by Warren Petersen | May 7, 2026 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Over the past three years, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has been executing a political agenda.
She has refused to defend state laws—while going out of her way to attack common-sense federal policies—simply on the grounds that she personally disagrees.
She’s failed to uphold our values. She’s destroyed common sense. And she has pursued an extreme political agenda to appease her party leadership—all the while undermining President Trump’s efforts to make America great again.
Principled, hard-working Arizonans have paid the price for her politically motivated dereliction of duty.
I’m running for Attorney General because Arizona desperately needs a top law enforcement officer who will uphold our laws and fairly represent Arizona families.
As Senate President, I’ve taken part in over 110 lawsuits to ensure Arizona’s laws and interests are defended when the Attorney General wouldn’t act. We have led an unprecedented campaign to protect Arizonans, and our action has provided unparalleled experience.
I’ve defended Arizona’s sex offender registration laws. The case in question, Doe v. Sheridan, argues whether our state can mandate convicted sex offenders to keep law enforcement informed, including reporting online identifiers used on social media and other platforms, so officers can investigate crimes and prevent future harms. The Arizona Legislature stepped up and successfully defended the sex offender registration laws in court after the Arizona attorney general failed to carry out her responsibility to do so.
I’ve defended the integrity of girls’ sports. As Senate President, I’ve led the defense of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act in federal court against special interests seeking to allow boys to play in girls’ sports. We’ve taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and we’re waiting on a major ruling from the nation’s high court on similar cases that could affect Arizona’s law.
I’ve defended laws dealing with the First Amendment. One of those cases was Chiles v. Salazar, where the Arizona Legislature joined a challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban. Another was in NRA v. Vullo, where we challenged whether the State of New York could threaten banks with adverse regulatory actions if they provided services to the National Rifle Association.
I’ve defended laws related to the Second Amendment. One of those cases was Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, defending American firearms manufacturers from being held liable from frivolous lawsuits from foreign entities. Another was Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on the manufacture, distribution, importation, and possession of various firearms.
I’ve defended laws related to the Eighth Amendment. Under my leadership, the Arizona Senate filed briefs to allow cities to disband homelessness encampments, winning at the Supreme Court.
I’ve defended the state’s right to carry out justice regarding capital punishment.
I’ve defended election integrity. We intervened to defend Arizona’s ability to make sure only citizens are voting in our elections.
I’ve defended our state against radical environmentalists. In Petersen v. EPA, we sued the Biden-led EPA to overturn unattainable environmental standards that punished job creators, and detrimentally impacted America’s power grid. We joined a lawsuit to block a California rule forcing trucking drivers to use less efficient battery-powered vehicles, which would have further increased the costs of everyday items.
I’ve defended our state against unconstitutional executive overreach. We challenged then-President Biden’s executive order forcing federal contractors and their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
And I’ve defended our state against rampant government encroachment on our lands.
Thanks to my involvement in these—and dozens of other legal efforts—I’ve been called Arizona’s de facto Attorney General, stepping in where our liberal Attorney General has shamefully abdicated her role. Our engagement in these matters has allowed me to serve our great citizens and provide leadership where none existed. It’s time for Arizona to once again have an Attorney General committed to serving all the people—not just partisan special interests.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Attorney General.
by Ethan Faverino | Feb 25, 2026 | Education, News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Arizona House of Representatives passed HCR 2003, the Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act, on February 23, 2026, in a vote of 32 ayes to 25 nays.
Sponsored by Rep. Selina Bliss (R-LD1), the measure now advances to the Arizona Senate. If approved by the Senate, it would refer the proposed law to Arizona voters for consideration on the November 2026 general election ballot.
HCR 2003 seeks to require schools and athletic associations to designate interscholastic and intramural athletic teams or sports as “males/men/boys,” “females/women/girls,” or “coeducational/mixed,” based on an individual’s biological sex as recorded at birth on the original birth certificate. Teams designated for females would not be open to biological male athletes.
The resolution also includes stronger privacy protections, prohibiting schools and athletic associations from authorizing individuals to use restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, or other private athletic facilities not designated for their biological sex, effective January 1, 2027.
The measure restores and strengthens elements of Arizona’s 2022 Save Women’s Sports Act (SB 1165), which faced partial blocks by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, creating uncertainty for schools, families, and athletes.
“Today the House acted to protect fair competition for girls across Arizona,” stated Rep. Bliss. “Women’s sports were created because biological differences matter. When those differences are ignored, girls lose roster spots, scholarships, and opportunities they earned. HCR 2003 gives voters the chance to protect female athletes and establish clear, durable rules for schools.”
Additional provisions of the proposed law include:
- Allowing athletes to participate on teams aligned with their biological sex or on coeducational teams.
- Prohibiting government entities, licensing organizations, accrediting bodies, or athletic associations from taking adverse action against schools or associations that maintain separate teams for female athletes.
- Providing a private cause of action for athletes deprived of opportunities or harmed by violations, including for injunctive relief, damages (including for psychological, emotional, or physical harm), attorney fees, and costs.
- Protecting against retaliation for reporting violations, with similar legal remedies available.
- Applying to public and qualifying private schools serving K-12.
“Court rulings have created uncertainty for schools and families,” Rep. Bliss added. “This referral allows Arizona voters to decide whether girls’ sports should remain for girls. It protects privacy in locker rooms and showers and restores clarity statewide.”
HCR 2003 now heads to the Arizona Senate for further consideration. If approved, it will be on this year’s general election ballot.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 14, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R–LD14) said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to uphold state laws that protect girls’ and women’s sports, following oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether biological males may compete in female athletic competitions.
Petersen attended oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. in Washington, D.C., where the Court heard challenges to state-level laws restricting participation in girls’ sports based on biological sex.
“It was an incredible experience to be in the Supreme Court with the justices in the room hearing their arguments,” Petersen said in an interview with AZ Free News following the hearing. “If I’m reading the room, I think we win this six to three.”
Petersen explained that much of the questioning from the Justices centered on the definition of sex under the law, rather than transgender status itself. “What it’s really boiling down to is the definition of sex,” he said. “They’ve conceded that it’s about sex. They’re not even arguing that it’s about transgender status.”
He described a moment during questioning in which Justice Alito pressed attorneys defending the challenge to the laws on how to define the term “woman,” calling the exchange revealing.
Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) joined the case through an amicus brief in September 2025 after Arizona Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the Save Women’s Sports Act. Under Arizona statute, that authority shifted to legislative leadership.
“Unfortunately, you have an attorney general who’s not willing to defend our laws,” Petersen said. “But fortunately, the statute gives the Senate President and the Speaker standing. We were able to intervene and defend the law, and we’ve taken it all the way here.”
Petersen characterized the law as “common sense” and said lawmakers felt compelled to see it defended at the highest level.
“This is the same Women’s Sports Act to protect our girls and make sure they have these opportunities,” he said. “This law needed to be defended.”
Beyond athletics, Petersen said the case raises broader questions about state authority and federal overreach. “If they get this wrong, it would be devastating,” he said. “It would mean that your daughters, your granddaughters, your sisters—their chances to compete in sports and be champions—those dreams are shot.”
Petersen noted that while most states have enacted protections for girls’ sports, a Supreme Court ruling striking those laws down nationwide would leave states with no recourse. “At least if they leave it to the states, there would be some safe harbors,” he said. “If they ruled against everybody, there would be nowhere girls could go.”
Critics of the laws argue that they discriminate against transgender individuals. Petersen rejected that framing, saying the laws preserve opportunities while maintaining fairness.
“They still have opportunities,” he said. “They can be part of a co-ed team; they can play with people of the same biological sex or even create their own leagues. What they can’t do is play in biological girls’ sports.”
He added that the issue is necessary and unavoidable, pointing to female athletes who have lost titles and opportunities under policies that allow biological males to compete in girls’ categories.
If the Supreme Court upholds the laws, Petersen said no new legislation would be required in Arizona. “We already have the law,” he said. “We just want the law that we passed to be upheld.”
If the Court issues a narrow or adverse ruling, Petersen said lawmakers may be forced to explore alternative legislative approaches, though he cautioned that a sweeping loss could take years—or longer—to undo.
“That’s why it’s so critical they get it right,” he said. “If they get it wrong, it’s no different than Roe v. Wade. It could be decades, if ever, until it gets fixed.”
The Court is expected to issue its ruling as late as June this year, according to Petersen.
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 Jonathan Eberle | Dec 29, 2025 | Education, News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona voters could be asked to decide how school athletic teams are classified and how privacy is handled in sports facilities under a ballot referral introduced at the State Capitol. The proposal, HCR2003, was introduced by Selina Bliss and would place the issue on the November 2026 general election ballot. The resolution would require school sports teams and competitions to be designated as male, female, or co-ed, while adding new privacy protections in locker rooms and showers.
“Sports designations must be clear and grounded in basic fairness,” Bliss said in announcing the measure. “My referral requires teams and competitions in Arizona schools and sports associations to be designated as male, female, or co-ed. This lets every student compete safely and on fair terms.”
The referral seeks to restore and strengthen elements of Arizona’s 2022 Save Women’s Sports Act, portions of which were blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the proposal, placement on male or female teams would be determined by the sex listed on an athlete’s original birth certificate, a standard Bliss said would provide consistency for schools and families navigating evolving legal rules.
Supporters of the measure argue that litigation has created uncertainty in states like Arizona, leaving districts without clear direction. Bliss said voters should have the opportunity to weigh in directly rather than relying on ongoing court decisions. “Voters should decide this issue and give young women the opportunities they deserve,” she said. “Passing this referral will protect female athletes and give families confidence that the rules will not shift again in court.”
Bliss also cited her personal background in athletics as informing her perspective on the issue. “As someone who competed in athletics and as a mother who watched her daughter compete, I understand the value of a fair field of play,” she said. “Sports help young people build confidence, discipline, and healthy habits.”
Similar proposals are advancing in other states, including Colorado, Maine, Washington, and Nevada. If approved by the Legislature, HCR2003 would allow Arizona voters to make the final decision at the ballot box.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 23, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro announced that Arizona’s legislative leaders have filed amicus briefs in two companion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases, expected to be argued this fall, address whether states may preserve the integrity and safety of girls’ and women’s sports by limiting participation to biological females.
Petersen emphasized that the cases offer the Court an opportunity to uphold fairness and safety in female athletics. “These cases give the Court an opportunity to affirm what science and common sense already make clear: biological males hold inherent physical advantages that make women’s athletic competitions unfair and unsafe when they are allowed to participate,” he said.
Speaker Montenegro echoed these sentiments, highlighting Arizona’s legislative action. “Arizona passed the Save Women’s Sports Act to keep competition fair for girls,” he said. “It’s unacceptable that our state’s top lawyer refuses to defend that law. While Attorney General Mayes stands aside, House Republicans are doing the job she won’t—standing up for Arizona’s daughters and every female athlete who trains and competes. The Ninth Circuit sidelined our law; I’m confident the Supreme Court will correct course and affirm what parents and coaches know: girls’ sports are for girls.”
The Save Women’s Sports Act, signed into law in 2022, restricts participation in girls’ athletic events at public schools to biological females. After Attorney General Mayes declined to defend the statute, Republican leaders in the House and Senate intervened in federal court. While the Ninth Circuit recognized the state’s interests in competitive fairness, student safety, and equal athletic opportunities, it left the act enjoined as applied to two transgender, biologically male athletes.
Arizona’s briefs in the Idaho and West Virginia cases urge the Supreme Court to uphold state laws that maintain female-only sports to protect safety, fairness, and equal athletic opportunities. The filings assert that the federal injunction against Arizona’s law has already harmed girls, impacting placements, roster spots, and playing time. They also argue that courts should defer to elected legislatures—rather than unelected athletic bodies—when setting uniform participation standards, particularly in areas involving scientific and medical disputes.
“Girls deserve a level playing field,” Speaker Montenegro said. “House Republicans will continue to vigorously defend Arizona’s law and support states working to keep girls’ sports fair and safe.” The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Idaho and West Virginia cases will likely shape the future of Arizona’s law and similar legislation across the country.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
