need to be aware of,” wrote Fauci. “Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the second dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”
And yet, several months later, Walensky issued a public advisory urging pregnant women to get the COVID-19 vaccine and claiming it was safe for their unborn children.
“Importantly, no safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Walensky.
Despite privately texting with Fauci about their concerns regarding COVID shots for pregnant women, Rochelle Walensky told the public on April 23, 2021:
President Joe Biden gave Fauci a full and unconditional pardon for any federal offenses in which he may have committed or participated from Jan. 1, 2014, to Jan. 19, 2025.
Last week, a Senate committee voted to hold Fauci in contempt. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee called Fauci to testify on his handling of COVID-19. Fauci refused to answer most questions. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent more than 100 times during the three-hour hearing.
Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05) was not only one of the first to condemn Fauci for his refusal to engage with Congress — he was one of the first elected officials to push back against the COVID-19 response under Fauci.
Biggs spoke early and often during the COVID-19 pandemic advocating against prolonged shutdowns and enforced mandates.
In April 2020 — just one month into what would become a three-year emergency declaration peppered with mandates of masks, vaccines, quarantines, curfews, and shutdowns — Biggs issued an op-ed urging the federal government to end the shutdown.
“It’s time for a new approach, one that values and protects all life,” wrote Biggs at the time. “We must give hope to the public and set forth a plan to reopen the economy and remove oppressive government restrictions. Right now, the cure is proving worse than the disease itself.”
For the first few years of the pandemic, Biggs chaired the House Freedom Caucus. While in that role and as a member of the Congressional Task Force on Reopening the American Economy, Biggs challenged the growing responsibilities of bureaucrats regarding the pandemic. Biggs demanded the disbanding of the Coronavirus Task Force in July 2020 on the claim that Fauci and his cohorts were intentionally undermining Trump’s efforts to roll back COVID-19 restrictions and reopen the economy.
Biggs was also one of the few in Congress to vote against the COVID-19 relief funds that now, years later, have gone beyond their pandemic purpose and been farmed out to fulfill various elected officials’ policy wish lists, like Gov. Katie Hobbs canceling medical debt and her rumored lieutenant governor pick John Giles establishing a homeless housing program that coincided with a 31% surge in homelessness.
Biggs then co-authored another op-ed in May 2020, again calling for an end to the shutdown and accusing Fauci of intentionally curbing American freedoms. In the early days of the pandemic, Fauci had promised the shutdown would last two weeks to flatten the curve.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
