February 16, 2026

Congressional Judiciary Hearing Held in Phoenix on Federal Monitor Oversight of MCSO

On Friday, February 13, Congressman Andy Biggs, joined by Congressman Troy Nehls and Congressman Russell Fry, convened a Judiciary hearing in Arizona at Senate Hearing Room 109 to examine whether the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office should be granted relief from its long-standing federal monitor.

The hearing follows a Rule 60(b) motion filed late last year by Maricopa County Supervisor Thomas Galvin and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, seeking to remove the federal monitor that has overseen the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for more than a decade—spanning four different sheriffs.

Notably, several seats on the dais remained empty. Democrats were invited to participate in the hearing but chose not to attend.

Testifying in support of granting relief to the Sheriff’s Office were former Congresswoman and current Maricopa County Supervisor Debbie Lesko, Victor Riches of the Goldwater Institute, and Mr. Garcia representing the Citizens Advisory Committee. The hearing room was packed with reporters, supporters of the Sheriff’s Office, and a smaller number of Democrats opposed to ending federal oversight.

The hearing opened with statements from each of the congressmen before moving to witness testimony. Much of the discussion echoed long-standing concerns raised by county officials and community members alike: the goalposts for compliance continue to shift, there is no transparency into how monitoring funds are spent, Maricopa County taxpayers have paid more than $350 million to date, and federal monitors often serve simultaneously in multiple states, and financial incentives.

Congressman Biggs highlighted particularly striking commentary from Attorney General Merrick Garland, who—while serving in a prior role—outlined serious concerns about the federal monitor process. Garland previously wrote that monitorships should be time-limited, ideally lasting fewer than five years; that monitors should serve pro bono or at reduced rates, or at minimum be subject to fee caps; that lead monitors should not oversee multiple jurisdictions simultaneously; that term limits should apply; that expenses should be publicly accessible; and that meaningful community engagement should be required.

Congressman Fry focused on the principle of federalism, emphasizing that policing is fundamentally a local responsibility and should not remain indefinitely under federal control absent clear necessity.

As the hearing concluded, each congressman reiterated the same core message: the federal monitor has outlive its usefulness, and the millions of dollars spent on oversight would be far better directed toward actual policing - supporting deputies, improving public safety, and serving Maricopa County communities directly.

Announcing the Patriotnheels PAC: Education, Advocacy, and Preserving Our West Valley and Red State Values

I am proud to announce that I am officially starting a new political action committee: The Patriotnheels PAC.

The mission of Patriotnheels PAC is straightforward and important—community education and advancing the Republican agenda at the local and state level. For years, I have worked to ensure voters are informed, engaged, and empowered, and this PAC is a natural extension of that work.

As you know, I publish a weekly newsletter dedicated to keeping you informed about what is happening in our communities. I attend countless city council meetings, school board meetings, legislative hearings, and regional planning sessions so you don’t have to—and I bring that information directly back to you. I also work closely with legislators, helping research issues and craft policy that governs our state, always with an eye toward protecting families, taxpayers, and local control.

A core focus of Patriotnheels PAC will be advocating for planned, responsible growth—not growth for growth’s sake. The West Valley is changing rapidly, and without strong voices pushing back, our communities risk losing the very character that brought so many of us here.

That is why the BNSF fight is far from over. There is still significant work to be done to protect property rights, preserve our western culture, and ensure that rural and suburban communities are not sacrificed for unchecked industrial expansion.

Supporting law enforcement is also a critical part of what I do. Whether it is our local police departments or the Maricopa County Sheriff, public safety advocacy remains a top priority and a fundamental responsibility of government. Safe communities do not happen by accident—they require strong, well-supported law enforcement and leaders willing to stand behind those who protect our neighborhoods every day.

Patriotnheels PAC will serve as a vehicle to educate voters, support principled leadership, and continue the fight for the West Valley we believe in. More information is coming soon—but know this: the work continues, and together, we will make our voices heard.

Maricopa County Board Votes to Compel Recorder Justin Heap to Testify Under Oath

Less than a week after a judge blocked subpoenas seeking testimony from staff in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to compel Justin Heap himself to testify under oath and produce a detailed report addressing allegations of voter disenfranchisement and other election-related issues.

Last week, Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee signed three subpoenas seeking testimony from Recorder’s Office staff who had previously testified in court that changes in state law and funding shortfalls contributed to voter disenfranchisement in past elections. Heap later contradicted those claims in public statements to the Board.

Board Shifts Focus to Recorder Himself

With the staff subpoenas tied up in court, the Board voted Wednesday to require Heap to testify and submit a sworn report detailing the claims raised by his office in public meetings and court proceedings, including allegations of voter disenfranchisement.

Supervisor Debbie Lesko accused Heap of repeatedly refusing to answer basic questions about election operations, budget requests, and voter services.

“This is a pattern — a pattern of refusing to answer basic questions related to his job, his budget requests, and election-related procedures,” Lesko said, adding that Heap has also provided “incorrect” information to the public.

Lesko specifically raised concerns that the Recorder’s Office has stopped voter registration assistance to senior living facilities in her district.

She said the testimony is necessary to resolve confusion and allow county officials to properly administer upcoming elections.

“I think it’s very important for the sake of the voters and for the sake of the smooth operation of not only the 2026 election, but future elections, that we figure this out,” Lesko said.

Recorder Pushes Back

“This is an apparent and naked attempt by the Board to intimidate and bully County Recorder staff and unduly influence the pending court ruling,” Heap said in an earlier statement regarding the subpoenas.

Board members countered that Heap has failed to explain several decisions made since taking office in January 2025, including why the number of rejected mail-in ballots tripled in the last election and why his office attempted to send mail-in ballots to voters who had not requested them during a special election last year, an action the Board says violated state law.

Judge Urges Cooperation

Following a brief hearing Tuesday, Judge Blaney left the restraining order blocking the staff subpoenas in place and scheduled a follow-up hearing to consider allegations that the Board is intimidating witnesses.

Blaney again urged both sides to resolve their disputes outside the courtroom.

“Courts do not like stepping into political cases like this and placing themselves between elected officials,” the judge said.

Heap’s attorney, James Rogers, has filed a separate motion asking the court to block the Board from compelling Heap to testify. The judge had not ruled on that request at the time of the Board’s vote.

“The judge’s perspective was that Heap is an elected official, the supervisors are elected officials — you’re equals,” Langhofer told the Board. “You can work this out.”

What the Board Is Demanding

Citing state law that allows boards of supervisors to require county officers to submit sworn reports on matters related to their duties, the Board directed Heap to address several issues, including voter disenfranchisement claims, signature verification practices, and the unusually high ballot rejection rate.

“So what I’m looking for in this vote is accountability — accountability to taxpayers and accountability to voters,” Brophy McGee said. “We need real information, not contradictory information.”

Maricopa County Election Dispute Enters Critical Phase

At the February 11th meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the Board voted unanimously to set a February 18th deadline for County Recorder Justin Heap to respond to a series of questions related to election administration. Under Arizona law, failure to respond could give the Board the authority to remove the Recorder from office. However, it is important to note that not a single supervisor has publicly stated that termination is their intent.

Despite that, tensions escalated later in the week. On Friday, February 13th, Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee issued new subpoenas to three employees within the Recorder’s Office, compelling sworn testimony. The move came just days after a judge blocked earlier subpoenas over concerns about interference with ongoing litigation, adding to public concern about the pace and posture of the Board’s actions.

On February 14th, Supervisor Mark Stewart publicly called for a pause. In a letter shared on social media, Stewart urged the Board to delay its upcoming discussion to allow full staff participation and give supervisors adequate time to review critical materials, including the sworn report, proposed Shared Services Agreement (SSA), and recent changes to signature verification procedures. As Stewart noted, these are complex operational issues that deserve thoughtful review in public meetings grounded in facts and transparency—not rushed decisions.

Stewart’s message underscored an important reality: both the Recorder and the Board answer to voters. While state law assigns the Board an oversight role to ensure county departments function properly and within financial constraints, that authority must be exercised carefully. A negotiated Shared Services Agreement remains on the table, and advancing it should be the top priority so the county can stay focused on administering successful elections—starting with the upcoming Tempe election and continuing through the fall.

This call for de-escalation came amid reported pressure from political activists Tyler Bowyer and Jake Hoffman, who urged Stewart to back away from the issue involving Heap. That dynamic only reinforces how politically charged the situation has become.

From a public-trust standpoint, the stakes could not be higher. Justin Heap is an elected official, and many voters would strongly oppose his removal by the Board rather than at the ballot box. While the law allowing termination exists, exercising that “nuclear option” would almost certainly deepen existing fractures within the Republican Party in Maricopa County and further erode confidence in local governance.

There is still a clear path forward—one rooted in cooperation, transparency, and respect for voters. If the Board and the Recorder can work together to finalize a Shared Services Agreement and resolve operational concerns without escalation, Maricopa County can deliver a best-in-class election system. Choosing collaboration over confrontation is not only the prudent course—it is the one most likely to preserve public confidence and party unity at a critical moment.

The Board has ordered Heap to deliver the report and testify at its February 18 meeting.

Maricopa County Identifies Non-Citizens on Voter Rolls — County Refers Cases After Review

PHOENIX, AZ — In a recent review of voter records, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office announced that it had identified a small number of registered voters who are not U.S. citizens, and that some of those individuals appear to have cast ballots in prior elections.

The identification came as part of a larger effort to verify eligibility status for tens of thousands of voters whose records were affected by a previously identified administrative issue related to the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). Using the federal Save Database (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), the Recorder’s Office reviewed citizenship status for 61,681 county residents as officials worked to ensure ballot eligibility was properly documented.

What the Review Found

• Officials determined that 137 people on the voter rolls are not U.S. citizens, based on federal data.
• Of those, 60 individuals have cast ballots in previous elections.
• The Recorder’s Office is referring the cases of these non-citizens who allegedly voted to both the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for further investigation and any appropriate legal action.

What This Means Under Law

Under Arizona law, non-citizens are not legally permitted to register or vote, and falsely claiming eligibility on a voter registration form is a criminal offense. Under federal law, non-citizen voting can also result in penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment.

It is likely that these individuals registered through third-party voter registration organizations that compensate workers per registration. These groups often align with Democratic causes.

Arizona lawmakers have made multiple attempts to ban third-party voter registration drives that financially incentivize workers to collect registrations, a practice critics say encourages volume over accuracy. Each of these efforts has been vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs.

The Recorder’s statement noted that officials appreciate the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security in accessing the SAVE database and said the collaboration helps maintain the integrity of elections by ensuring only eligible citizens participate.

Interpreting the Numbers in Context

While any instance of ineligible voting should be taken seriously and investigated, experts caution that:

• The identified non-citizen registrations represent a very small fraction of the total number of registered voters in Maricopa County.
• Errors in voter rolls — including residency, moved, or deceased registrations — are routinely addressed through regular maintenance and verification processes.
• Past research and court cases have shown that non-citizen voting is rare nationwide, even if data occasionally shows small numbers of registrations that deserve follow-up.

Next Steps and Accountability

The referral of these cases to prosecuting authorities means that law enforcement and attorneys general will determine whether any criminal charges are warranted. Election officials emphasize that ongoing efforts to clean and verify voter rolls help strengthen confidence in the electoral process.

Maricopa County continues to remind voters that eligibility requirements are strictly defined under both state and federal law, and that protecting the integrity of elections requires vigilance, transparency, and accountability from all stakeholders.

Bipartisan Pushback Grows Over Federal ICE Detention Center in Surprise

The recent purchase of a large warehouse in Surprise by U.S. Department of Homeland Security for conversion into an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center has rapidly drawn the attention of lawmakers at every level of government.

At the heart of the controversy is not just immigration policy, but process and local control. Homeland Security did not consult with the City of Surprise, its residents, or local leaders before acquiring the property. Because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal agencies are not required to comply with local zoning regulations or municipal approval processes—leaving cities and citizens with little formal authority over projects of this magnitude.

On February 3, residents turned out in large numbers to a Surprise City Council meeting to voice strong opposition and concern. Speakers raised issues ranging from public safety and proximity to schools to infrastructure strain and the lack of transparency surrounding the project. The overwhelming message was clear: decisions that dramatically impact a community should not be made without community input.

The following day, Congressman Paul Gosar sent a formal letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, setting a deadline and demanding direct communication with local government officials. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego issued their own correspondence, echoing concerns about the lack of coordination and transparency.

State-level leaders also stepped in. State Attorney General Kris Mayes added her voice, underscoring concerns about federal overreach and the consequences for local communities that are left out of the decision-making process.

In response to the growing concern and unified calls for engagement, the City of Surprise scheduled a Special City Council Meeting on February 11, allowing the full Council to collectively sign a letter to Secretary Noem requesting formal dialogue and accountability. Notably Councilman Nick Haney was absent from the meeting. The lone no vote was frm Jack Hastings.

What stands out in this situation is the rare and encouraging bipartisan alignment. Democrats and Republicans alike are pushing back—not on ideology, but on the principle that cities deserve a seat at the table when major federal actions directly affect their residents.

Regardless of where one stands on immigration policy, there is broad agreement on this point: projects of this scale demand transparency, communication, and meaningful citizen input. Communities should not be expected to absorb sweeping federal decisions without being informed, consulted, or heard.

Surprise residents have made it clear they want engagement, not edits-and lawmakers across the political spectrum appear to agree.

Karrin Taylor Robson Withdraws from Arizona Governor’s Race

Karrin Taylor Robson has withdrawn from the race for governor of Arizona, bringing a significant shift to the state’s Republican primary landscape.

Taylor Robson, a longtime business leader and former member of the Arizona Board of Regents, had positioned herself as a pragmatic conservative focused on economic growth, infrastructure, and education. Her exit narrows the field and is expected to reshape campaign strategies as remaining candidates consolidate support.

In a statement, Taylor Robson thanked supporters and emphasized her continued commitment to Arizona and public service, signaling she plans to remain active in civic and political efforts moving forward.

Her withdrawal comes as candidates prepare for an increasingly competitive election cycle, with Arizona’s governorship remaining one of the most closely watched races in the country.

📄 Court Order Cancelling the Meeting

A recent order in the Melendres v. Sheridan case (No. 2:07-cv-02513) states that the “next Quarterly Community Meeting … scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, 2026, is CANCELLED.” This cancellation was issued directly by the federal court overseeing the long-running oversight of MCSO. Judge Snow heard Sheriff Sheridan was going to be out of town and that is why the date of February 3rd was chosen, so the Sheriff could not attend.

📌 Context Behind the Cancellation

While the court order itself doesn’t state a specific narrative reason, the cancellation is occurring amid broader developments in the case that give context for the judge’s actions:

🔹 Ongoing Controversy Over Oversight and Costs

• Maricopa County recently filed a legal motion seeking to end federal oversight of the MCSO, arguing the department has achieved compliance and the monitor is no longer needed.
• The federal judge has been scrutinizing claims about the cost of compliance, including audit findings that the county inflated compliance costs and ongoing disagreement between the county, community groups, and the court about transparency and accuracy.

🔹 Courthouse as Meeting Venue & Security Concerns (Historical)

• In 2025, Judge Snow moved these meetings to the federal courthouse and discussed security screenings after some previous community meetings became contentious and included armed attendees.
• There was not really a security concern. The Judge was simply shocked that supporters of the Sheriff simply stood up to him. Supporters made their voices heard in a respectful way.

Together, these developments — rising disputes over oversight, cost reporting, and the format/location of public meetings — form the broader backdrop for the cancellation. Whether the February 4 meeting will be rescheduled under a new format or agenda is likely tied to decisions the judge is making about how these court-ordered oversight meetings will proceed going forward.

Fountain Hills Restores Public Comment — With New Guardrails

In Fountain Hills, public comment has become the center of an ongoing debate about

transparency, decorum, and the role of citizen participation in local government.

On November 18, 2025, the Town Council voted 5–2 to temporarily suspend the general public comment period—commonly known as the “Call to the Public.” The decision followed a highly contentious meeting marked by heated religious and political commentary, escalating tensions, and the threat of legal action. At the time, councilmembers cited concerns about meeting disruption, decorum, and the town’s legal exposure.

The suspension immediately drew criticism from residents who viewed the move as an erosion of one of the few formal opportunities for citizens to address their elected officials on issues not listed on the agenda. Public outcry grew over the following weeks, accompanied by the possibility of legal challenges.

That pressure led to a reversal. On February 3, 2026, the Fountain Hills Town Council voted 5–2 to restore the Call to the Public. However, the reinstatement came with new and stricter limitations designed to control disruptions while preserving a pathway for public input.

What Changed

Under the revised policy, public comment now operates with several guardrails:

• The Call to the Public has been moved to the end of council meetings
• The entire public comment session is capped at 30 minutes
• Applause and audible reactions are prohibited
• Speakers must adhere more strictly to decorum rules

Town leaders argue these changes are necessary to ensure meetings remain functional, respectful, and focused on official business.

A Real Tension for Elected Officials

There is no denying the frustration many elected officials face. Across Arizona—and particularly at high-profile bodies like the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, MAG meetings, and city councils—the same small group of speakers often consumes significant portions of meetings, sometimes 30 minutes or more per session.

In many cases, speakers appear repeatedly, sometimes coordinated, and often raise issues disconnected from the agenda or based on misunderstandings of jurisdiction or policy. Some attendees may not even live in the community, and in certain cases, officials have expressed concern that individuals are attending meetings primarily to provoke conflict rather than contribute constructively.

These dynamics can derail meetings, exhaust staff and volunteers, and discourage thoughtful participation from residents who genuinely want to engage.

Why Public Comment Still Matters

At the same time, public comment remains one of the only moments when citizens feel directly heard by their local government. For many residents—especially those without political connections, lobbyists, or resources—the Call to the Public is the most accessible form of civic participation.

Even when comments are uncomfortable or critical, they often reflect real anxieties, frustrations, or unmet needs within the community. Eliminating or overly restricting that outlet risks deepening public distrust and reinforcing the perception that government is closed off from the people it serves.

Walking the Line Between Order and Openness

Fountain Hills’ decision reflects a broader challenge facing municipalities across the country: how to balance open government with orderly governance. The restoration of public comment, even with guardrails, signals an acknowledgment that citizen voices matter—and that silencing them entirely is neither sustainable nor wise.

Whether the new restrictions strike the right balance remains to be seen. What is clear is that public participation, even when messy, is a cornerstone of local democracy. Managing it thoughtfully—rather than eliminating it—may be the harder path, but it is likely the healthier one for both elected officials and the communities they represent.

PATRIOT HAPPY HOUR WITH FELLOW REPUBLICANS!

Join Us for Another Great Evening!

Due to overwhelming demand, we’re bringing back our Patriot Happy Hour at State 48 in Surprise! Last month’s gathering was a fantastic success, with great food, drinks, and, most importantly, meaningful conversations with fellow conservatives. Let’s do it again!

 Where: State 48 Brewery - 13823 West Bell Road, Surprise, AZ 85374

 When: Wednesday,

 Time: 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM

This is the perfect opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals, get to know fellow PATRIOTS, and strengthen our local Republican community. Whether you're a seasoned PC, new to our LD, or simply want to make new friends everyone is welcome!

Bring a friend and join us for an evening of camaraderie, networking, and fun. Let’s keep the momentum going!

Patriot Happy Hour is always the last Wednesday of the month.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR CLUB LISTED PLEASE CONTACT ME