by Matthew Holloway | Mar 26, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes lacked the authority to approve a political party’s name change, invalidating the transition of the No Labels Party of Arizona to the Arizona Independent Party (AIP).
In a ruling issued March 25, Judge Greg Como found that Arizona law does not permit a recognized political party to change its name without completing the statutory process required for ballot access under the new name.
“Arizona does not have a procedure for a party, once formally recognized, to use a different name on the ballot,” the ruling states. “There is no other path for a party to appear on the ballot, under any name … To do so, the party must complete the process of obtaining the required number of valid signatures under the name it seeks to use on the ballot.”
The No Labels Party of Arizona originally qualified for ballot access after gathering the required number of signatures in 2023, allowing it to appear on ballots through the 2026 general election.
In October 2025, the party filed a notification with the Secretary of State’s Office to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. Fontes approved the request, and the new name was set to take effect in December 2025.
The Secretary of State’s Office then issued guidance directing county recorders to update voter registrations to reflect the new party name.
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, along with the Arizona Democratic Party and Republican Party, filed a lawsuit challenging the name change, arguing that it could create confusion among voters.
In his ruling, Como determined that while the No Labels Party had met statutory requirements to gain recognition, the Arizona Independent Party had not completed the required process for ballot access under that name.
Como reasoned, “When a person signs a petition on behalf of an aspiring party, it is reasonable to infer that they are largely motivated by how the party describes itself, i.e., the party’s name. Would the same 41,000 people who signed petitions to recognize the No Labels Party have signed to support the ‘Arizona Nazi Party’ or the ’Arizona Anarchists’?”
He stated, “By approving a party’s requested name change, without it obtaining the necessary signatures for party recognition, the Secretary permits a political bait and switch. A party can gather signatures using an innocuous-sounding name and then change it to something completely different. If the Secretary is to have such power, it must be prescribed by the Arizona Constitution or state statutes. It is not.”
The judge also found that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to direct how voters are registered with political parties.
“The Secretary does not have statutory authority to dictate which party a voter belongs to,” the ruling states. “The decision belongs to the voter.”
The ruling voided the name change and restored the party’s prior designation under state law.
“The Republican Party of Arizona is grateful for the judge’s ruling in the matter before him, finding Secretary of State Adrian Fontes exceeded his authority and allowed a fraudulent party to appear on the ballot. The judge noted that even Fontes admitted this issue would cause confusion for the voters, but Fontes disregarded that concern and the obvious truth, and proceeded to allow them to continue the charade,” stated AZGOP Chairman Sergio Arellano.
“Secretary Fontes announced he will not appeal this ruling. That is wise, as he has already cost taxpayers too much money, and his effort to sow confusion with this stunt, allowing the No Labels Party to unilaterally change their name to the Arizona Independent Party, has further eroded trust in our election officials at a time when that trust is already at an all-time low,” continued Arellano. “We are pleased that Secretary Fontes recognizes that the voters are a now a priority for him. They have always been a priority for Republicans, and we welcome all of them into our very big tent to usher conservative candidates into office on every level of government this November.”
According to 12News, former Phoenix Mayor and AIP Chairman Paul Johnson said via text message that he intends to appeal the ruling. Secretary Fontes said on social media that he would not join the appeal.
“I acted in favor of the law as I saw it,” Fontes said. “Considering the fast approach of the election and the challenging job election administrators have before them, we will not participate in an appeal.”
Axios reported that Johnson said he believes that the 11 candidates who qualified for AIP will be permitted to run under the No Labels name pending appeal. However, he told the outlet he suspects Arizona’s Democratic and Republican parties will challenge this, adding, “They hate us existing.”
The case stems from broader disputes over election procedures and ballot access in Arizona, where multiple lawsuits have been filed in recent years over the administration of elections and political party recognition.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 25, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Taxpayer-funded resources should not be used to tilt the scales of any election. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. So, when Arizona State University (ASU) and PBS were exposed for colluding to help Katie Hobbs in the 2022 governor’s race against Kari Lake, we demanded accountability. We called on Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell to launch a full investigation. After all, Arizona law is clear that universities must remain impartial and neutral in election-related activities.
In a ridiculous decision, both Mayes and Mitchell refused to take action on our complaint. But this battle is far from over.
The Illegal Use of Public Funds
This all began back in 2022 when Katie Hobbs was ducking just about everyone during her campaign for governor, most especially Kari Lake. It culminated in Hobbs’ refusal to debate Lake on Arizona PBS. From there, the process should’ve been simple. According to long-standing Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (AZCCEC) rules, Kari Lake should have been provided with airtime, and the AZCCEC planned to do just that. But hours before Lake’s interview was scheduled to take place, the AZCCEC learned that Arizona PBS went behind their back to schedule an exclusive interview with Katie Hobbs—moving them to postpone Lake’s interview.
Then, last month, a series of emails came to light revealing that ASU leaders including President Michael Crow, former Arizona Republic publisher Mi-Ai Parrish, and Arizona PBS leaders allegedly colluded to jettison the debate rules to help Hobbs. This was a blatant and illegal use of taxpayer funds, and that’s why we filed a Hatch Act complaint with Mayes and Mitchell against ASU. But in a shocking and shameful decision, both decided against taking action…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Ethan Faverino | Sep 18, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club escalated its call for accountability, urging the County Attorneys of Mohave, Pinal, and Yuma Counties to launch investigations into Arizona State University (ASU) leadership for allegedly manipulating 2022 gubernatorial debate rules to favor Democratic Katie Hobbs over Republican Kari Lake.
The action follows a complaint filed by the Club in August 2025, with the Arizona Attorney General and Maricopa County Attorney, which was dismissed without a thorough review, prompting a broader push for enforcement under state law.
In a sharply worded letter addressed to the Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith, Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller, and Yuma County Attorney Karolyn Kaczorowski, Club President Scot Mussi detailed evidence of ASU’s deviation from established debate protocols, accusing university officials of using public resources to influence the election in violation of A.R.S. § 15-1633.
The statute states: “A person acting on behalf of a university or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a university shall not spend or use university resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.”
This call-to-action stems from a September 2022 debate co-sponsored by ASU, Arizona PBS, and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC).
Under longstanding CCEC regulations (Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-20-107(K)), a candidate declining an invitation to debate their political opponent forfeits airtime, granting the attending opponent a 30-minute solo interview.
When Hobbs announced she would skip the debate, ASU and PBS bypassed set regulations, granting her an exclusive 30-minute interview, a first in years to do so.
Internal communications, obtained and reported by the Arizona Republic, exposed the intent behind the decision. ASU President Michael Crow, Chief of Staff James O’Brien, and ASU Media Enterprise Managing Director Mi-Ai Parrish allegedly prioritized Hobbs’ comfort over neutrality.
Parrish’s emails to O’Brien highlighted concerns that “Katie is getting roasted hard” for dodging the debate and pressed CCEC staff to limit Lake’s discussion of election integrity, arguing that airing “a person with those views was wrong.” CCEC Executive Director Tom Collins confirmed to the Republic that Parrish sought to suppress Lake’s platform.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly listed the names of the County Attorneys. They have now been corrected.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 3, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
If Katie Hobbs is thinking about what to do after her time as Governor is up, one option would be to test her skills in the Hide and Seek World Championships. After all, she proved during the 2022 gubernatorial election campaign that it’s what she’s best at.
After dodging any request to debate her opponent Kari Lake during her campaign, Hobbs also ducked reporters who dared to question her about it. She even hid in a restaurant bathroom after another reporter asked her why she didn’t like discussing politics.
All this hiding should have resulted in a simple decision. According to long-standing Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (AZCCEC) rules, an opponent (in this case Kari Lake) should have been provided with airtime when a candidate (in this case Katie Hobbs) refused to debate. And the AZCCEC planned to do just that. But hours before Kari Lake’s interview was scheduled to take place, the AZCCEC learned that Arizona PBS went behind their back to schedule an exclusive interview with Katie Hobbs—moving them to postpone Lake’s interview.
If you think all this reeks of collusion, you’re right. And now, a public records request has made it clear. Katie Hobbs wasn’t playing hide and seek alone. She was purposefully aided by leadership at Arizona State University (ASU) and at PBS…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Brian Anderson | Oct 18, 2022 | Opinion
By Brian Anderson |
“The debate debacle continues this morning,” the TV anchor said, laughing. “The never-ending story of Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs choosing not to debate her opponent, Kari Lake.”
That’s what Arizona voters heard last week as they woke up and turned on one of Phoenix’s most popular morning news programs. They’ve been hearing it for months.
Hobbs’ refusal to debate Lake, the Republican nominee, has become the defining story of the gubernatorial race, one that started out as a 20-year precedent-breaking decision and has morphed a larger-than-life narrative about the Democrat’s political judgment and skittishness, with multiple left-leaning media outlets, from MSNBC and The View to the Arizona Republic and the New York Times, all asking the same question: What in the world is she thinking?
Hobbs claims it’s because her opponent is too far to the right. In reality, her national headline-making stage fright has been going on for much longer than the general election.
It began in April when Hobbs declined to participate in a June 30th debate with her Democratic primary opponent Marco López, the former mayor of Nogales and chief of staff at U.S. Customs and Border Protection under President Barack Obama. With one exception, Hobbs was the only statewide candidate in Arizona who declined. López used light political pressure hoping to change her mind — he’d often ask the crowd: “¿Dónde está Katie?” — but, when approached by the local press in May, Hobbs’ campaign claimed that she had (conveniently) scheduled “multiple events in Tucson” on June 30th and couldn’t make the two-hour drive back to Phoenix.
López understood. So, he wrote a letter to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the government body that organized the debate, granting it permission to “reschedule the debate to a time and date that fits into the Secretary’s busy schedule” over the next 40-plus days. Hobbs declined to reschedule.
When June 30th arrived, a local reporter reached out to Hobbs for comment on her absence. She must have been pretty busy that day, what with “multiple events in Tucson.” But why were no photographs posted online? Oh, about those events, her campaign responded … um, they were canceled. The candidate had come down with a (convenient) case of COVID.
Three days later, Hobbs was spotted, mask-less, waving a flag at a crowded parade in Flagstaff. A superb immune system, indeed.
It wasn’t long after the general election began that Hobbs announced she would not be debating Lake, either. Instead, the Democrat demanded separate one-on-one TV interviews — but that’s not how the Clean Elections process works. Candidates who bow out are not rewarded for doing so. Hobbs insisted that Lake would create a spectacle if the debate format were not right, so the Commission held a formal meeting to appease her, during which its chairman asked her campaign manager point-blank: “Is there any scenario where Ms. Hobbs will share the stage with Ms. Lake in a debate?”
She dismissed his “hypothetical” question and refused to offer an alternate format, and the Commission ruled that the October 12th debate would go on with or without the Democrat in attendance. (Lake said that her opponent was free to change her mind at any time.)
The morning of October 12th, Hobbs joined MSNBC for a softball segment … a little too soft. Because Hobbs got a little too comfortable and accidentally blabbed to the host, as if in the middle of a private conversation, that “PBS is also giving me the same format that Kari Lake has.”
Oops. That secret arrangement wasn’t supposed to come out until after Lake’s interview that evening.
You see, Arizona PBS is the Commission’s official broadcast partner, a relationship that provides the station with unique access to high-profile debates in exchange for complying with the Commission’s rulings when candidates disagree. It turned out that Arizona PBS had struck a side-deal with the Hobbs campaign to shoot and air the one-on-one interview she’d been begging for, right as voters received their early ballots.
The Commission had no clue that the station violated its agreement — and wouldn’t have until it was too late, had Hobbs not accidentally revealed it on live TV. The Commission was forced to cancel the long-planned debate with hours to spare in order to find a new broadcast partner it could trust. In response, Lake held a press conference condemning Arizona PBS’ “backroom deal” with Hobbs, which a source informed her was made at the behest of Michael Crow, the politically connected and contentious president of Arizona State University. (ASU owns and operates Arizona PBS.)
Approached for comment the next morning, Crow denied directing the backroom deal with Hobbs but acknowledged that “he let his preference be known” to the station (which I am certain Arizona PBS interpreted in the exact way that Crow meant it). The Commission’s executive director described himself as “bewildered” by Crow’s political meddling — casting him as “the most powerful man in Arizona” other than the governor — and decried the appearance that “ASU was playing favorites with the candidates.”
Much like Crow, Mi-Ai Parrish, a managing director at ASU who helps oversee Arizona PBS, also “wouldn’t say who made the call to invite” the Democrat. Hobbs herself is similarly claiming now that “I wasn’t involved in those conversations” with ASU — which, again, is a strange series of denials coming from several people who insist they did the right thing.
A Republican state legislator has already announced plans to file a bill that will strip the state’s ties to Arizona PBS as a result of it circumventing the Clean Elections ruling. And, unfortunately for ASU, it doesn’t appear that Hobbs will be in a position to veto it.
Outside of vomiting on herself on-stage, I cannot fathom a single humiliation Hobbs could have endured in a 30-minute debate that would have been worse than the six-month headache of negative headlines her refusal has caused. Two separate polls released this month reflect that reality, finding that the Republican nominee enjoys a 3-point lead heading into Election Day, with even CNN’s Dana Bash acknowledging Monday that “the fact that [Hobbs] won’t debate has given Kari Lake a very wide opening.”
At the end of the day, Arizonans vote for who shows up — and, so far, Katie Hobbs hasn’t.
Brian Anderson is founder of the Saguaro Group, an Arizona-based political research firm.
