APRIL 20, 2026

What Debbie Lesko’s Letter Means for the Fight Against the BNSF Project

In the ongoing battle over the proposed BNSF rail facility in Wittmann, Supervisor Debbie Lesko took a significant step that goes beyond a simple “no” vote. Her recent letter to the Surface Transportation Board may prove to be one of the most important moves in protecting local control—and giving residents a stronger voice.

When the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected BNSF’s request to change land use for the project, many believed the issue was settled. But BNSF has continued to argue that federal law allows them to bypass local zoning entirely. More than likely BNSF will be back before the BOS this November or December. That’s where Lesko’s letter comes in.

Rather than accepting that claim, Lesko formally asked federal regulators to clarify whether BNSF truly has the authority to override local decisions. In simple terms, she is saying: “You don’t just get to ignore the people and the county—show us the law.”

This matters more than it might seem at first glance.

First, the letter elevates the issue from a local zoning dispute to a federal question. By bringing in the Surface Transportation Board, Lesko has ensured that this is no longer just a Wittmann or Maricopa County issue—it is now under federal scrutiny. That alone increases transparency and accountability.

Second, the letter effectively slows the process. When a federal agency is asked to weigh in, companies like BNSF often proceed more cautiously. While it may not stop the project outright, it creates a pause and forces a more deliberate review of the legal claims being made.

Third, it strengthens the county’s position. The Board of Supervisors already spoke clearly with a unanimous vote against the project. Lesko’s action reinforces that decision by challenging the idea that it can simply be ignored. It signals that county leadership is willing to defend its authority—not just symbolically, but legally and procedurally.

Finally, the letter empowers residents. By questioning federal preemption, Lesko is helping ensure that the voices of Wittmann residents remain part of the conversation. If the federal government ultimately limits BNSF’s ability to bypass local rules, it could significantly impact the project’s future.

The reality is this: the fight over the BNSF facility is far from over. Federal law governing railroads is complex, and in some cases, it does allow companies to override local zoning. But that authority is not unlimited—and Lesko’s letter is a direct challenge to how far it can go.

In the end, her action didn’t end the debate—but it changed it. It brought the issue to a higher level, created accountability, and gave the community more time and a stronger footing to be heard.

For Wittmann residents and others watching closely, that may prove to be one of the most important developments yet.

I personally would like to thank Supervisor Debbie Lesko for helping save rural Arizona. Without her efforts BNSF would end our western culture, increase traffic, pollute our water, and change the west valley forever.

David Marshall’s Appointment Raises Legal, Political, and Election Questions in Arizona — Now Complicated by Legislative Resignation

The appointment of David Marshall as Navajo County Recorder has quickly evolved from a routine replacement into a legal and political flashpoint—one now further complicated by his resignation from the Arizona Legislature.

Marshall, a Republican state representative, was selected by the Navajo County Board of Supervisors to replace former Recorder Timothy Jordan, who stepped down following a 2024 road rage incident that resulted in criminal charges. Board Chairman Daryl Seymore indicated the goal was to restore public confidence in the office. Instead, the decision has sparked a broader debate over constitutional limits, election oversight, and political strategy.

A Constitutional Question—Not Fully Settled

At the center of the controversy is the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from holding another public office during the term for which they were elected. That language has raised a critical legal question: does resigning from the Legislature solve the problem—or does the prohibition extend for the full term, regardless of resignation?

Marshall has now resigned his legislative seat, a move some legal experts argue clears the way for him to serve as Recorder. Others disagree, maintaining that the constitutional restriction applies to the entire elected term, meaning he could still be barred from holding the position until that term expires.

There is no definitive court ruling or attorney general opinion that fully resolves this question, leaving the issue unsettled and likely vulnerable to legal challenge.

Political Implications Across Arizona

Marshall’s resignation has immediate consequences at the state level. His departure temporarily narrows the Republican majority in the Arizona House, potentially complicating negotiations with Katie Hobbs and impacting the trajectory of key legislation.

Beyond the Legislature, the move also intersects with Marshall’s campaign for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Running alongside Ralph Heap against incumbents Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers, Marshall now faces additional uncertainty. Accepting the recorder role—and the legal scrutiny that comes with it—could complicate or even derail his statewide ambitions.

Election Oversight and Public Confidence

If Marshall ultimately assumes the role, he would oversee elections in Navajo County during a critical cycle. That reality has drawn attention given his affiliation with the Freedom Caucus and the broader political climate surrounding election administration.

His appointment also mirrors the trajectory of Justin Heap, another Freedom Caucus-aligned official now overseeing elections in Arizona’s most populous county. Supporters argue these appointments restore confidence among voters concerned about election integrity. Critics, however, warn about increasing partisanship in positions traditionally expected to remain neutral.

What Comes Next

Marshall’s resignation from the Legislature answers one question—but not the central legal issue. Whether that step is sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements remains unclear and may ultimately need to be decided in court.

What is certain is that this situation has implications far beyond Navajo County. It touches on constitutional interpretation, the balance of political power, and the public’s trust in election administration.

What began as a local appointment has now become a statewide test—one that could shape Arizona politics well into the next election cycle.

Justin Heap, Federal Investigations, and a Key Legal Question: What Can Be Shared?

Newly released emails are putting Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap at the center of a growing legal and political debate: when it comes to election records and voter data, what is cooperation—and what crosses the line?

The documents, obtained by American Oversight and reported by multiple outlets, show coordination between local election officials and federal authorities as investigations into the 2020 and 2022 elections intensified. They also raise a critical question for Arizona voters: is sharing this kind of information with federal investigators actually legal?

Cooperation vs. Compliance

On its face, cooperation with federal law enforcement is not unusual. Local officials routinely respond to subpoenas, court orders, and formal requests. In fact, when federal agencies like the Department of Justice are conducting an investigation, failing to comply with lawful orders can create its own legal problems.

Heap himself emphasized that cooperation in a 2025 letter, stating his office was committed to working with federal investigators to ensure election integrity.

But cooperation has limits—and that’s where the controversy begins.

Arizona Law on Voter Data

Arizona law strictly protects certain voter information. While basic voter registration data can be public, sensitive details—such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license information, and in some cases full voter rolls—are tightly restricted.

According to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, turning over full voter lists or protected data without proper legal authority would be illegal.

“He is not allowed to turn over voter lists… that is illegal,” Mayes said, warning against any unauthorized sharing with federal agencies.

This is a key distinction:

• Legal: Responding to a valid subpoena, court order, or legally authorized request
• Potentially illegal: Voluntarily sharing protected voter data without proper legal process

The Emails and What They Show

The emails indicate that Justin Heap was in communication with federal prosecutors, including U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine, discussing election records and ongoing litigation over who controls those records.

They also show internal coordination among state officials preparing for possible federal access to election facilities—guidance that included not recording federal agents’ actions.

Critics argue that this lack of documentation could undermine transparency. Supporters may counter that compliance with federal law enforcement often requires minimizing interference.

Where the Legal Risk Lies

The legal exposure for any public official in this situation comes down to a few key factors:

1. Was there a subpoena or court order?
2. If yes, compliance is generally required.
3. What specific data was shared—or intended to be shared?
4. Not all election data is treated equally under the law.
5. Did the official have authority over the records?
6. In this case, there is an ongoing dispute between the Recorder’s Office and county officials over control of election records.
7. Were public records laws followed?
8. Reports that certain communications were not disclosed in response to records requests could create additional legal questions.

A Broader Battle Over Elections

This issue is unfolding alongside a larger political conflict involving Warren Petersen, Adrian Fontes, and Kris Mayes, each taking different positions on federal involvement in Arizona’s elections.

At the same time, federal officials—including DOJ Civil Rights Division leader Harmeet Dhillon—have pushed aggressively for access to election records while warning against their destruction.

The Bottom Line

Is sharing this information legal?

It depends entirely on how it’s done.

If election officials are complying with lawful federal orders, they are on solid legal ground. But if protected voter data is shared outside those legal channels, it could violate Arizona law and trigger serious consequences.

For now, the full scope of what was shared—and under what authority—remains unclear. But one thing is certain: this issue goes beyond one office or one official. It strikes at the heart of voter privacy, election integrity, and public trust in Arizona’s election system.

Arizona Corporation Commission Takes on Power Demand Surge from Data Centers

Arizona’s energy future is at a crossroads—and the Arizona Corporation Commission is stepping directly into the conversation. As the state experiences explosive growth in population, industry, and especially data centers, regulators and utility providers are working to ensure Arizona can meet rising power demands without shifting costs onto everyday ratepayers.

For years, Arizona’s need for expanded power generation and infrastructure has been steadily increasing. But the recent surge in large-load users—particularly data centers—has accelerated that demand to an entirely new level. These facilities, which power everything from banking and healthcare systems to GPS navigation and cloud storage, are now essential to daily life. The average American household has between 17 and 23 connected devices, all relying on data centers to function.

Recognizing both the opportunity and the challenge, the Commission recently opened a new docket to evaluate how large energy users should be classified and charged. The goal is simple: transparency and fairness. Data centers are currently paying their share under existing rate structures, but with demand growing rapidly, regulators are examining whether new rate classifications and policies are needed to ensure long-term sustainability.

At an April 16 workshop, stakeholders—including utilities like Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, and Tucson Electric Power—came together to address key questions. These included how large-load users should apply for high-megawatt service, how infrastructure costs should be allocated, and what long-term planning models are necessary to avoid shortages.

One consistent theme emerged: cost causers should be cost bearers. In other words, large-load users like data centers should continue paying for the infrastructure required to serve them—such as substations, transmission lines, and grid upgrades—rather than passing those costs onto residential customers.

Utilities are already adapting. Many now require significant upfront fees, ongoing study costs, and even exit fees for large-load customers. These mechanisms help offset the risk utilities face when forecasting demand. While dozens of data centers may be proposed, history shows many never get built—leaving utilities to manage uncertainty while still planning for capacity.

At the same time, the economic benefits are hard to ignore. Data centers already account for approximately 81,000 jobs in Arizona, and they generate significantly more in tax revenue than they consume in public services—estimated at $26 returned for every $1 used. In places like Loudoun County, Virginia, data centers contribute nearly 38% of the local general fund.

Still, other states are taking a more restrictive approach. Eighteen states have implemented broad regulations on large-load users, while eleven have imposed bans or temporary moratoriums on new data center development. Arizona, by contrast, appears poised to lean into a market-driven strategy.

That approach is already producing innovation. Rather than waiting for mandates, many developers have adopted closed-loop cooling systems to address concerns about water usage. It’s an example of how industry can respond to public pressure without heavy-handed regulation.

The Commission’s challenge now is balancing growth with reliability. Arizona must ensure it can deliver consistent, uninterrupted power to residential customers while supporting large industrial users that are vital to a modern, connected economy.

The stakes are high. Infrastructure follows connectivity, and connectivity drives economic growth. If Arizona gets this right, it can remain a national leader in both energy reliability and technological advancement.

If it gets it wrong, the costs—both financial and economic—could ripple across every household in the state.

Court Sides with Recorder Justin Heap in Dispute with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors — Appeal Likely

A recent ruling from a Maricopa County Superior Court judge has reshaped the balance of power in Arizona’s election administration—at least for now. In a legal battle between Justin Heap and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the court firmly sided with the Recorder, reinforcing what many argue has always been clear in Arizona law: the County Recorder is a constitutional officer with defined statutory authority that cannot be reassigned at will.

At the center of the dispute was the interpretation of Arizona law regarding who controls key election functions—particularly the phrase “other officer in charge of elections.” The Board of Supervisors attempted to assert broader authority over election operations, including information technology infrastructure and personnel that support election processes. However, the court rejected that interpretation.

In its decision, the court emphasized that statutory authority for election responsibilities is first assigned to the County Recorder. While the Recorder may delegate certain duties to “another officer,” that authority originates with—and remains under—the Recorder. Critically, the court clarified that the Recorder also retains the right to withdraw that delegation at any time and reclaim those responsibilities.

This point proved decisive.

The judge ordered the Board of Supervisors to return all election-related IT assets—including staff, servers, databases, software, and equipment—back to the Recorder’s control. These were resources that had been shifted under Board supervision as part of a revised shared services agreement. The court further enjoined the Board from continuing to exercise election functions that are statutorily assigned to the Recorder.

The Board had argued that its authority over county budgeting and operations allowed it to restructure how the Recorder’s office functioned, including oversight of IT systems. The court disagreed, ruling that the Board has a “non-discretionary duty” to fund the Recorder’s office and its necessary operations, not to control or reassign its statutory responsibilities.

To some, this ruling effectively restores the structure in Arizona’s other counties, where the Recorder maintains primary authority over voter registration, early voting, and ballot processing functions. For others - this ruling is concerning as the Recorder's office has proven to be very partisan. Also what happens if a Recorder now or in the future goes rogue?

The dispute traces back to the 2023 shared services agreement, which allowed the Recorder to manage early ballot processing. Upon taking office, Heap canceled the agreement, citing concerns about overreach and lack of clarity, and called for renegotiation. When those concerns were not addressed, litigation followed.

Following the ruling, Kate Brophy McGee issued a statement acknowledging the decision while signaling that the legal fight may not be over. She noted that the Board is reviewing the ruling and evaluating next steps, including a potential appeal.

Given the significance of the issues involved—constitutional authority, statutory interpretation, and the structure of election administration—an appeal appears likely. This case could ultimately set a broader precedent for how election responsibilities are divided not just in Maricopa County, but across Arizona.

For now, the court’s message is clear: statutory authority cannot be reassigned by administrative action or interpretation. It must follow the law as written. Although an appeal will probably be filed this week.

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, April 28th

 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