SEPTEMBER 28,2026

There is a monthly cost associated with producing and distributing this newsletter. If you value the information being shared, please consider making a contribution to help keep it going. Your support makes it possible to continue bringing this information to our community.

Arizona’s 2026 Ballot Propositions: A Conservative-Principles Guide

Arizona voters will have much more to decide on November 3 than who occupies elected office. The statewide propositions address taxes, government surveillance, elections, education, school choice, public safety, student athletics, photo radar and school spending.

Ballot propositions can be complicated, and sometimes the title tells only a fraction of the story. Rather than looking at them simply through a Republican-versus-Democrat lens, voters can examine them through traditional conservative principles: limited government, individual liberty, equal treatment under the law, fiscal responsibility, public safety, election integrity, parental authority, school choice, accountability and local control.

Those principles do not always point in exactly the same direction. A proposal limiting government power, for example, may also limit the authority of local voters or elected officials.

Here is what the propositions would do and some of the conservative principles involved

.

Proposition 141 — Vehicle Mileage Taxes and Government Monitoring - YES

Proposition 141 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit state and local governments from imposing a tax or fee based on the number of miles someone travels in a motor vehicle.

It would also prohibit government from monitoring or limiting a person's vehicle mileage without that person's voluntary consent, with exceptions for certain interstate commercial vehicles and government-owned vehicles.

From a conservative perspective, two familiar principles are involved: taxation and privacy.

Conservatives have traditionally been skeptical of creating new forms of taxation and government monitoring of citizens' everyday activities. A vehicle-miles-traveled tax could potentially be considered in the future as electric and fuel-efficient vehicles reduce gasoline-tax collections. Proposition 141 would constitutionally prevent Arizona state and local governments from adopting such a tax.

There is also a privacy component. The proposition would restrict government from monitoring how many miles Arizonans drive without their voluntary consent.

The competing consideration is fiscal and local control. Roads still have to be built and maintained, and prohibiting this revenue mechanism would reduce the options available to future state and local governments.

Questions to consider: How much authority should government have to tax driving? Should government be able to monitor how many miles citizens drive without their consent?

Proposition 142 — Preferential Treatment, Discrimination and DEI - YES

Proposition 142 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the state, cities, towns, counties, public universities, community colleges, school districts and other political subdivisions from granting preferential treatment or discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education and contracting.

It would also restrict government requirements involving specified race-based diversity, equity and inclusion concepts and prohibit certain expenditures of public money.

The conservative principles at the center of this proposition include equal treatment under the law, individual merit and limits on compelled speech.

Supporters of this approach argue government should judge people as individuals rather than granting preferences based on race or ethnicity. Critics question whether the language could restrict programs intended to address discrimination or limit the ability of universities and other public institutions to establish their own policies.

Questions to consider: Should government ever treat citizens differently because of race or ethnicity? How far should state government go in regulating what public institutions may require or fund?

Proposition 144 — Election Requirements - YES

Proposition 144 would amend the Arizona Constitution in several significant ways.

It would reaffirm that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections and require voters to present valid government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot, as prescribed by law.

It would require voters to have the option of having their ballots tabulated at their voting location on Election Day and prohibit foreign nationals from contributing or spending money or anything of value to influence Arizona elections.

The amendment would also expressly allow Arizona voters and the Legislature to enact laws governing elections, including early and mail voting, when those laws are rationally connected to legitimate state interests such as accurate and timely results, efficient administration, election security and public confidence. The provisions would apply beginning with elections held on or after January 1, 2028.

The conservative principles involved include citizenship, election integrity, identification requirements, state authority and confidence in elections.

There is also an individual-access consideration. Identification requirements can be examined both for their security objectives and for how eligible citizens satisfy those requirements, particularly when voting by mail.

Questions to consider: What safeguards should Arizona require before a ballot is counted? What evidence should voters provide to establish identity? What balance should Arizona strike between accessibility and verification?

Proposition 316 — Taxes on Groceries - YES

Proposition 316 deals with municipal taxes on food intended for home consumption.

Municipalities that already imposed such taxes as of January 1, 2025 would face restrictions on increasing them, including voter-approval requirements. Jurisdictions that had not already approved such a tax would need voter approval before imposing one. The measure also establishes rate limitations and timing restrictions.

This creates an interesting conservative-policy tension.

One principle is lower taxes, particularly taxes on necessities such as groceries. Another is local control—whether state government should determine what individual Arizona communities may tax or whether local voters and elected officials should make those decisions.

Questions to consider: Should essential groceries be protected from increased taxation? Should statewide law restrict the taxing authority of local communities?

Proposition 317 — Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations - YES

Proposition 317 would declare drug cartels to be terrorist organizations under Arizona law and require the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to use all lawful means within its authority to address threats posed by cartels.

It also states that the measure does not support an alien's claim for asylum under federal law.

The conservative principles involved include border security, public safety, law enforcement and the proper division of state and federal authority.

A practical question is what additional effect the designation would have beyond existing state and federal criminal laws and what actions the Arizona Department of Homeland Security could take under its existing authority.

Questions to consider: What additional tools, if any, would this designation give Arizona? Which actions properly belong to state government and which belong to the federal government?

Proposition 318 — Student Athletics and Biological Sex - YES

Proposition 318 would require school athletic teams to be designated based on biological sex as recorded at birth on an athlete's original birth certificate. It would prohibit males, under the proposition's definition, from participating on teams designated for females.

The measure also applies biological-sex designations to private athletic spaces associated with sports, including restrooms, locker rooms and showers. Coeducational and mixed sports would remain permitted.

Conservative arguments surrounding this issue generally emphasize fairness in women's athletics, privacy and maintaining sex-based distinctions.

Opponents raise questions involving transgender students, equal access and whether state government should establish a single statewide rule for schools and athletic organizations.

Questions to consider: What does fairness require when athletic competition is divided by sex? How should schools protect privacy in locker rooms and similar facilities? Who should establish those rules?

Proposition 319 — Photo-Radar Enforcement - YES

Proposition 319 addresses automated photo-enforcement systems used for speeding and traffic-control violations.

Jurisdictions without a qualifying contract by December 31, 2026 could not begin using such systems. Local governments with existing qualifying contracts would have to ask their voters whether the systems should continue.

If voters approve them, authorization would last ten years, after which voters would have to approve them again. If voters reject them, operation would have to cease within 90 days.

Several conservative principles intersect here.

There is limited government and privacy: should government cameras routinely photograph vehicles to enforce traffic laws?

There is due process and traditional law enforcement: should citations result from automated technology rather than direct observation by law enforcement?

But there is also local control. The proposition establishes statewide restrictions while giving voters in qualifying jurisdictions the ability to authorize continued use.

There is also a public-safety consideration because communities using automated enforcement may argue that the technology discourages dangerous driving without requiring an officer to be physically present.

Questions to consider: Should government use automated cameras for traffic enforcement? If so, should elected officials make that decision, or should voters periodically have the final say?

Proposition 320 — School District Spending - see article below

Proposition 413 — Maricopa County Public Safety and Jail Tax - YES

Proposition 413 asks Maricopa County voters whether to continue a dedicated sales tax used to fund the county's jail and criminal justice system.

The measure would extend the one-fifth-of-one-cent (0.2%) Jail Facilities Excise Tax for another 20 years. The existing tax is scheduled to expire in March 2027. Proposition 413 will appear on the November 3, 2026 General Election ballot.

The tax is a significant source of public-safety funding. Maricopa County budgeted approximately $288 million in jail-tax revenue for FY 2026, with collections projected to increase in future years.

The money supports services and infrastructure associated with the county's criminal justice system, including operating and maintaining adult and juvenile detention facilities, correctional health services, construction and renovation of detention facilities, probation programs and programs intended to reduce recidivism.

The need for long-term funding was examined by Maricopa County's Public Safety Funding Committee, which reviewed adult and juvenile detention facilities, the Jail Master Plan, capital needs, probation and other public-safety programs. The committee held public meetings and ultimately recommended a long-term funding approach that led to legislation allowing voters to consider extending the tax.

For conservatives, Proposition 413 brings two important principles into the same conversation: fiscal restraint and public safety.

Conservatives generally have good reason to scrutinize any tax. Government should be able to explain why the money is necessary, where it will go and whether taxpayers are receiving an essential service in return.

But maintaining jails and operating a functioning criminal justice system are core responsibilities of county government. The debate therefore is not simply about whether taxes should be lower. It is also about how Maricopa County should pay for responsibilities it is required to perform.

There is another fiscal consideration. A sales tax spreads the cost among purchases made throughout Maricopa County, including purchases by visitors, rather than placing the entire burden on property owners or requiring the county to find hundreds of millions of dollars elsewhere in its budget.

The current jail tax has also financed facilities that now require continued maintenance and, in some cases, substantial renovation or replacement. County officials have identified aging facilities including Towers Jail, Lower Buckeye Jail, Fourth Avenue Jail and Estrella Jail as having significant capital or maintenance needs.

That makes accountability particularly important. A 20-year tax represents a substantial commitment by taxpayers. Voters can reasonably expect transparent budgets, careful oversight, competitive contracting and evidence that the money remains focused on the public-safety purposes voters authorized.

Questions to consider: Are jails, detention facilities, probation and correctional services essential functions of county government? Is continuing a dedicated 0.2% sales tax an appropriate way to pay for those responsibilities? What would Maricopa County have to cut, delay or fund through other revenues if the existing tax expires? And what accountability should accompany a 20-year extension?

Public safety costs money. The important question for voters is not simply whether Proposition 413 involves a tax—it does—but whether this dedicated funding mechanism is the appropriate way to finance the jail and justice-system responsibilities Maricopa County must continue providing.

Read Beyond the Ballot Titles

Conservatives frequently talk about smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, secure elections, parental authority, school choice, equal treatment and local control. Arizona's 2026 propositions demonstrate why applying those principles can be more complicated than reading a campaign slogan.

A measure can limit government power while simultaneously limiting local control. A measure can impose statewide accountability while reducing discretion for locally elected officials. A proposal intended to strengthen public safety can also raise questions about privacy and government surveillance.

The Arizona Legislative Council has prepared impartial analyses of the ballot proposals. Those analyses are worth reading before filling out your ballot.

The question shouldn't simply be, "Who supports this proposition?"

Instead, ask:

What exactly does the proposition change? What authority does it give government? What authority does it take away? Who makes the decisions? What are the fiscal consequences? And how does it fit with the principles you believe government should follow?

Arizona voters will make those decisions on November 3.

Proposition 320: Classroom Accountability or a Loss of Local Control?

Arizona voters will decide Proposition 320 this November, a measure that would require certain school districts to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses.

At first glance, that sounds simple. Who doesn't want more education dollars reaching teachers and students?

But there is another question conservatives should consider: Who should decide how a local school district spends its money—the locally elected school board or the state government?

According to the Arizona Legislative Council's official analysis, Proposition 320 applies to districts with at least 7,500 students and districts operating a school in a county with at least 500,000 residents. Districts below the 60% threshold would eventually have to increase their instructional-spending percentage by at least one-half of one percentage point each year until reaching compliance. - An important note, it does not apply to Charter Schools who receive the same funding from the state.

Failure to comply could result in progressively larger reductions in Classroom Site Fund allocations—25% after one year of noncompliance, increasing to as much as 100% after four or more years, unless a waiver applies.

Every Community Has Different Needs

Consider municipal government.

Phoenix does not necessarily spend the same percentage of its budget on police as Gilbert, Peoria or Surprise. Nor should we automatically expect it to.

Phoenix is the nation's fifth-largest city and faces public-safety challenges different from those of suburban communities. Surprise is one of the fastest-growing communities in the West Valley. Gilbert, Peoria and Surprise each have their own populations, geography, infrastructure and service demands.

Phoenix's adopted FY 2026-27 budget, for example, says police and fire together account for 63% of the city's General Fund. Surprise's FY 2026 financial records show roughly $59.9 million in Police Department expenditures across criminal investigations, patrol, tactical support, agency support, administration and capital expenditures.

We don't automatically conclude that one city's police department is being mismanaged simply because it spends a different percentage than another.

Why?

Because percentages don't tell the whole story.

The same principle applies to schools.

A rapidly growing school district may have unusually high transportation costs because buses must travel greater distances. An older district may spend more maintaining aging buildings. Another district may have greater needs for counselors, nurses, psychologists, speech therapists or special-education services.

Yet many of those expenses aren't counted as "direct instructional expenses" under the accounting categories relevant to Proposition 320.

Student support can include counselors, nurses, psychologists, speech therapists, physical and occupational therapists and social workers. Plant operations can include maintenance, utilities, security and other costs. Transportation includes buses, drivers and mechanics.

Those services may not fit neatly into the "instruction" column, but schools cannot operate without many of them.

The Conservative Case for a 60% Requirement

There is a legitimate conservative argument supporting Proposition 320.

Taxpayers expect education dollars to educate children. A statewide minimum could pressure districts to control administrative and overhead costs and direct a larger share of operational dollars toward instruction. But is this assuming all districts spent a large portion of their budget on administration.

Arizona already monitors this issue. State law requires the Auditor General to monitor school districts and determine the percentage of every dollar spent in the classroom.

Proposition 320 would put more teeth behind that goal by establishing the 60% standard and financial consequences for districts that fail to move toward it.

For conservatives focused on fiscal accountability, that is an important argument.

But What About Local Control?

There is also a distinctly conservative argument on the other side.

Conservatives have traditionally been skeptical of one-size-fits-all government mandates and supportive of decisions being made as close to the people as possible.

Arizona school boards are locally elected. Their budgets are public. Their spending is audited. Their members answer directly to voters.

If residents believe their district is spending too much on administration and too little in classrooms, there is a straightforward accountability mechanism:

Elect different school board members.

That is local control.

Rather than having the state determine that 60% is the appropriate number for districts with very different circumstances, voters can examine their own district's finances and decide whether their elected board is spending taxpayer dollars responsibly.

Arizona Already Restricts Some Education Dollars

It is also important to understand that Arizona does not simply hand school districts money with no restrictions.

A.R.S. §15-977 already specifies allowable uses for Classroom Site Fund money. Those uses include class-size reduction, teacher compensation, assessment intervention, teacher development, dropout-prevention programs, teacher liability insurance premiums and student-support services. The statute also says certain Classroom Site Fund expenditures for class-size reduction, assessment intervention and dropout prevention may be used only for instructional purposes.

Arizona law also requires school district budgets to separately identify categories including maintenance and operations, special projects, capital expenditures, transportation and classroom instruction.

So the debate isn't really between accountability and no accountability.

The question is how much control should remain with locally elected boards and how much should be dictated by the state?

The 60% Number Deserves Scrutiny

Another reasonable question is why 60% is the correct number.

If one district spends 58% because it operates an unusually expensive transportation system while another spends 61% because its transportation costs are lower, does that automatically mean the second district is doing a better job educating children?

Not necessarily.

Likewise, moving an expenditure from one accounting category to another doesn't inherently improve student achievement.

The real goal should be effective schools, strong teachers, safe campuses, responsible spending and students who are learning.

Instructional-spending percentages can be a useful measurement, but they are still only one measurement.

Accountability and Local Control

Proposition 320 presents Arizona conservatives with two principles that can sometimes pull in different directions.

One is fiscal accountability: Education dollars should be focused as much as reasonably possible on teaching students.

The other is limited government and local control: Communities should have the authority to make decisions based on their own needs, and voters should hold locally elected officials accountable when those decisions are poor.

That is why Proposition 320 deserves more than a slogan about putting 60 cents of every dollar into the classroom.

Before voting, Arizonans should ask what counts as instruction, what doesn't, what services could be affected, what safeguards already exist in state law, and whether a statewide percentage is preferable to allowing locally elected school boards to make those decisions.

Conservatives frequently say government closest to the people governs best.

Proposition 320 asks Arizona voters to decide how that principle should apply to their public schools.

Questions Surround New West Valley Justice Precinct and Candidate Residency

Maricopa County voters will see a new name on the justice-court map this year: Canyon Trails.

The Canyon Trails Justice Precinct is part of Maricopa County's updated justice-precinct structure and covers portions of the growing southwest Valley. County election materials confirm that Canyon Trails is among the Justice of the Peace and constable offices being elected in 2026. The new justice-precinct boundaries were approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on October 1, 2025, and became effective January 2, 2026.

For constable, Republican Jeremiah Schultz qualified for the Canyon Trails ballot with 999 petition signatures. Schultz has already been serving as a constable: the Board of Supervisors appointed him in January to fill the White Tank Justice Precinct vacancy.

The more complicated story involves current Arrowhead Constable Christopher Sumner.

Sumner Withdrew From the Arrowhead Race

Sumner currently serves as the elected constable for the Arrowhead Justice Precinct. Maricopa County's current directory continues to identify him as the Arrowhead constable.

Sumner initially sought another term this year. Maricopa County election records show that on March 19, 2026, Christopher W. Sumner filed as a Republican candidate for Arrowhead Constable. County records now list his candidacy as "Withdrawn."

I have been provided information alleging that Sumner's nominating petitions were challenged and that over 600 of the signatures collected for his campaign were questioned. All of these signatures were gathered by Lance Cook.

The county records I reviewed confirm Sumner's filing and subsequent withdrawal, but I have not independently verified documentation establishing that approximately 600 signatures collected by a particular circulator were fraudulent. Until the court filings or other official records supporting that allegation are produced and reviewed, it should be treated as an allegation rather than a proven fact.

Sumner filed on 09.03.2026 as a write-in candidate for Canyon Trails, Justice of the Peace. At that time Sumner should have resigned as the Arrowhead Constable according to A.R.S. 38-291(5) 5. An office shall be deemed vacant from and after the occurrence of any of the following events before the expiration of a term of office: If the office is elective, the person holding the office ceasing to be a resident of the state, or, if the office is local, or from a legislative or congressional district, the person holding the office ceasing to be a resident of the district, county, city, town or precinct for which the person was elected, or within which the duties of the person's office are required to be discharged.

Now There Is a Residency Question

The next development raises a separate and potentially important question.

Information provided to me indicates that Sumner subsequently filed paperwork seeking to run as a write-in candidate for Justice of the Peace in Canyon Trails.

The county's official write-in records, that creates an obvious question about residency because Sumner currently holds office as the Arrowhead Constable while seeking an elected office representing a different justice precinct.

Arizona law imposes residency requirements on candidates.

For write-in candidates, A.R.S. §16-312(A) states that a candidate must be a qualified elector of the county or district the person proposes to represent at the time of filing and must have resided in that county or district for 120 days before the election. The nomination paper must also provide the candidate's actual residence address, subject to statutory protections for certain addresses.

The Arizona Judicial Branch separately explains that a Justice of the Peace must be a qualified voter in the precinct in which the duties of the office will be performed.

Residency matters for constables as well. Maricopa County's own FY2026 budget states plainly that a constable "must live in the precinct to which elected."

Two Addresses, Two Precincts?

This is where the timeline deserves scrutiny.

Sumner's March 19 filing was for Arrowhead Constable. Information provided to me indicates his paperwork listed a residence on 103rd Avenue in Peoria.

I have also been provided information indicating that paperwork filed on September 3 for the Canyon Trails race lists a Van Buren Street address in Goodyear.

If those documents are accurate, the relevant question isn't Sumner's political party or why he changed addresses. It is much simpler:

When did Sumner establish residency in Canyon Trails, and does that date satisfy Arizona's legal requirements for the office he now seeks?

There may be a perfectly legitimate explanation. People move, precinct boundaries change, and Arizona election law contains different provisions depending upon the type of candidacy.

But the dates matter.

On 09.18.2026 Maricopa County Recorder’s Information System Center Voter information shows Sumners voter registration at the address of North 103 Avenue space 135 Peoria, Arizona 85345. This is outside the precinct boundaries for Canyon Trails.

The November 3 general election is the measuring point for the 120-day residency requirement applicable to write-in candidates under A.R.S. §16-312(A). A September move, by itself, would therefore not establish 120 days of residency before November 3. The actual date residency was established—not simply the date paperwork was filed—would be critical.

Party Registration Is a Separate Issue

Questions have also been raised about Sumner's political affiliation.

The county's March candidate list unquestionably shows him running for Arrowhead Constable as a Republican.

Claims that Sumner previously maintained Democratic registration for years, however, should be supported with official voter-registration records before drawing conclusions about his political beliefs or his reason for changing registration.

Changing political parties is legal. A registration change alone does not establish someone's motives or beliefs.

The more concrete issue is whether every candidate—Republican, Democrat or otherwise—meets the same statutory requirements for the office being sought.

Let's See the Documents

This situation should not be decided through rumor or partisan speculation.

The relevant documents can provide the answers: Sumner's March nomination paperwork, his September write-in filing, the official precinct maps, any court challenge to his earlier petitions, and records establishing when he became a qualified elector and resident of Canyon Trails.

Maricopa County already confirms several important pieces of the timeline: Sumner currently serves as Arrowhead Constable; he filed March 19 as a Republican candidate for Arrowhead Constable; that candidacy was later withdrawn; and Canyon Trails is a separate justice precinct in the 2026 election.

The remaining residency question deserves a factual answer.

Election laws should be applied consistently regardless of the candidate's party. If Sumner meets the legal requirements to seek the Canyon Trails office, the records should demonstrate that. If he does not, Arizona law provides the standards by which his eligibility can be evaluated.

In elections, especially for offices responsible for enforcing court orders and administering justice, transparency matters.

Who Would Fill the Canyon Trails Bench?

There is another important question if a court ultimately determines that Sumner is not qualified to serve. Judge Leonore Driggs was elected Justice of the Peace for the Arcadia-Biltmore Precinct in November 2016, took office in January 2017, became Associate Presiding Judge in 2021 and was elected by her fellow justices as Presiding Judge of the Maricopa County Justice Courts in 2025. Canyon Trails is a newly created court scheduled to open January 1, 2027, and the county currently lists its judge as “pending.” One important distinction, however, is that the appointment authority needs to be stated carefully. Arizona law provides that a justice of the peace pro tempore may be appointed by the presiding judge of the Superior Court, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors; that is not the same as the Presiding Justice of the Peace independently filling an elected vacancy. Judge Driggs does have significant administrative authority over Maricopa County's Justice Courts, but based on the statutes and court materials I reviewed, I would not state as fact that Driggs personally has the authority to appoint the permanent Canyon Trails Justice of the Peace if Sumner is disqualified. That specific succession question should be confirmed before publication.

Before Arizona Turns Off Flock Cameras, Look at the Crimes They Help Solve

As communities across Arizona debate whether to continue using Flock Safety automated license plate readers, the discussion has understandably focused on privacy, data sharing and government surveillance.

Those questions deserve serious consideration. But so does another question:

What crimes are these cameras actually helping police solve?

Recent cases show that automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, are being used for far more than traffic enforcement. Police departments have credited the technology with helping locate missing elderly residents, identify shooting suspects, recover stolen vehicles, arrest wanted people and investigate crimes ranging from organized retail theft to sex trafficking.

It is important to be precise. A Flock camera does not single-handedly “solve” a crime. It records vehicle information that investigators can use alongside witness statements, surveillance footage, warrants and traditional police work. But in some cases, police say that information has provided the critical lead.

A Prescott Shooting That Police Say Might Have Gone Unsolved

One of Arizona's most recent examples happened in Prescott.

On September 9, someone fired at least a dozen rounds from an SUV toward Harmony Veterinary Care. Surveillance video showed a white Ford Expedition entering the parking lot shortly before the shooting.

Investigators reviewed Flock ALPR footage and found a vehicle matching the description entering Prescott shortly before the shooting and leaving afterward.

That information helped detectives identify the vehicle's owner. Police subsequently arrested a suspect, who they say admitted to the shooting.

Prescott Police described Flock technology as critical to solving a crime that otherwise might have gone unsolved.

Missing Peoria Man Found Safe

Just days later, Flock played a very different role.

An 82-year-old Peoria man failed to arrive at a doctor's appointment. His wife became concerned and contacted police.

Police entered information about his vehicle into the Flock system. ALPR detections helped investigators determine where the vehicle had traveled, ultimately allowing officers to find the man safe.

A Peoria police commander said that without the technology, officers might not have known where in the Valley to look for him.

Peoria has documented another similar case involving a 79-year-old man with Alzheimer's disease. Police entered his Hyundai into the Flock system after he left his family's apartment complex. Multiple alerts tracked the vehicle through Surprise, Sun City and eventually the Verrado area.

Peoria detectives coordinated with Buckeye Police, which located the vehicle. The man, who police estimate had traveled more than 150 miles, was safely reunited with his family.

Road-Rage Shooting Suspect Arrested

Peoria Police also credits Flock with assisting investigators following a road-rage shooting near 91st and Peoria avenues.

A woman had been shot in the leg. Peoria's Real Time Crime Center analyzed ALPR information and provided investigators with information about the shooter's vehicle and license plate.

Detectives identified a suspect, obtained search warrants and arrested him at a Phoenix residence. Police recovered a firearm and shell casing and said the suspect later confessed.

According to the department, the technology substantially reduced the amount of investigative time required to identify the suspect.

Vehicle Burglaries and Organized Retail Theft

Peoria has also documented ALPR use in a series of vehicle burglaries.

Its Real Time Crime Center used Flock and traffic-camera information to identify two suspect vehicles. Detectives then developed additional evidence connecting three alleged co-conspirators to the burglaries.

The investigation eventually involved seven search warrants and resulted in two arrests and the recovery of evidence that included firearms and clothing allegedly connected to the crimes.

In another case, Peoria investigators used Flock information while investigating multiple felony shoplifting and organized-retail-theft cases. Police connected a Nevada vehicle and suspect to crimes in multiple jurisdictions. The suspect was eventually arrested in Nevada for related crimes.

Stolen Vehicles

Casa Grande provides another example.

In July 2026, an ALPR alerted the city's Real Time Information Center that a vehicle reported stolen from Marana was traveling through Casa Grande.

Additional cameras detected the vehicle as it moved through the city. Officers coordinated a traffic stop and took a man into custody.

Casa Grande reports that its system has also helped locate an elderly missing person, identify a suspect vehicle in a pedestrian hit-and-run and identify a vehicle and suspect connected to a downtown shooting.

Sex Trafficking, Fentanyl and a Case Involving a Minor

Even Payson—one of the Arizona communities moving away from Flock—has acknowledged cases in which the system assisted investigators.

In November 2025, officers used Flock information to narrow the location of an outstanding suspect in a sex-trafficking investigation to the Phoenix area. Another agency was then able to take the suspect into custody.

In October 2025, detectives used Flock data to establish vehicle movements to and from a victim's home while investigating a fatal fentanyl overdose. That information contributed to a criminal case.

And in February 2026, investigators used the system to identify a suspect vehicle in a case involving alleged non-consensual contact with a 17-year-old.

Payson officials have also credited the system with helping recover stolen vehicles and identify wanted people.

Chandler: 39 Arrests, 16 Stolen Vehicles and Nine Missing People

Perhaps one of the clearest ways of measuring the technology's impact comes from Chandler.

Chandler Police reported that between July 2025 and April 2026, its ALPR system contributed to:

39 arrests

16 stolen vehicles recovered

9 missing people located

The department reported approximately 7,600 alerts during the fiscal year.

Those numbers are important because they illustrate why simply counting the number of Flock searches isn't enough. The meaningful measurement is what happens after the information reaches an investigator.

More Than 50,000 Arizona Searches in 30 Days

The scale of law-enforcement use is substantial.

A recent audit covering a 30-day period in July and August showed Arizona agencies conducting thousands of Flock searches involving:

8,538 — drugs and narcotics

5,093 — motor-vehicle theft

4,498 — wanted persons and fugitives

3,799 — traffic infractions

3,675 — assault and battery

Those figures should not be interpreted as crimes solved. A database search is simply an investigative action. But they demonstrate how extensively Arizona law enforcement has incorporated ALPR technology into criminal investigations.

Goodyear City Council member Trey Terry told Arizona's Family that hundreds of cases ranging from road rage and home invasions to carjackings have been solved with assistance from the technology. He also pointed to kidnapped children being recovered and suspects in serious crimes being brought to justice.

This Isn't Just Happening in Arizona

The same pattern can be seen nationally.

A third-party database called the Flock Crime Prevention Tracker compiles published news stories describing specific incidents in which Flock cameras reportedly assisted law enforcement.

Recent entries include stolen-vehicle recoveries, robbery arrests, hit-and-run investigations, fugitive apprehensions, shootings and missing-child cases.

For example, on September 9, a Flock camera reportedly helped authorities identify the vehicle involved in the disappearance of a 12-year-old South Carolina girl. Investigators tracked the vehicle across state lines, and the child was ultimately found safe in Arkansas.

In another September case, a Flock reader in Florida detected the vehicle of an armed burglary suspect wanted in Alabama. Deputies subsequently stopped the vehicle and arrested the fugitive.

Other recent cases include a murder suspect located in Kansas, missing juveniles from Kansas located in Illinois, stolen vehicles recovered in multiple states and a fatal hit-and-run suspect identified and arrested in Florida.

The tracker itself provides an important caveat: its entries are based primarily on news reports that generally rely on statements from law enforcement. Inclusion is therefore not independent verification of precisely how important the camera was to each investigation.

Privacy and Public Safety Can Both Matter

There are legitimate questions surrounding ALPR technology.

Who can access the information? How long should data be retained? Should agencies outside Arizona be allowed to search it? What safeguards prevent misuse? Should searches require a documented law-enforcement purpose? And what consequences should exist when an officer violates those rules?

Those are reasonable questions for policymakers and citizens to ask.

But debating safeguards is different from pretending the technology has no public-safety value.

Arizona now has documented examples of ALPR technology helping police find missing elderly residents, identify shooting suspects, recover stolen vehicles, locate wanted people, investigate organized retail theft, pursue sex-trafficking suspects and develop evidence in serious criminal cases.

The Prescott veterinary-clinic shooting demonstrates the point particularly well. Investigators had a vehicle on surveillance footage. Flock gave them information about where a matching vehicle had been before and after the shooting. Police used that information as part of an investigation that resulted in an arrest and alleged confession.

The Peoria missing-person cases demonstrate the other side of the technology. Sometimes there isn't a criminal to catch. There is simply a vulnerable person whose family desperately wants them home.

Those outcomes belong in Arizona's debate over ALPRs too.

The question shouldn't simply be whether Flock cameras are good or bad.

The better questions are: How effective are they? What safeguards should govern their use? Who should be permitted to access the information? How long should information be retained? And can Arizona preserve a valuable law-enforcement tool while establishing strong protections against misuse?

Those are questions worth answering before communities dismantle a system that police say is helping them solve crimes and, in some cases, helping them save lives.

School Board Elections Matter: What Are We Teaching the Next Generation?

School board races may receive less attention than races for governor, Congress or the Legislature, but the decisions made by local governing boards can have a direct and lasting effect on students, families and communities.

In Arizona, governing boards have significant legal responsibilities. They establish district policies, prescribe curriculum consistent with state requirements, manage district property and resources, and may employ the superintendent. The superintendent then serves as the district's chief executive officer and carries out the direction established by the board.

That means voters should pay attention to school board elections.

What Are Students Being Taught?

One subject deserving careful attention is how schools teach history, economics and civics—including capitalism, socialism, communism and other political and economic systems.

Americans are having increasingly vigorous debates about socialism and the role government should play in the economy. Schools should not tell students what political philosophy to embrace. They should give students the historical knowledge and critical-thinking skills necessary to reach their own conclusions.

That means teaching the whole story.

Students studying socialism and communism should learn the theories behind these systems, but they should also study their historical implementation and outcomes. They should examine the Soviet Union, Mao-era China, Cuba and other examples and study subjects including centralized economic planning, collectivization, political repression, shortages and restrictions on individual liberty.

The objective shouldn't be to replace one political narrative with another. The objective should be factual history.

Students should encounter evidence, primary sources and competing arguments rather than being told what political conclusions they are supposed to reach.

Teachers Should Teach—Not Campaign

Teachers inevitably bring their own experiences and perspectives into the classroom. They are human beings.

But there is an important distinction between helping students examine controversial ideas and using the classroom to persuade students toward a political ideology.

A history teacher should be able to explain conservatism, liberalism, progressivism, socialism and other political philosophies without telling students which one they should support.

Students should be encouraged to ask difficult questions.

What happens when government controls large portions of an economy? What happens when markets operate without sufficient competition or regulation? What historical conditions produced communist revolutions? Why did some socialist movements develop within democratic systems while communist regimes elsewhere became authoritarian? What explains differences among countries that combine market economies with large welfare states?

Those are educational questions.

Students deserve facts substantial enough to wrestle with them.

Textbooks Matter

This is one reason textbook and curriculum adoption deserve public attention.

Arizona law gives local governing boards responsibility for prescribing district curricula within state requirements.

Dysart provides an example of a structured local review process. The district's urriculum follows Arizona standards. When core curriculum is being considered for adoption, materials are made available for public review for 60 days, stakeholder committees participate in the process, and recommendations ultimately go to the Governing Board for approval.

That transparency matters.

Parents and taxpayers should be able to see what students are reading. They should know what textbooks are being considered, what materials supplement those textbooks and what standards guide classroom instruction.

And school board members should actually read and question the materials they are being asked to approve.

History Shouldn't Be Sanitized

We should also resist the temptation to sanitize difficult parts of history.

Students should learn about slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, fascism, communism, religious persecution, genocide and other uncomfortable chapters of human history accurately and in context.

That principle should apply consistently.

Teaching students about a religion is not the same as teaching them to practice it. Teaching socialism is not the same as endorsing socialism. Teaching capitalism is not the same as endorsing capitalism.

Good education gives students enough knowledge to distinguish description from advocacy.

Arizona law itself recognizes the importance of this distinction: school governing boards are required to exclude certain sectarian, partisan or denominational instructional materials while still prescribing curriculum consistent with state requirements.

Civics May Be More Important Than Ever

Schools also have a responsibility to teach students how American government actually works.

Students should understand the Constitution, separation of powers, federalism, the Bill of Rights, representative government, elections, the courts and the responsibilities of citizenship.

They should understand why Americans can vigorously disagree about government policy while remaining citizens of the same constitutional republic.

Most importantly, students should learn how to think, not what to think.

School Boards Deserve Our Attention

School board members make consequential decisions involving curriculum, budgets, district policies and leadership. In Dysart, the Governing Board describes its role as focusing on policy while directing the superintendent, who serves as chief executive officer.

That is significant authority.

Voters therefore have good reason to research the people seeking these positions. Ask candidates what they believe the role of a school board should be. Ask how they approach curriculum adoption. Ask how they would handle controversial political subjects. Ask whether parents should be able to easily review instructional materials. Ask how they distinguish education from political advocacy.

And once the election is over, stay involved.

Attend meetings. Read agendas. Review proposed curriculum. Ask questions. Serve on district committees when opportunities are available. Dysart, for example, includes parents and community members on curriculum-adoption committees and other district committees.

Our children will eventually become voters, taxpayers, parents, business owners and community leaders.

Whatever political philosophy they ultimately embrace should be their decision.

The responsibility of our schools is to make certain they possess the historical knowledge, civic understanding and critical-thinking skills necessary to make that decision for themselves.

Project Baccara/Eagle Moves Closer to Glendale Annexation

Project Baccara, the proposed West Valley data center and on-site power generation project that has generated significant debate over the past year, is entering another important phase of the approval process.

I attended the Glendale City Council meeting last Tuesday, September 22, where the project was discussed during a public hearing. No vote was taken. Three members of the public spoke against the project, and I spoke in favor. Both City of Glendale staff and representatives for the developer made presentations and answered questions from the Council.

The hearing was part of the annexation process for approximately 160 acres near Olive Avenue and Litchfield Road, just north of Luke Air Force Base. The property is currently in unincorporated Maricopa County and is owned by Baccara Eagle Land LLC. Takanock LLC is proposing the data center and natural-gas generation facility.

This Project Has Already Gone Through Extensive Review

One point that sometimes gets lost in the controversy is that Project Baccara did not suddenly appear before the Glendale City Council.

The project has already gone through multiple public and regulatory processes.

The Arizona Corporation Commission approved its Certificate of Environmental Compatibility in February. The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of its Military Compatibility Permit, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors subsequently approved that permit in May, subject to conditions.

Glendale's involvement also isn't new. On April 28, the City Council approved a pre-annexation development agreement with Baccara Eagle Land LLC. City records describe the property as already zoned IND-3 Heavy Industrial in Maricopa County.

In August, Glendale again discussed moving forward with the annexation process. The September 22 hearing was another procedural step rather than final approval.

What Is Actually Being Proposed?

The current Glendale proposal calls for a large data center campus combined with on-site natural-gas power generation.

The planned campus would contain three one-story data center buildings totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet, an APS substation and a turbine yard containing 18 natural-gas-powered turbines.

The developer's own Project Baccara materials describe the concept as a data center with approximately 700 megawatts of natural-gas generation intended to supply the data center and support the regional power grid.

This combination of a data center and substantial on-site generation is one reason the project has attracted so much attention.

Questions About a Project of This Scale

At Tuesday's meeting, residents raised concerns about issues including water, noise, nearby homes and the City's responsibilities if the property becomes part of Glendale.

One of the questions raised was whether Glendale had previously approved a project exactly like this one.

That is an important distinction.

There may not be another Glendale project identical to Baccara's combination of data center facilities and large-scale on-site natural-gas generation. But that does not mean data centers or power-generation facilities are something entirely new to the West Valley.

Glendale already has major data center development underway around Luke Air Force Base, including large campuses associated with QTS and Microsoft. Project Baccara's distinguishing feature is the scale and configuration of its proposed on-site generation.

Technology also changes quickly. Comparing a proposed facility only to an identical existing facility can therefore be difficult. The more useful questions are whether each component has been adequately studied, whether the project can meet applicable environmental and safety standards, whether adequate infrastructure exists, and whether the conditions imposed by regulators can be met.

What Does Glendale Gain?

There is also a financial side of the discussion that deserves attention.

Materials prepared for Glendale's August work session estimated approximately $35.8 million in one-time City revenues and fees associated with construction and development and projected an approximately $18.1 million annual net fiscal impact after construction. Those figures are projections rather than guaranteed revenues, but they help explain why the City is evaluating annexation.

Importantly, the same City materials indicate that Glendale would not provide water or wastewater service to the project; those services would have to come from private providers.

That matters because one of the biggest questions surrounding data centers in Arizona is whether existing residents will be asked to shoulder infrastructure costs associated with large industrial users.

Annexation Could Give Glendale More Control

There is another side to annexation that deserves consideration.

The property already exists. It is already designated for intensive industrial use under Maricopa County zoning. The question before Glendale isn't simply whether officials like data centers.

Annexation determines which local government will ultimately exercise land-use authority over the property.

Glendale's April agreement was specifically designed to facilitate annexation and establish development terms. City records say the property was already zoned IND-3 Heavy Industrial and that Glendale would recognize development standards connected to the county's military compatibility process.

That means annexation can be evaluated not only in terms of revenue but also in terms of control, development standards, permitting, inspections and long-term oversight.

Opposition Isn't Going Away

Residents opposed to Project Baccara have organized for more than a year, and their concerns should continue to be heard. They have raised questions about air emissions, noise, water, nearby neighborhoods and Luke Air Force Base.

Those questions deserve factual answers.

At the same time, decisions of this magnitude should be based on the entire record—not simply on whether a project is controversial.

I have spent considerable time researching this project, attending hearings, listening to experts and asking questions. After doing that work, I spoke in favor of the project at Tuesday's meeting.

Others reached a different conclusion and spoke against it.

That is exactly what the public process is supposed to look like.

What Happens Next?

The September 22 hearing did not annex the property and did not approve the project's zoning.

The Glendale Planning Commission considered zoning matter on September 24. I was unable to attend so I sent a letter of support. The project passed 4 - 2. The City Council will consider an annexation ordinance. Contemporary reports place that Council action in late October.

So Project Baccara is not at the end of the process.

It is entering its next phase.

As it moves forward, residents on both sides should continue asking questions. But those questions—and the answers—should be based on the actual project, the regulatory record and verifiable facts.

A project of this size deserves scrutiny.

It also deserves an informed discussion.

I strongly support this project as it will bring much needed to the growing west valley and we need data centers to support industry and technology for the future.

PLEASE JOIN US FOR HAPPY HOUR

AND BRING A FRIEND!