MAY 25, 2026

Memorial Day: More Than the Start of Summer

Every year Americans gather for backyard barbecues, family trips, parades, and the unofficial start of summer. Stores run sales, pools open, and schools prepare for break. But before the celebrations begin, Memorial Day asks us to pause and remember why this holiday exists.

Memorial Day is not simply a three-day weekend. It is a day set aside to honor the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who gave their lives in service to our country. It is a day of remembrance for those who never came home.

The origins of Memorial Day trace back to the years following the Civil War, when communities across America began decorating the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers. It was originally known as “Decoration Day.” Over time, the observance expanded to honor all American military members who died in service, and in 1971 Memorial Day became an official federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May.

For many families, Memorial Day is deeply personal. Across the nation are parents who lost sons and daughters, spouses who never welcomed their loved ones home, and children who grew up without a parent because someone answered the call to serve.

Their sacrifice is the reason we enjoy the freedoms we often take for granted.

As someone who values community, service, and country, I believe Memorial Day should also be a reminder of our responsibility to be good citizens. We honor the fallen not only with ceremonies and flags, but by strengthening our communities, helping our neighbors, participating in civic life, and preserving the freedoms they defended.

If you attend a Memorial Day ceremony this year, take a moment to look around. You will likely see veterans standing quietly, Gold Star families carrying memories, and young people learning the importance of sacrifice. Those moments matter.

At 3:00 p.m. local time on Memorial Day, Americans are encouraged to observe the National Moment of Remembrance — a brief pause to reflect on those who gave everything for our nation.

This Memorial Day, enjoy time with family. Attend the parade. Grill burgers. Laugh with friends.

But also take a moment to remember.

Remember the empty seats at family tables.

Remember the names engraved on memorials.

Remember those who never had the opportunity to grow old.

Because freedom has always carried a cost.

And Memorial Day is our promise that their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Maricopa County Appeals Judge Blaney Decision as Election Season Nears

On May 19, 2026, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors formally filed an appeal of Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s ruling in the ongoing dispute over election responsibilities between the Board and Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap. The original ruling largely sided with Recorder Heap and ordered the return of several election functions, personnel, systems, and responsibilities to the Recorder’s Office.

The appeal is not surprising.

With Arizona already moving toward election season, county leaders have argued that implementing major operational changes this close to an election could create confusion, disrupt preparation efforts, and potentially affect voter confidence. Election administration in Maricopa County is massive in scope. The county operates one of the largest election systems in the nation, and changes in authority, staffing, technology, procedures, and oversight are not simple adjustments that happen overnight.

Supporters of the appeal believe stability should be the priority right now.

Regardless of where someone stands on the legal dispute itself, there is a reasonable argument that significant changes to election operations should occur well outside the election window whenever possible. Large procedural shifts shortly before voting begins can create uncertainty not only for election workers and staff, but also for voters who simply want a smooth and predictable process.

This case has always been bigger than personalities.

At its core, it is about determining where statutory authority lies between the Recorder’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. Judge Blaney ruled that the Board exceeded its authority in taking control over certain election resources and functions, while affirming that other responsibilities still remain with the Board.

Now the matter moves into the appellate process.

The timing matters. Arizona’s election calendar is already underway, and many officials have expressed concern that implementing large operational changes in the middle of preparations could lead to confusion and undermine public trust. With voters already skeptical and election confidence remaining a major issue nationwide, consistency and clarity may be more important now than ever.

As the appeal proceeds, Maricopa County residents will be watching closely. No matter which side ultimately prevails, voters deserve an election system that is organized, transparent, and stable.

Inside a Modern Battery Energy Storage System: My Tour of Pluto in Goodyear

Last week I had the opportunity to tour Pluto, a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility in Goodyear built by NextEra Energy Resources. If you are unfamiliar with Battery Energy Storage Systems, it is time to learn because these projects are becoming increasingly common across Arizona. If one is not planned for your community today, there is a good chance it will be in the future.

Simply put, Battery Energy Storage Systems store electricity and dispatch it back to the grid when power is needed.

There are generally two purposes for BESS facilities.

The first is storing energy produced by renewable sources such as solar and wind. Most of you know I am personally not enthusiastic about either. My view has long been that when you consider mining, manufacturing, land use, and disposal, these technologies can create environmental impacts that deserve more discussion.

The second use is one many people do not realize exists. BESS can store excess power from the grid when electricity demand and prices are lower, then release that power back to the grid during peak demand periods when energy costs rise. This helps utilities better manage demand and can help reduce costs passed on to ratepayers.

Whenever BESS projects are discussed, someone inevitably brings up the McMicken battery fire that occurred seven years ago near Surprise. That event was serious and changed how the industry approaches safety.

The McMicken incident became something of a perfect storm. Responders initially did not realize they were dealing with an energy storage facility and emergency response procedures for large-scale battery systems were still evolving.

Technology has changed dramatically since then.

The Pluto facility looked nothing like what many people imagine.

Instead of large enclosed battery containers with limited monitoring, today’s systems use smaller battery cabinets equipped with extensive sensor networks. These sensors continuously monitor temperature, chemical readings, gas levels, and other operating conditions. The information feeds into monitoring systems designed to detect problems early and respond before they escalate.

Another major change is spacing.

Battery cabinets are placed in separated rows with distance between units to reduce the possibility of a chain reaction should a failure occur. Fire suppression strategies, isolation methods, and emergency planning have all advanced significantly

.

Modern projects also involve extensive coordination with local first responders before facilities become operational. Fire departments receive training and emergency response planning specific to these sites.

This issue is particularly relevant to me because I currently serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission in Surprise. Our city is in the process of discussing how Battery Energy Storage Systems should be regulated locally.

Many Arizona communities are doing the same.

These ordinances address items such as:

• Property setbacks
• Height restrictions
• Noise limits
• Screening requirements
• Emergency access
• Safety measures
• Operational standards

One issue residents frequently ask about is noise.

During my visit to Pluto, I happened to be there while the system was actively charging — which I was told is the loudest operating condition.

Standing near the perimeter wall I could hear a slight hum several yards away. However, once I moved across the street, I could no longer hear the system.

That surprised me.

People often picture these facilities as large industrial sites with constant mechanical noise, but my experience was very different.

The project includes much more than battery cabinets. Transmission connections, electrical infrastructure, monitoring equipment, safety systems, and support equipment are also part of the development. Importantly, those project costs were borne by the developer during construction.

Battery storage is likely to become an increasingly important part of Arizona’s energy future regardless of where someone stands on renewables.

As artificial intelligence, data centers, population growth, and increased electrification place additional demand on the grid, utilities will need more tools to manage peak demand and maintain reliability.

That does not mean communities should approve every project automatically.

Residents should ask questions.

How close is it to homes?

What are the setbacks?

What technology is being used?

What emergency systems exist?

How are first responders being trained?

What noise standards apply?

Those are reasonable questions.

But after touring Pluto, one thing became clear to me: the industry today is not the industry of seven years ago. Safety systems, design standards, emergency planning, and monitoring technology have advanced significantly.

Battery storage is coming to more communities. The discussion now is less about if and more about how we regulate it responsibly.

Does Experience Matter?

In Arizona, an individual cannot practice law without being licensed by the State Bar. Attending law school or even passing the bar exam alone does not authorize someone to practice law.

Three weeks ago, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen quietly updated misleading language on his campaign website after 17 months and voters deserve an explanation.

The original wording stated that Petersen earned “a Juris Doctor degree from ASU Law, and was admitted to the state bar in 2020.” That language has now been corrected to say he earned “a Juris Doctor degree from ASU Law and passed the state bar in 2020.”

Those are not the same thing and neither tells voters when he actually became a licensed attorney (12/21/2023).

Passing the bar exam and being admitted to practice law are separate events. And in Petersen’s case were 3 years apart. Public records (azbar.org) indicate Petersen was not admitted to the Arizona Bar until December 21, 2023.

So why did the website originally say he was admitted in 2020?

This was not a typo involving a date buried in a long resume. It involved a professional credential prominently displayed on a campaign biography. Someone wrote it. Someone approved it. And now someone changed it.

The timing raises questions, especially as discussion continues around legal experience requirements connected to ARS 41-191 and eligibility debates surrounding the Attorney General’s office. If ARS 41-191 was not a concern then why mislead voters about legal experience to make it appear as though he had the requisite 5 years (60 months) experience when he does not (28 months)? Or regardless of its enforceability, will lawfare loving Kris Mayes challenge his eligibility in the General election so all of us, as Republicans, have to spend the General election justifying how our Republican nominee for Attorney General doesn’t need experience?

Petersen talks about his time as a state legislator and his time in law school as a student intern prosecuting under a supervising attorney but omits that all of this occurred without ever having a client and before he received his law license. If we nominate a candidate with no experience as a practicing attorney, can we defeat Kris Mayes in November?  

The question for Republicans as they decide who to vote for in the Republican primary will be, when it comes to running the largest law office in the state with over 400 attorneys and 1,000 support staff, does legal experience matter?

Maricopa County Election Fight Escalates Over Drop Boxes and Criminal Threats

Another typically routine administrative vote by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors turned into a public fight Wednesday after County Recorder Justin Heap’s attorney warned that election workers could face criminal exposure for helping operate ballot drop boxes approved by the Board.

The Board met to approve voting centers, emergency voting centers, and secure ballot drop box locations for the July 21, 2026 Primary Election. This is normally a procedural step required before every election. Supervisor Steve Gallardo noted that the Board takes this type of vote every election cycle, saying, “It isn’t something new. We do this every election.”

But shortly before the meeting began, Heap’s attorney, James Rogers, sent a letter arguing that only the County Recorder has authority to designate and establish drop box locations during early voting. Rogers warned that Board members, employees, and even temporary election workers or volunteers involved with “unauthorized” drop boxes could face felony charges. Maricopa County said the Board authorized 237 Vote Centers and 12 monitored Drop Boxes for the July 21 Primary Election.

That warning immediately changed the tone of the meeting.

Board members strongly objected to what they viewed as a legal threat against the low-level workers and volunteers who help run elections. Many of these workers are temporary employees earning modest hourly wages and simply doing the tasks assigned to them.

Supervisor Thomas Galvin called the threat “shocking and appalling,” adding that the county should not be in a position where workers are threatened for helping voters cast ballots. According to reporting on the meeting, Rogers argued in his letter that people involved in establishing or operating unauthorized drop boxes could be committing a class 5 felony.

The dispute is the latest development in the ongoing legal and political fight between the Board and Recorder Heap over control of Maricopa County elections. In April, Judge Scott Blaney largely sided with Heap in a lawsuit over election duties, ruling that the Board had exceeded its authority by transferring certain election resources and responsibilities away from the Recorder’s Office. The Board has since moved to appeal and has warned that changing election operations this close to voting could disrupt preparations.

At issue Wednesday was whether ballot drop boxes fall under the Recorder’s authority over early voting or under the Board’s authority as described in the Election Procedures Manual. Heap’s attorney argued drop boxes are early voting locations and therefore belong to the Recorder. County election officials pointed to the Election Procedures Manual, which says ballot drop-off locations and drop boxes are approved by the Board of Supervisors or its designee.

Board members said the Recorder’s Office had known about the proposed locations for months. They stated that county election staff had been working with the Recorder’s Office since February on election planning, including vote centers and drop boxes. Vice Chair Debbie Lesko said Heap had previously directed the Board to work with his chief of staff, Sam Stone, only to later reverse course and instruct the Board to communicate through attorney James Rogers.

Chair Kate Brophy McGee questioned who was actually running the Recorder’s Office, saying the elected official appeared to be deferring to his attorney. Heap declined an invitation to appear before the Board during the meeting, later saying it would be inappropriate to submit to an impromptu public examination while litigation is ongoing.

The Board also voted unanimously to transfer funds to create eight full-time IT positions in the Recorder’s Office. County officials said the Recorder’s Chief Information Officer has equivalent access to election systems and databases as the Board’s Elections IT team.

Supervisor Mark Stewart attempted to amend the resolution to allow Heap until June 1 to object to specific drop box locations. The motion did not receive a second. Stewart ultimately stood apart from other supervisors in his approach, while the rest of the Board sharply criticized the letter and its timing.

Galvin said the county remains stuck in a cycle of relitigating 2020 election issues and said his concern is not political fallout, but voters. Gallardo went further, accusing Heap of trying to make the election fail and saying he had never seen a situation this extreme after working with multiple previous recorders.

Lesko urged both sides to sit down publicly and work through differences, saying Maricopa County needs “smooth, fair elections” in order to maintain election integrity.

Brophy McGee closed with a direct message to Heap: “Start leading your office.”

What began as a routine vote over election logistics has now become another flashpoint in a larger battle over authority, chain of command, legal interpretation, and public confidence. The court fight may continue, but the election calendar will not stop. Voters need to know where they can vote, where they can return ballots, and whether election workers will be allowed to do their jobs without fear.

With early voting approaching, Maricopa County voters deserve clarity, cooperation, and a process focused on voters - not another public fight between elected officials.

Attorney General Kris Mayes weighs in

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has stepped into a dispute in Maricopa County regarding ballot drop boxes for upcoming elections. The controversy began after Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap objected to the installation of 12 newly approved ballot drop boxes and warned that election workers handling ballots from what he considered “unauthorized” drop boxes could face criminal penalties.

Mayes sent a letter to Recorder Heap’s legal team and members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors stating that the Board’s actions were lawful and consistent with established election procedures. She emphasized that approving drop box locations does not make Board members or election workers criminals.

Her argument centers on Arizona election procedures established through the state’s Elections Procedures Manual, which governs early voting, ballot collection, and storage. Mayes rejected the claim that ballot drop boxes qualify as “early voting locations.” She explained that voters cannot receive or complete ballots at drop boxes; they only deposit already completed and sealed ballots.

Mayes used an example to illustrate her point, arguing that if drop boxes were considered early voting locations, then mailboxes and mail carriers could theoretically be accused of illegal ballot collection, which she described as unreasonable.

The letter concluded with a warning to Recorder Heap against making what she called unsupported threats of criminal prosecution toward county officials and election workers.

In short, the dispute is over who has authority over ballot drop box placement and whether drop boxes legally qualify as early voting sites, with the Attorney General arguing they do not and that existing county practices remain valid.

Supporting School Choice While Strengthening Public Education

As many of you know, I am running for the Dysart Governing Board. I strongly support Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and believe parents should have options when it comes to their children’s education. School choice matters. At the same time, I do not want to leave our public school students behind.

Public schools still educate the majority of Arizona students, and they deserve safe classrooms, strong teachers, and an excellent education. My goal is simple: do everything possible to provide safety, academic excellence, and support for both students and teachers in Dysart schools.

I am also a firm believer in not reinventing the wheel when solutions already exist.

I lived in Texas for many years and still follow what happens there politically. During their last legislative session, Texas passed two education bills that I believe deserve serious consideration here in Arizona.

The first is SB 13, which increases transparency by requiring schools to maintain an online catalog of books available in school libraries. It also requires teachers to list books kept in classroom libraries, reading corners, and other collections available to students.

Why does this matter?

Because classroom libraries and reading nooks often receive far less oversight than the main school library. Parents deserve transparency about the materials available to their children, regardless of where those books are located. Accountability should apply equally across the entire campus.

The second bill is often referred to as a Teacher Bill of Rights, and this issue has become increasingly important as I have spoken with educators during my campaign.

I have heard from teachers who tell me they are afraid of certain students. They describe situations where serious classroom disruptions occur, students are sent to administration, and shortly afterward return to class with little consequence. Teachers feel unsupported and overwhelmed.

Too often the conversation immediately turns to “classroom management.” While effective classroom management is important, many teachers believe the issue is larger than that. Students who repeatedly disrupt classrooms sometimes understand that consequences are inconsistent, and teachers worry administration will not back them up.

Schools already have policies. Districts already have procedures. The problem many educators describe is not the absence of rules — it is inconsistent enforcement.

Teachers also face growing pressure from parent complaints, fear of retaliation, and increasingly difficult classroom environments. If we want great schools, we must support the people standing in front of students every day.

I do not believe Arizona has a teacher shortage.

I believe we have a shortage of teachers who are willing to remain in the profession under current conditions.

We must do more to protect our educators before more decide to leave.

Supporting teachers does not mean abandoning students. It means creating safe, orderly classrooms where learning can happen and where teachers feel respected, protected, and empowered to do their jobs.

I hope the Arizona Legislature will consider looking at these ideas and determine whether similar policies could benefit our state.

School choice and strong public schools do not have to compete with one another.

We can support both. And our students deserve nothing less.

Election Integrity, Due Process, and Following the Law: The Dispute Over Alleged Noncitizen Voters in Maricopa County

A growing dispute between Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has placed election procedures, voter roll maintenance, and due process protections back in the spotlight.

The issue began earlier this year when Recorder Heap announced that his office had identified 137 individuals registered to vote who were suspected of being noncitizens while reviewing records connected to a longstanding state recordkeeping error affecting more than 61,000 voters. According to the Recorder’s Office, 60 of those individuals had previously cast ballots.

Heap stated that the information came from the federal SAVE database, maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. However, election experts have cautioned that the system has produced false positives in other states, meaning lawful citizens can sometimes be incorrectly flagged.

Initially, Heap indicated the cases would be referred to both Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell for further investigation. Questions later arose when his office reportedly sent information on 207 voters to county prosecutors, a number larger than the original 137 announced publicly.

At the center of the conflict is not whether only citizens should vote — there appears to be broad agreement on that point — but rather how the law should be applied.

Heap argued his office was following procedures outlined in Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual by placing affected registrations into a “not eligible” status and notifying voters so they could provide documentation proving citizenship. His office maintained that this process protects both election integrity and the due process rights of voters.

The Attorney General’s Office disagreed.

In letters sent by prosecutors within the office, state officials argued that Arizona statute requires a different process for voters already registered. Under their interpretation, suspected noncitizens must receive notice and be given 35 days to respond. If proof is not provided, registration may be canceled and referrals made for criminal investigation.

State prosecutors warned that delaying referrals or using an alternate process was inconsistent with the statute and requested action from the Recorder.

On Friday of last week, after weeks of disagreement, Heap formally referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office.

This story highlights an important balancing act in election administration. Republicans have long emphasized election integrity and ensuring that only eligible voters participate. At the same time, conservatives traditionally stress adherence to the rule of law and equal application of statutes.

Protecting elections and protecting due process are not mutually exclusive goals.

If noncitizens are registered or voting illegally, the public expects those cases to be investigated. But voters who may have been incorrectly flagged also deserve an opportunity to respond and defend their status.

The challenge moving forward will be ensuring both principles are honored: secure elections and faithful adherence to the law — including by elected officials themselves.

As this matter proceeds, investigators and courts may ultimately determine whether the correct legal process was followed and whether any of the flagged voters were improperly identified.

Until then, the controversy remains less about whether election integrity matters and more about which legal pathway Arizona requires to protect it.

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, May 27th

 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