Featured News | Arizona Capitol Times
Your Inside Source for Arizona Government, Politics and Business
Thu, 24 Sep 2026 04:13:06 +0000
en-US
hourly
1
/files/2023/05/az17.jpg
Featured News | Arizona Capitol Times
32
32
43761567
Mayes, Petersen clash over Trump, ICE in attorney general’s debate
/news/2026/09/23/mayes-petersen-clash-over-trump-ice-in-attorney-generals-debate/
Thu, 24 Sep 2026 04:13:06 +0000
/?p=500175
Mayes, the current attorney general, and Petersen, weighed in on the Trump administration, ICE and other issues Wednesday night.
The post Mayes, Petersen clash over Trump, ICE in attorney general’s debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key points:
Attorney General Mayes and Petersen, Arizona Senate president, met on the debate stage Wednesday night.
The candidates discussed the Trump administration, ICE and other issues.
The hour-long debate also featured frequent personal attacks.
SCOTTSDALE – Attorney General Kris Mayes and her Republican challenger, Warren Petersen, clashed and traded personal attacks in a debate Wednesday night, arguing over issues including how they would interact with the Trump administration.
Mayes, a Democrat elected to the post in 2022, and Petersen, the current Arizona Senate president, differed on issues including the proliferation of data centers, how they would approach prosecuting members of their own parties and election integrity.
But the candidates frequently interrupted each other with criticism and tried to talk over one another during the hour-long debate hosted by the Arizona Media Association and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
In one exchange, Petersen accused Mayes of pounding her fists on a table and using profanity in meetings.
“I’m going to restore professionalism,” Petersen said. “Kris Mayes is known for having meltdowns, yelling, screaming, pounding her fists on the table.”
“This is outrageous,” Mayes countered. “I can’t believe you’re allowing this to be aired. You’re flat out lying to the people of Arizona.”
As attorney general, Mayes has brought dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration — suits she said have saved the state $2.3 billion. But she said the president’s party doesn’t matter when she considers whether to bring a suit.
“Whether it’s a Republican president or a Democratic president, our criteria is the same,” Mayes said. “Has the Constitution been violated? Has the state been harmed? And that has happened all too often over the last two years.”
Attorney General Kris Mayes, left, and her GOP opponent, Senate President Warren Petersen, debate at the Sneaky Big Studios in Scottsdale on Wednesday. (Joe Rondone/The Arizona Republic)
Petersen said he has a good relationship with the Trump administration but would also litigate unconstitutional actions by a president from either party.
“If it’s unconstitutional action made by –- I don’t care if it’s a Republican or Democrat –- we will litigate,” he said.
Responding to a question about how he would work with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement as attorney general, Petersen said he supports legal immigration, and that law enforcement can count on him to help secure the southern border.
Mayes, meanwhile, said ICE needs to refocus its efforts on controlling the flow of drugs over the border rather than sending agents “into the interior of the country to chase around hardworking landscapers and gardeners.”
Regarding data centers, Petersen said location, electricity and water need to be considered, but he doesn’t believe in “just shutting down” the idea of a data center.
Mayes has called for a temporary moratorium on new data centers and said the centers are driving rising utility costs. “The vast majority of Arizonans want to see us take a step back and think about a plan,” she said.
She said she is proud of efforts under her leadership to stand up to the federal government’s efforts to access Arizona voter data and attempt to “take over and destroy” mail-in voting, while Petersen called for improvements in speeding up the delivery of election results.
“My opponent has frustrated many of our citizens with her dismissive attitude towards election integrity,” Petersen said. “I think it’s important we listen to everybody and do everything we can to address their concerns.”
Wednesday’s debate follows Mayes’ decision last month not to bring criminal charges against Gov. Katie Hobbs, also a Democrat, in connection with an alleged pay-to-play scheme involving a state contractor.
Mayes said she has no problem investigating or prosecuting a member of her own party.
“I don’t care whether you have an R or a D behind your name,” she said. “I am dead serious about prosecutorial ethics.”
She said the state needs legislation to prevent contractors from giving campaign contributions. “Pay-to-play is a serious issue,” she said.
Petersen, meanwhile, called Mayes’ review a “sham investigation.” He said he has supported legislation to prevent “pay-to-play,” but the governor did not approve it. The post Mayes, Petersen clash over Trump, ICE in attorney general’s debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500175
Prop. 141 could complicate Arizona’s highway funding conundrum
/news/2026/09/23/prop-141-could-complicate-arizonas-highway-funding-conundrum/
Wed, 23 Sep 2026 23:51:18 +0000
/?p=500177
With Arizona’s primary source of highway improvement funds stalling, voters will be asked to close the door on one potential solution in November.
The post Prop. 141 could complicate Arizona’s highway funding conundrum first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key Points:
Arizona’s gas-tax-dependent highway fund is falling behind as electric vehicles become more popular
Proposition 141 would ban the state from taxing EVs based on miles traveled, citing privacy concerns
Opponents of the measure say every option should remain on the table; others argue a more creative solution is needed
With Arizona’s primary source of highway improvement funds stalling, voters will be asked to close the door on one potential solution in November.
For over a decade, Arizonans’ shift toward electric vehicles has raised alarms about declining fuel-tax revenues from gas-powered vehicles. But state policymakers have been reluctant to adopt new tax policies that account for inflation and changing consumer behavior.
This funding issue isn’t unique to the state’s Highway User Revenue Fund, which relies on Arizona’s 18-cent-per-gallon fuel tax to invest in road improvement projects. But it is the only struggling state fund facing a fight at the ballot box. And, according to one estimate, the state is already $1 billion short of the funding it needs to keep up with highway and road maintenance.
U.S. Department of Energy data shows that nearly 3,000 electric vehicles were registered in Arizona in 2020. By 2025, that number jumped to almost 150,000.
That growth curve could flatten, though, since the federal government has rolled back tax incentives to purchase EVs.
Proposition 141 will ask voters to decide whether to prohibit government entities from imposing a tax or fee based on vehicle miles traveled, or to monitor and limit vehicle miles traveled. Advocates for Arizona infrastructure projects say the ballot measure will tie the state’s hands as it looks for ways to ensure electric and hybrid vehicle owners pay their fair share for road upkeep.
“[Prop. 141] really is hurting our opportunities in the future to address what is becoming a very critical shortfall for state and local infrastructure funding,” said Ted Maxwell, the current chair of the State Board of Transportation.
Maxwell, who was appointed to the board by former Gov. Doug Ducey in 2021, said stagnant HURF revenues have been a constant topic of conversation since he joined. He estimates that declining gas tax revenue leaves Arizona $600 million to $1 billion short of the funding needed for infrastructure projects in the near and long term.
“The fact of the matter is our funding for infrastructure is not keeping anywhere up with the needs for our infrastructure,” Maxwell said.
HURF improvements elusive
He noted that state lawmakers want to change HURF collections, but motivation has been elusive. A 2025 bill from Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, that would have allowed the Arizona Department of Transportation to establish a gas tax equivalent for EVs never made it out of committee.
“There’s desire, but anytime you say ‘tax’, you’re going to get folks that are going to be against it,” Maxwell said.
Farnsworth’s bill did not contain the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) proposal that Prop. 141 seeks to ban. Four states currently have voluntary VMT programs for EVs or hybrids that track miles via annual vehicle inspections or odometer plug-ins, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, sponsored the 2025 legislative referral that put Prop. 141 on the ballot this year and argued during a floor vote on the measure that it is meant to protect Arizonans from government surveillance.
“Freedom of mobility is a fundamental freedom that is uniquely American,” Hoffman said in February 2025. “This, at its core, says that the government shall not tax or track you for the miles that you drive.”
Maxwell said he understands privacy concerns, but argues the Legislature could have taken a more direct approach if lawmakers worried VMT programs could be weaponized to track citizens or limit their movements.
“If your concern is security and your concern is privacy, the way to [address] that is to pass a law that prohibits the government from putting tracking devices on your vehicle,” Maxwell said.
More taxes unlikely
Revenue declines are also hitting other state funds.
The Early Childhood Development and Health Fund is seeing a drop in tobacco tax revenue as e-cigarette use increases. And the Telecommunications Fund for the Deaf could reach a deficit in the next fiscal year as revenue from taxes on wired telephone services dries up.
But, with Arizonans themselves struggling economically, tax increases or additional fees are a hard sell for lawmakers.
“In a situation where affordability is an issue, there’s no desire to increase taxes or fees on Arizonans, and yet there are still all of these needs,” said Katie Ratlief, the executive director of the Common Sense Institute. “The solution is to really kind of roll up your sleeves and dig into the state budget and figure out where the state’s priorities ought to be.”
Ratlief argued lawmakers should look at more creative ways to use the state’s general fund to invest in areas like highway improvements, rather than imposing a new tax or fee. She said the now-dormant battle over Proposition 123 is a prime example.
Without an agreement to extend the education funding measure, which withdrew 6.5% annually for 10 years from the state’s Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund, the Legislature took $300 million from the general fund in the last two fiscal years to make up the difference.
“That was $300 million that was coming from the trust that no longer is [and] just went onto the general fund with very little fanfare,” Ratlief said. “Is that the best use of $300 million while the trust is bigger than ever and continuing to grow?”
Maxwell isn’t convinced that an increased gas tax or a new VMT program is the right way to go either. But he argues the Legislature needs every tool at its disposal to solve the infrastructure funding problem, a fix he only sees occurring in a non-election year.
“The only time to address it is in those odd-numbered years,” Maxwell said. “So I’m hoping there will be a push in 2027, and I’m hoping vehicle miles traveled is still something that we can discuss with the Legislature to see if they want to go that way.”The post Prop. 141 could complicate Arizona’s highway funding conundrum first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500177
Arizona AG sues over kratom, kava in ‘feel free’ drink
/news/2026/09/23/arizona-ag-sues-over-kratom-kava-in-feel-free-drink/
Wed, 23 Sep 2026 20:36:47 +0000
/?p=500172
The lawsuit alleges that Botanic Tonics, which sells the product known as “feel free” at convenience stores, is deceptively marketing its product and concealing its potential health risks.
The post Arizona AG sues over kratom, kava in ‘feel free’ drink first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing the maker of a product marketed as an energy drink, contending the company failed to disclose that it contains kratom and kava, ingredients Mayes claims can cause dependence, illness and, in some cases, death.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Maricopa County Superior Court alleges that Botanic Tonics, which sells the product known as “feel free” at gas stations and convenience stores, is deceptively marketing its product and concealing its potential health risks.
State lawmakers have rejected efforts to impose tighter restrictions on kratom, and there are none on kava. Even so, Mayes, who is suing under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, argues that companies still cannot sell products containing these ingredients without disclosing that to customers.
Kratom, which is derived from a tree in Southeast Asia, acts like a mild stimulant in low doses and has a sedative effect in high doses, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Kava, derived from the roots of a plant native to the South Pacific region, is commonly marketed as a relaxant and is not considered a controlled substance.
Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, said that the state Department of Health has counted 146 kratom-related deaths between 2020 and 2023.
“It’s a public health threat,” he said.
The lawsuit does not ask the court to take the product off the market. Instead, Mayes wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce to order Botanic Tonics to stop engaging in what she called deceptive, misleading or unfair acts — including omitting those two ingredients — when the product is sold in Arizona.
She also wants financial compensation for people in Arizona who purchased the drug and suffered side effects.
The company did not immediately respond on Wednesday.
“Feel free” is one of many products found at gas stations and convenience stores, marketed as a mood enhancer or stimulant. But Mayes alleges the product’s marketing hides the risks associated with the ingredients.
The beverage is marketed as a “kava drink” made with kava and “other ancient plants” — in this case, kratom, according to the lawsuit. But kratom is not mentioned as an ingredient.
“Describing ‘feel free’ as a kava drink is akin to describing a gin and tonic simply as tonic,” the lawsuit states.
“Kratom can produce opioid-like effects and carries risks including dependence, addiction, and withdrawal,” according to the lawsuit. It also presents health risks, “particularly when consumed in concentrated amounts or in combination with other substances.”
Mayes also accuses the company of promoting the drink as an alternative to alcohol, including to people seeking sobriety, “without adequately disclosing that they were substituting one substance presenting risks of dependence, addiction, and withdrawal for another.”
She also takes issue with the packaging, which she argues is designed to look like products such as 5-Hour ENERGY, a legal product that uses caffeine as its stimulant.
Mayes also said the company’s owner, Jerry Ross, knew that some consumers experienced problems with the product and, at one point early on, he put his personal telephone number on packages.
“Yet rather than adequately disclose these risks, defendants built and expanded the market for ‘feel free’ by presenting the product to Arizonans in ways that obscured its nature and risks,” the attorney general said. The post Arizona AG sues over kratom, kava in ‘feel free’ drink first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500172
Biggs lists tax cuts, ESA support among priorities if elected governor
/news/2026/09/22/biggs-lists-tax-cuts-esa-support-among-priorities-if-elected-governor/
Tue, 22 Sep 2026 22:58:22 +0000
The post Biggs lists tax cuts, ESA support among priorities if elected governor first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Gubernatorial hopeful Andy Biggs made a series of promises Tuesday of what he intends to do should he win the governor’s race.
In a press conference on the lawn of the state Senate, where he had previously served as president, Biggs vowed to totally eliminate tax incentives for data centers, allow Arizona restaurants to serve raw milk, limit the number of short-term rentals that can be owned by investors, support more nuclear power in Arizona, and limit the use of food stamps to purchase “junk food” and soda.
He also wants to increase the scope of the already universal Empowerment Scholarship Account program by increasing grants to provide more accessibility to students in inner-city and rural areas.
But while providing a laundry list of what he will do in the future, the current Republican congressman would not answer questions about what he actually has done as shown by his record. That includes his repeated support for an increasingly unpopular war in Iran and the extensive tariffs imposed by President Trump, both of which already have had an economic impact on Arizonans.
“Tell me when I voted for it once,” he said in response to a question about his support for the war. And Biggs quickly sought to change the subject from what he has done in the past to what he says he will do in the future.
“We’re talking today about a positive, optimistic vision for the state,” he said.
But the record shows that Biggs voted six times this year against a House resolution directing the president to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran.
Pushed further, Biggs did not dispute that war has driven up the price of gasoline and diesel. But he said there wasn’t much he could do about it.
“I expressed myself to the president, I expressed myself to his team,” Biggs said, calling all the higher fuel prices “an unfortunate reality.”
But here, too, he deflected.
“That’s not why Arizona’s not affordable, solely,” Biggs said.
He said the same high gas and diesel prices affect residents of every state. And Biggs said that can’t be blamed for the fact that Arizona, once considered one of the most affordable states, now ranks near the bottom.
Biggs did not answer questions about his support of the presidentially imposed tariffs.
Some of what the GOP nominee promised Tuesday to do if elected lacks specifics.
For example, he wants to eliminate the state income tax, which generates an estimated $6 billion, about a third of the nearly $18 billion in tax revenues. It is exceeded only by sales and use taxes at about $8.7 billion.
Biggs insisted that his plan does not mean other taxes will go up or that services will need to be cut. He said the record in Arizona has shown that tax cuts stimulate the economy, with no decline in overall state revenues.
Still, he said, any changes would be done “incrementally.”
Campaign aides to incumbent Gov. Katie Hobbs countered by suggesting that Biggs’ actual plan is to institute a 23% sales tax on all items. And Biggs did in fact sponsor such a plan — but at the federal level.
But the Fair Tax Act also would have replaced taxes on income, payroll, estate and gift taxes.
Much of what is in Biggs’ list of promises are direct reactions to things done — or not done — by Hobbs. Among those on the list:
Repeal an executive order she issued last year to expedite the ability to place renewable energy projects like solar and wind, on state lands, some of which have drawn objections from nearby property owners.
Promote more nuclear power plants. Hobbs vetoed legislation earlier this year to fast-track the development of small nuclear reactors by exempting them from local zoning regulations.
Mandate disclosure of political donations by those seeking state contracts. Hobbs, under investigation for the handling of a contract increase given to a major donor, vetoed such a bill twice.
Have the state depend more on groundwater which Biggs said is in plentiful supply. Hobbs has rejected various proposals she said would undermine the protection of the state’s water supply.
Permit college and university students 18 and older to opt out of required immunizations. The governor called the bill “unnecessary.”
Opt into the federal Education Freedom Tax Credits to allow students in Arizona who meet income requirements to get scholarships both for private schools and for tutoring, after-school programs and transportation. The governor vetoed a bill to do that, saying she wanted to see if the program, which involves no state dollars, has sufficient “guardrails.”
Limit purchases made with food stamps. Lawmakers approved such a plan in 2025 only to have it vetoed by Hobbs who said it relegates SNAP recipients to “a new underclass of grocery shoppers.”
Eliminate tax breaks for data centers. Hobbs actually proposed this in January but the final budget included only a three-year moratorium.
Some things, however, have nothing to do with the governor:
Allow restaurants and coffee bars to serve raw milk. Individuals can purchase raw milk at grocery stores but under state regulation it cannot be served at commercial establishments.
Block corporate investors from buying up a large number of homes and converting them into short-term rentals. There was a bill to do that but it was killed when a Republican lawmaker refused to give it a hearing.
Give cities more control over short-term rentals. This actually would overturn legislation signed by Gov. Doug Ducey in 2016 which stripped cities of any regulatory powers or imposing limits.
The post Biggs lists tax cuts, ESA support among priorities if elected governor first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500160
Ruiz, Yee spar over school choice, diversity initiatives in latest debate
/news/2026/09/21/ruiz-yee-spar-over-school-choice-diversity-initiatives-in-latest-debate/
Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:23:27 +0000
/?p=500152
The two candidates agreed more accountability is needed for the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program, but differed in the details.
The post Ruiz, Yee spar over school choice, diversity initiatives in latest debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key points:
Kimberly Yee and Teresa Lebya Ruiz agreed that the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program needs more guardrails, but differed on approaches.
The candidates also differed in their responses on whether they support DEI initiatives.
Personal attacks flew, especially regarding a complaint Yee has filed accusing Ruiz of illegal campaigning in schools.
The two candidates for state superintendent of public instruction agreed during a debate on Monday that the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program needs more accountability but differed on how far those guardrails should go and which families should be eligible.
Republican Kimberly Yee and Democrat Teresa Leyba Ruiz also clashed over diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, with Yee calling it a “distraction” from academic achievement and Ruiz dismissing the issue as a culture war talking point.
The candidates are vying to replace Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who lost the Republican primary to Yee, in November. Arizona Public Radio hosted the 30-minute forum.
Regarding ESAs, the two agreed that the program needs more guardrails, but differed on whether the state should set an income cap for families.
The program provides families with state dollars to pay for private school, homeschooling or other educational expenses rather than having their student attend a traditional public school.
“Other, very conservative states have commonsense guardrails, and we should have those,” said Ruiz, the former president of Glendale Community College. “We should be protecting taxpayer resources. We should be ensuring students are learning. We should ensure what the background checks are of individuals.”
Yee agreed that we “absolutely need more accountability in the system,” and said the state needs a better technological platform for the program contract.
Ruiz attacked Yee, a former state lawmaker and the current state treasurer, saying she wrote the program and that it was “written to be exploited.”
“It was not written to be exploited,” Yee fired back. “My opponent uses this because she hates school choice and wants to tear down school choice.”
Yee said the question of whether there should be an income cap for families to access the program is “not a question for a state superintendent of public instruction because the state Legislature makes those laws,” and that the current law, without caps, was written to give every family choice.
Ruiz countered that everyday Arizonans “should not have to pay for a millionaire’s educational decision” when many are struggling to pay for food and gas, though she did not put a number on what a reasonable cap would be. A citizen’s initiative that was struck from the ballot over invalid signatures would have placed the income cap at $150,000.
The candidates also weighed in Monday on DEI initiatives that have become a hot-button topic across the country.
Yee called DEI “a distraction to actual reading and math,” and said she believes in awarding jobs based on “merit, experience and proven capabilities.”
Ruiz, meanwhile, said the debate over DEI is “a culture war” topic meant to detract from other issues.
“I support our students,” she said. “I support creating an environment where all of our students feel valued and welcome.”
The candidates were not shy about lobbing personal attacks at each other Monday.
Yee made sure to bring up the complaint she filed earlier this month with the state Attorney General’s Office, accusing Ruiz of using school resources to produce campaign content in violation of state law. “You go in for photo ops with the backdrop of children as your props,” Yee said.
Ruiz dismissed Yee’s complaint as a political distraction. “This is on par with what you normally do every cycle,” she said. “You make a distraction.”The post Ruiz, Yee spar over school choice, diversity initiatives in latest debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500152
Conservationists worry Trump may prematurely strip Mexican gray wolf protections
/news/2026/09/21/conservationists-worry-trump-may-prematurely-strip-mexican-gray-wolf-protections/
Mon, 21 Sep 2026 22:06:51 +0000
/?p=500147
President Donald Trump's executive order reviewing the status of Mexican gray wolves on the Endangered Species List comes despite the species’ population count falling short of the minimum requirement.
The post Conservationists worry Trump may prematurely strip Mexican gray wolf protections first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s executive order reviewing the status of Mexican gray wolves on the Endangered Species List comes despite the species’ population count falling short of the minimum requirement.
It’s a move conservationists argue ignores science and threatens to remove protection of Mexican wolves in order to appease the ranching industry, which has advocated against the species for decades.
“The Trump executive order is just a more extreme example of openly putting politics above science,” said Carlos Carroll, an ecologist who studies the population growth of gray wolves.
According to Trump’s executive order, the Secretary of the Interior has 90 days from Sept. 4 to decide whether the Mexican gray wolf species is healthy enough to be downlisted to the “threatened” status or be removed off the Endangered Species list altogether.
“FWS will be evaluating all applicable science, existing laws and the ESA listing status of Gray and Mexican Wolves,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service said in a written statement to Cronkite News. “The Executive Order does not change the current threatened or endangered status of any wolf populations.”
As of 2025, there are 319 Mexican gray wolves living in the United States, between Arizona and New Mexico. For the past 50 years, the gray wolf subspecies has been marked as “endangered” on the list, giving them federal protection, along with federally initiated programs which assist with reintroduction measures and population monitoring.
To be downlisted from “endangered” to the “threatened” tier, the wolves must maintain a U.S. population average of 320 or more over the course of four years, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To be removed off the list completely, the wolves must average a population of 320 in the U.S. and 200 in Mexico for at least eight years.
The FWS’s own data show the Mexican gray wolves have not reached the population stability required for their endangered status to be revised in any capacity. They have averaged an estimated population of 276 over four years and 222 over eight years in the U.S., falling short of the required averages.
“We still want to know the genetic health of the wild population before removing protections,”said Craig Miller, an Arizona senior representative at the Defenders of Wildlife
And based on their own population modeling, reaching a steady 320 population count in the United States is necessary for the species’ resiliency without federal intervention, according to the FWS Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.
A research study commissioned by the FWS in 2013 found that a wolf population of 750 over an eight year period was more likely to facilitate a self-sustaining species.
Carroll, who was one of the ecologists who worked on that study, said the agency dismissed the findings and hired a new team of researchers who decided a wolf population of 320 was a sufficient measurement. In 2019, Carroll and a group of researchers questioned the scientific integrity of the new findings.
“The last iteration of the recovery group was dominated by the state game agencies,” Carroll said. “So it’s not surprising to me that they ended up with a lower number.”
Both Carroll and Miller said they expect the federal government’s sharp pivot was partially due to a pacifying attempt to appeal to the deer-hunter rancher community, which has been vocal against the reintroduction of the wolves.
Ginger Cheney is a rancher located along the Arizona-New Mexico border in Blue, Arizona, with 300 heads of cattle between her two ranches. She said this past year she had at least 16 cows killed by Mexican gray wolves.
Cheney wasn’t concerned that the federal government’s possible premature status revision would put the wolf population at risk, because she said she did not believe the official count of 319 Mexican gray wolves was correct. She said she believes the count is much higher and a portion of wolves were miscounted.
“There’s a lot of uncollared wolves out there, in unknown packs,” Cheney said. “I don’t think that they need to worry that we haven’t hit the 320, because we have.”
She said lethal measures are the most effective ways of securing her cattle’s safety.
In his executive order, Trump suggested that the Department of the Interior consider allowing lethal removal of Mexican gray wolves to assist ranchers in combating livestock predation.
“Illegal killing remains their greatest threat,” Miller said. “The president’s suggestion that, you know, people can shoot them now is blatantly wrong, and it demonstrates a disturbing disregard for both science and the law.”
Conservationists continue to fight for the protection of the animals.
“It doesn’t take much for one bad year and it can dip again,” said Hollie Colahan, the executive director of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. “Just want to see that it’s at that level and then see that it can maintain that level.”
Colahan said if the wolf species is removed from the Endangered Species list now, it is likely the population will decline.
“That 320 over four years was a decision that was based on science,” Colahan said. “It was based on the biology of the wolves and the population.”
This article first appeared on Cronkite News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.The post Conservationists worry Trump may prematurely strip Mexican gray wolf protections first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500147
AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records
/news/2026/09/20/az-supreme-court-strengthens-legal-recourse-for-those-seeking-public-records/
Sun, 20 Sep 2026 20:49:25 +0000
/?p=500134
Government entities can be held liable if they destroy records they know have been requested, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled.
The post AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Government entities can be held liable if they destroy records they know have been requested, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled.
In a wide-ranging decision, the state’s high court also gave new rights to those whose record requests have been met with administrative delays and denials, including, in some cases, getting their legal fees paid.
And, possibly most important, the justices concluded that trial judges should give no deference to a public agency’s determination that a particular document is not subject to disclosure.
Instead, Justice Clint Bolick, writing for the unanimous court, said it is up to judges to make their own determinations if any of the exceptions to the state’s Public Records Law apply. And he said judges can do that by conducting a private “in camera” inspection in chambers of the documents before reaching a decision.
But the high court also dealt a blow of sorts to some who pursue public records.
The justices said Arizona law allows those who prevail to get their legal fees paid only if they actually file suit — even if they actually have had to hire an attorney to convince the agency to surrender the documents. It’s only when a case goes to court that the agency can be forced to pay the challenger’s costs.
Bolick conceded that may not be fair — or even within the spirit of the public records law and its presumption in favor of disclosure.
“Public entities lack a financial incentive to fully and promptly comply with public records requests about the threat of attorney fees for incorrectly denying the request,” he wrote.
“Members of the public who cannot afford to file a lawsuit may be denied their right to inspect public records,” Bolick continued. “But these concerns are for the Legislature to address, not the court.”
Friday’s ruling is a partial victory for Matthew Abraham, who was rejected for certain program positions at the University of Arizona. It sends the case back to a trial judge who denied his access to some documents to take another look — using the guidelines the justices outlined — to determine if they are public.
Abraham had questioned whether the university was complying with Proposition 107, a 2010 voter-approved amendment to the Arizona Constitution which prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment or discriminating against any individual or the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting. That measure also covers the state university system.
That led to his filing a series of public records requests related to hiring and appointment practices, as well as documents related to the search and selection process.
Friday’s ruling concludes that the decision of the university to destroy an audio recording amounted to an illegal denial of records.
The justices also opened the door for Abraham to collect his legal fees, not only for the records that were denied after he eventually filed suit but also for those that were withheld before he went to court.
But the ruling sends the entire case back to the trial court to determine — independent of any claim by the university — whether the records he sought are, in fact, public. And all that will determine if Abraham “substantially prevailed” in his litigation and is entitled to have the university pay all of his costs.
It also still leaves unresolved Abraham’s separate claims against the university about whether he was improperly denied promotions and, ultimately, the legality of his firing in April. A hearing is set for Nov. 20 in Pima County Superior Court.
All that, however, is only tangential to Friday’s ruling about the records Abraham sought.
According to the court, the university produced some records in full, some with partial redactions. But some were withheld outright, claiming concerns of confidentiality, privacy or “the best interests of the state.” That last category is a catch-all that agencies can use by claiming there would be specific, material harm that outweighs the public’s right to know.
But it is not absolute, with the burden on the state agency to show what harm might result. That ultimately results in judges having to do a balancing test after hearing arguments and personally reviewing the withheld materials.
In this case, the university also denied Abraham’s request for the audio recording of an Oct. 19, 2019 meeting of the Committee of Eleven, an independent and elected body composed of faculty members to research and advise on university issues.
Instead, the university indicated it would use the recording for “transcription purposes only” to create minutes of the meeting and that it would be “deleted shortly after.” It also offered to let Abraham listen to the recording, but without obtaining a copy, an offer he rejected.
Bolick, writing Friday’s decision, said courts have to be bound by the fact that, in Arizona, there is a “strong presumption in favor of disclosure.”
“The obligation of the public body is to promptly furnish public records that are eligible for production,” he wrote. And all that, he said, goes to why judges can’t simply accept the claims by a government entity that a record is not subject to disclosure.
“A standard of review that defers to agency determinations, especially over whether a nondisclosure or redaction serves the best interests of the state would defeat the strong presumption of transparency and public access embodied in our public records statutes,” Bolick wrote. And that, he said, requires a judge to do what was not done in this case: review the actual records in making a decision of whether they are public.
Bolick also specifically rejected the argument by the university that Abraham wasn’t denied a copy of the audio recording because it no longer existed.
“Post-request destruction of a document is the ultimate denial,” Bolick said, noting that Abraham had requested the recording, was told he could only listen to it, and, when that was rejected, the university destroyed it “ostensibly pursuant to its retention policy.”
“The destruction of the recording seems an obvious violation of statutes,” Bolick wrote. He said once Abraham requested it the university “had an obligation to maintain it.”
And the justice sniffed at the excuse that the school destroyed the tape in accordance with its own rules on how long certain materials must be kept.
“An agency’s retention policy must yield to the statute,” Bolick said.The post AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500134
Data center tax breaks lose favor in state capitals
/news/2026/09/20/data-center-tax-breaks-lose-favor-in-state-capitals/
Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:52:07 +0000
/?p=500131
The push to reconsider tax incentives for data centers is spreading to more states with no signs of letting up.
The post Data center tax breaks lose favor in state capitals first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
The push to reconsider tax incentives for data centers is spreading to more states with no signs of letting up.
Lawmakers in at least six states are either considering bills this year that would reduce data center tax breaks or planning to introduce such bills next year.
Both Democratic and Republican supporters of the bills say massive server warehouses built by tech companies to power artificial intelligence don’t need taxpayer support.
“I don’t think data centers need incentives,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said last month during a press conference. “I don’t think we should be providing them, and so I would certainly support rolling back any of that.”
A growing number of elected leaders are talking about shrinking or scrapping data center tax breaks as more people turn against the facilities. More than two-thirds of Americans now say they oppose data centers in their neighborhoods, citing concerns about water use, electricity demand and the impact on the landscape, among other factors.
Kasia Tarczynska, senior research analyst for Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that researches corporate tax breaks, said rolling back data center subsidies could also help states hold on to revenue needed for other purposes, such as funding social services.
“Policymakers are finally realizing that these subsidy programs are extremely costly,” Tarczynska said.