AUGUST 17, 2026

CONTRIBUTIONS HELP PAY FOR THE WEBSITE, CONSTANT

CONTACT, AND DUES TO ATTEND CLUBS TO HEAR

SPEAKERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!

Ralph Heap Now Faces Three Campaign Finance Complaints — And the Questions Keep Growing

The campaign finance questions surrounding Republican Arizona Corporation Commission nominee Ralph Heap took another turn on August 14.

The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted to release Heap's public campaign funds. But releasing the money did not clear Heap of the allegations against his campaign.

At the same meeting, the Commission voted to continue investigating a potentially serious violation involving Clean Elections Rule R2-20-106(A) and restrictions on participating candidates incurring debt and expenditures.

Heap now faces three campaign finance complaints, including questions involving hundreds of campaign signs and a separate complaint involving the collection of thousands of petition signatures.

The Signs Remain the Big Question

I filed my original complaint on June 25 after seeing hundreds of Heap signs throughout Arizona while his campaign reports appeared to show nowhere near enough expenditures to account for them.

We now have an explanation — but it raises even more questions.

Heap's attorney, Timothy La Sota, acknowledged that the campaign obtained signs through what he called a "lawful extension of credit" from Mesa Sign Shop.

Shop owner Jim Torgeson submitted an affidavit stating that he extended credit to Heap in late April. According to the affidavit, there was no signed contract, and an invoice had been prepared but had not yet been sent to Heap.

That brings us directly to the issue Clean Elections is now investigating:

Can a participating Clean Elections candidate obtain thousands of dollars in campaign materials on credit when the campaign does not have enough cash on hand to pay for them?

Clean Elections candidates voluntarily accept additional restrictions in exchange for taxpayer-funded campaign financing. Rule R2-20-106(A) is now an important part of determining whether Heap complied with those restrictions.

We've Seen a Similar Issue Before

The situation reminds me of the Eric Sloan/Power of Fives Clean Elections case.

In 2020, Bob Branch filed a complaint alleging Corporation Commission candidate Eric Sloan failed to report expenditures and exceeded his spending cap. The case involved campaign services and expenses allegedly advanced before payment was made.

The Commission ultimately ordered Sloan to repay approximately $90,000 to the Clean Elections Fund.

The cases are not necessarily identical, but there is an important similarity: campaign goods or services allegedly provided before they were paid for.

Clean Elections should apply its rules consistently.

Follow the Paper Trail

The investigation should answer some straightforward questions.

When were Heap's signs ordered and printed? How many were produced? What was their total cost? When did Heap become obligated to pay for them? Did his campaign have enough cash on hand at that time? And when was that obligation reported?

Heap's campaign finance information showed only $644.47 paid to Mesa Sign Shop, despite hundreds of signs appearing around the state.

Meanwhile, many of those signs began disappearing after questions were raised about them.

Removing signs doesn't erase the financial transaction. There should be invoices, production records, communications and other documentation showing exactly what happened.

Follow the paper trail.

A Third Complaint Raises More Questions

Heap also faces a complaint involving the petition signatures that qualified him for the ballot.

Heap submitted more than 15,000 signatures, while his campaign reported paying $6,880 to Uncle Sam Petitions.

The Arizona Public Integrity Alliance alleges the actual value of the petition-gathering effort was substantially higher and questions whether its full cost was properly disclosed.

Heap and his attorney dispute the allegations, and a complaint by itself is not proof of wrongdoing.

But we are no longer talking about one unexplained expense. We are talking about three complaints involving questions about campaign goods, services and financial reporting.

The Money Was Released. The Case Wasn't Closed.

The August 14 vote allowed Heap to receive his Clean Elections funding, but the Commission's decision to continue investigating is just as important.

Heap will still be locked into the rules. His clean elections funding cannot be used for attorney's fees or fines. So if the investigation confirms my assumption and the views of others, the fines could be very steep.

Clean Elections candidates receive taxpayer money in exchange for following stricter campaign finance rules. Those rules have to apply equally to every candidate.

The Commission released Heap's money on August 14. It did not close the case.

Now the investigation needs to determine exactly what happened — and whether the rules were broken.

Registered Does Not Mean They Voted

We often hear alarming headlines claiming that thousands—or even hundreds of thousands—of noncitizens have been found on voter rolls across the country. Those numbers deserve attention. Only eligible U.S. citizens should be voting in our elections, and voter rolls should be accurate.

But there is an important distinction that is too often lost in the headlines: being found on a voter registration list is not the same thing as actually casting a ballot.

One place we should examine closely is the connection between voter registration and motor vehicle agencies—the system commonly referred to as “Motor Voter.” The National Voter Registration Act requires states to offer voter-registration opportunities when people apply for or renew driver's licenses.

I believe this process can contribute to registration problems. Anyone who has completed government paperwork online knows how easy it can be to click through multiple screens, certifications, and disclosures without realizing everything that is being submitted or updated. Voter registration should never be confusing or buried among unrelated transactions. It should be a deliberate act with clear language explaining the eligibility requirements.

Arizona's system is somewhat more complicated than the rhetoric sometimes suggests. Arizona requires U.S. citizenship to register, and documentary proof of citizenship is required for a full ballot. Under federal law, however, an applicant who attests to citizenship but whose documentary proof has not been established can, under certain circumstances, be registered as a “federal-only” voter.

Arizona also provides online voter registration through AZMVDNow for people with an Arizona driver's license or state identification card. The Secretary of State describes the process as requiring the applicant to begin or update voter registration, verify voter eligibility, enter the required information, verify an address and select a party preference.

That makes it especially important that we determine how any ineligible person ended up on the rolls rather than immediately assuming that person intentionally registered illegally or voted illegally.

Some may be lawful residents who are working their way through the naturalization process. They may understand perfectly well that they cannot vote until they become U.S. citizens. Finding such a person's name in a registration database is therefore a very different issue from proving that person knowingly cast an illegal ballot.

This distinction matters when looking at the numbers.

When states announce that they have identified potentially ineligible registrations, the largest number naturally gets the headline. Far less attention may be given to the much smaller number of those individuals alleged to have actually voted.

Those are two very different statistics.

We should demand accuracy from our election officials, but we should demand the same accuracy from politicians and the media.

Here in Maricopa County, Recorder Justin Heap has referred 207 alleged noncitizen voter cases for further review. Those referrals should be thoroughly investigated. A referral or database match, however, is not itself a criminal conviction or final determination that an illegal ballot was knowingly cast.

I look forward to seeing what the investigation ultimately establishes. If someone knowingly registered or voted when legally prohibited from doing so, the law should be enforced. At the same time, if people were incorrectly registered through administrative mistakes, outdated records, database errors, or confusing registration procedures, those problems need to be corrected as well.

Election integrity requires both.

We should maintain clean voter rolls, make voter-registration procedures unmistakably clear, investigate credible evidence of illegal voting, and prosecute violations when the evidence supports it.

But we should also tell voters the whole story.

The number of questionable registrations and the number of illegal votes actually cast are not interchangeable numbers.

That distinction may not produce the biggest headline, but it produces something far more important: an accurate understanding of what is actually happening in our elections.

As you can see below, even states that have completed extensive reviews of their voter rolls often use the word “possibly” when identifying noncitizens who may have actually voted. Based on the information presented from these 20 states, a total of 357 noncitizens were identified as having voted or possibly voted. That is a dramatically smaller number than the hundreds of thousands of noncitizens we frequently hear referenced in media reports. The distinction matters: the number of potentially ineligible people found on voter rolls is not the same as the number who actually cast a ballot.

One noncitizen vote is one too many but the problem is not what we are being led to believe either. Facts matter. Ragebait is not reporting is is propaganda.

ACCURATE NUMBERS FROM THE STATES THAT HAVE REVIEWED THEIR VOTER ROLLS

Alabama. Jan. 2026. 3.7 million registered voters. 186 possible noncitizen registrants. 25 possible noncitizen voters.

Arkansas. Oct. 2026. 1.8 million registered voters. 240 possible noncitizen registrants. "30 to 40" possible noncitizen voters.

Arizona. Aug. 2026. 4.3 million registered voters. Audit of Yavapai County (195,037 registered voters). 30 confirmed noncitizens. Four had voted in previous elections.

Florida. Jan. 2026. 13.4 million registered voters. 198 "likely noncitizens" registered. 170 referred to law enforcement.

Georgia. Oct. 2024. 8.2 million registered voters. 20 possible noncitizens registrants. 9 possible noncitizen voters. 156 for further investigation.

Idaho. Oct. 2024. 1 million registered voters. 36 "very likely" noncitizen registrants. "A number of them do have some form of voting history."

Indiana. Dec. 2025. 4.8 million registered voters. 165 possible noncitizen registrants. "At least" 21 noncitizen voters.

Iowa. Mar. 2025. 2.1 million registered voters. 277 possible noncitizen registrants. 35 possible noncitizen voters in November 2024 election.

Louisiana. Mar. 2026. 2.9 million registered voters. 403 noncitizens possibly registered. 83 possibly having voted in at least one election since the 1980s.

Montana. Mar. 2026. 800,000 registered voters. 23 possible noncitizens registered. Cast "nearly 150 ballots" in past Montana elections.

Michigan. Apr. 2025. 7.2 million registered voters. 15 possible noncitizens who registered and voted in November 2024 general election.

Michigan. Jan. 2026. 7.2 million registered voters. Investigation of Macomb County (725,000 registered voters). Four possible noncitizens registered. At least 1 previously voted.

New Jersey. July 2026. 6.68 million registered voters. Investigation into a software error revealed that 6,600 noncitizens had been mistakenly registered despite those noncitizens identifying themselves as such. "Fewer than 400" of these registered noncitizens voted in an election.

Ohio. Sept. 2025. 7.9 million registered voters. 78 possible noncitizen registrants. 9 possible noncitizen voters.

Oregon. May 2026. 3 million registered voters. Investigation into 2 possible noncitizen voters.

Pennsylvania. Apr. 2026. 8.97 million registered voters. Review of 210,905 unique voter registration forms. 1 noncitizen improperly registered, but had not voted.

Tennessee. Fall 2025. 4.3 million registered voters. Referred 42 potential noncitizen voters to the FBI.

Texas. June 2025. 18 million registered voters. Referred “33 potential noncitizens who voted in the November 2024 General Election.”

Texas. Oct. 2025. 18 million registered voters. 2,724 possible noncitizens registered. Further investigation prompted.

Utah. May 2026. 2.1 million registered voters. 27 possible noncitizens registered. 25 warranting further investigation.

Wyoming. 271,000 registered voters. Identification of 3 potential noncitizens registered.

Maricopa County Takes Voter Education Into the Community

With the 2026 Primary Election behind us and the November General Election approaching, Maricopa County Elections is continuing an outreach program designed to take election information directly into the community.

The county’s Voter Outreach program provides presentations, community events, hands-on demonstrations of election equipment, educational materials and tours of the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center. The stated goal is straightforward: make sure voters understand how and when they can participate in an election.

One part of the program that community organizations may find especially useful is the opportunity to request that Maricopa County Elections attend an event. Rather than expecting voters to seek out election officials, the outreach program allows election information to be brought into community settings where people are already gathering.

This could be a useful resource for civic organizations, senior groups, schools and other community organizations that want their members to better understand the voting process.

The county also offers tours of the Tabulation Center. For people who have questions about how elections actually work behind the scenes, seeing the process firsthand can be far more informative than reading about it on social media.

Several Outreach Events Already Scheduled

Maricopa County Elections currently lists several upcoming outreach appearances, including a National Disability Voting Rights presentation at Ability360 on September 9, the 2026 GAIN Kickoff on October 3, the Phoenix Fall Senior Expo on October 27 and VRATE on November 20. The county notes that these are events organized by outside organizations and that its participation is educational and does not constitute an endorsement.

The outreach effort also includes a Student Election Program for high school students and educators. Students can participate in interactive projects to learn how elections are administered, and students who are at least 16 years old may have the opportunity to serve as Student Election Clerks. The program combines election education with leadership development and job skills.

Education Is Particularly Important This Year

The timing of voter education is important. Arizona's General Election is November 3, 2026, with voter registration closing October 5 and early voting beginning October 7. The county says the last recommended day to mail a completed ballot back is October 27.

Maricopa County is also enormous. The Elections Department serves more than 2.6 million registered voters, making voter education and communication a significant undertaking.

The recently completed Primary demonstrates the scale of that job. Final Maricopa County results represented 677,387 voters and a 26.7% turnout. The county operated 236 Vote Centers with more than 2,900 poll workers.

Regardless of your political party or how you choose to vote, understanding the process matters. Voters should know the deadlines, understand their options, know what identification is required and know where to find reliable information when they have questions.

And perhaps one of the best ways to gain confidence in our election system is to learn more about it firsthand.

If your club, organization or community group is interested in an election presentation, or if you would like to learn about touring the Tabulation Center, take a look at Maricopa County's Voter Outreach page.

Do you want the red team to win or the blue team to win? Does it matter which shade of red?

Republicans, by our very nature, think independently. We may not agree on every issue or every candidate, but we share fundamental principles and values.

In November, I’ll be voting Republican in every race on my ballot. How about you?

Data Center and Large Load Customer Presentation to Pinal County

On August 12, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from a data center expert who explained how data centers work, why they are needed, and—perhaps most importantly—how much the industry has changed.

That presentation was followed by a presentation from Salt River Project (SRP) explaining how large-load customers such as data centers connect to the electric grid.

I believe Pinal County is leading by example. Other counties and cities across Arizona—and frankly across the country—should consider doing the same thing: bring in the experts, ask questions, separate fact from fiction, and make decisions based on current technology rather than outdated information.

There is an enormous amount of misinformation circulating about data centers, particularly regarding water consumption and their impact on the power grid.

The Technology Has Changed

One of the most important points made during the presentation was simple: the data center being built today is not the same data center that was being built five or ten years ago.

Older data centers could consume tremendous amounts of water for cooling. That history has understandably created concerns in a state like Arizona, where every discussion about major development eventually comes back to water.

But the industry has responded.

Many newer facilities are being designed with closed-loop cooling systems that dramatically reduce ongoing water consumption. Once that concern is addressed, however, another question often immediately appears: What happens when the water in that closed-loop system eventually needs to be discharged?

That is a legitimate question, but it is also something our existing regulatory structure is designed to address.

Think about the radiator in your car. When the coolant is flushed, you cannot simply dump the old fluid wherever you want. It has to be handled and disposed of properly. Industrial facilities face regulations governing water discharge and waste as well.

Data centers do not receive a free pass.

States, counties, cities and regulatory agencies already impose requirements involving water, wastewater discharge, noise, lighting, air quality and numerous other environmental and operational issues. Companies that fail to comply can face financial penalties and potentially more serious consequences.

Approving a project does not mean those regulations suddenly disappear.

Where Should We Put Them?

The discussion also highlighted another challenge facing the industry: NIMBYism—"Not In My Backyard."

Early in the meeting, one supervisor commented that data centers should be built in the middle of nowhere. Later, the same supervisor expressed concern about locating one near farmland because it would stand out and did not belong there.

I am not pointing this out to criticize that supervisor. In fact, I think it perfectly illustrates the dilemma.

If a data center should not be near homes, should not be near farmland, and should not be visible in rural areas, where exactly should it go?

This is why zoning matters.

I believe there is a proper place for everything. If property is zoned residential, changing it to accommodate a massive industrial project generally would not make sense. But when land is appropriately zoned industrial, a data center that meets the community's other requirements should be considered like other industrial uses.

Most people probably drive past data centers without even realizing it. From the outside, many resemble large warehouses or other industrial buildings.

What About the Power Grid?

Another major misconception is that data centers simply arrive, plug into the electric grid and leave residential customers paying for the infrastructure necessary to serve them.

The SRP presentation helped explain why that is not how the process works.

Connecting a major large-load customer can take years of planning. New substations may be required. Transmission infrastructure may need to be constructed. Grid upgrades may be necessary. These projects involve extensive engineering, planning and significant investment.

Connecting a data center is nothing like moving across town, calling your utility company three days before the move, and asking them to turn on the electricity.

Large-load customers go through an extensive process before receiving service, and the infrastructure required to serve them can represent millions of dollars in investment.

That is an important distinction when discussing another claim circulating online—that data centers are responsible for increasing everyone's utility bills.

We should absolutely scrutinize utility rates and make certain ordinary ratepayers are protected. But we should also understand how large-load customers actually connect to the system before assuming residential customers are automatically footing the bill.

When a data center brings its own power generation, that can create additional opportunities. The electricity being generated is not fundamentally different simply because it is associated with a data center. Natural gas turbines, for example, are already part of the generation mix used by utilities to provide electricity to homes and businesses.

You Already Use Data Centers Every Day

Lost in much of this debate is a basic fact: we all use data centers.

Every time you open an internet browser, access online banking, store photographs in the cloud, stream entertainment, use an app, make an online purchase, visit a patient portal or interact with countless other digital services, somewhere behind that activity is data infrastructure.

Your bank uses data centers. Your doctor's office uses data centers. Businesses use them. Schools use them. Governments use them.

Artificial intelligence is certainly increasing demand for computing capacity, but AI is not the only reason more data centers are needed. Our entire economy and daily lives have become increasingly digital.

Data centers have existed for decades. The difference today is that they are larger, more visible and receiving far more public attention.

That increased scrutiny is not necessarily a bad thing. Communities should ask questions. Supervisors and councilmembers should demand answers about water, electricity, noise, infrastructure, zoning and costs.

But those questions need to be answered using today's facts and today's technology, not assumptions based on what a data center looked like years ago.

That is why I applaud Pinal County for holding this discussion publicly. The supervisors asked questions, challenged the presenters and had an opportunity to learn directly from people who understand the industry and the electric grid.

Arizona is going to continue facing proposals involving data centers and other large technology projects. We can simply say "no" because we are afraid of what we have heard, or we can educate ourselves, establish appropriate regulations, put projects in properly zoned locations, protect residents and taxpayers, and evaluate each proposal on its individual merits.

Pinal County chose education before judgment.

In the slides below the customer is the large load user.

BNSF Profits Rise While Railroad Crews Shrink

BNSF Railway is making billions of dollars, moving more freight and reporting stronger financial results. Yet while the railroad celebrates its success, employees are increasingly being asked to do more with less.

BNSF earned approximately $5.48 billion in 2025, up from $5.03 billion in 2024. That is an increase of nearly 9 percent in a single year. Now, strong results from BNSF are again helping bolster parent company Berkshire Hathaway’s earnings.

There is nothing wrong with a company making money. Successful businesses create jobs, invest in infrastructure and strengthen our economy. But there should be serious questions when increasing profits are accompanied by continually reducing the number of people doing the work.

Railroading was once an extremely labor-intensive industry. BNSF recently profiled a 50-year employee who remembered when a train crew included five people: an engineer, conductor, two brakemen and a fireman. Today, BNSF says there are generally just two people in the locomotive cab — an engineer and conductor.

The latest concern among railroad workers is the continued elimination of brakeman and helper positions, reducing some three-person assignments to two. Every position eliminated saves the railroad money, but it also transfers that employee's responsibilities to the people who remain.

Technology has unquestionably changed railroading. End-of-train devices eliminated the need for cabooses, Positive Train Control added another layer of safety technology, and sophisticated monitoring systems can identify problems that railroaders once had to find manually.

But technology does not climb down from a locomotive in the Arizona heat to inspect a train. It does not walk alongside thousands of feet of railcars looking for a problem. And when something goes wrong in a remote location, technology cannot always replace another experienced set of eyes and hands.

BNSF argues that its safety record demonstrates these efficiencies can coexist with safe operations. The company reported that 2025 was the safest year in its 177-year history, with employee injury frequency declining 10 percent and rail-equipment incidents falling 13 percent. That deserves recognition.

But safety statistics should not end the conversation.

Railroad employees understand something spreadsheets sometimes miss: when crews become smaller, trains become longer and workloads increase, there is less margin when something unexpected happens.

This issue becomes even more important as BNSF proposes massive new infrastructure projects such as its planned development near Wittmann. Communities are being asked to accept more trains, more trucks, more industrial development and potentially more impacts on their neighborhoods.

If BNSF has billions available for expansion, it should also have the resources to adequately staff the trains running through those communities. Efficiency is important. Profitability is important. Technology is important. But so are the men and women operating the trains — and the communities those trains travel through.

At some point, continually doing more with fewer people stops being efficiency and starts becoming a question of whether a company is cutting too close to the bone For a railroad earning billions of dollars a year, protecting adequate staffing should not be considered an unnecessary expense. It should be considered part of the cost of operating safely.

If the company's business model increasingly depends upon moving more freight with fewer employees, what will that mean in Wittmann? How many permanent railroad jobs will actually be created? How many employees will be assigned to trains moving through the community? What happens when a train has a mechanical problem, derailment or other emergency? And will promises about economic development eventually collide with another round of corporate "efficiencies"?

BNSF is profitable enough to invest billions in expansion. Its 2026 capital plan alone totals $3.6 billion, including hundreds of millions for expansion and efficiency projects.

We must continue to stand against BNSF in Wittmann. Wittmann residents should not be expected to accept the traffic, noise, industrialization and other impacts of a massive freight hub based simply on promises of economic growth. Before BNSF asks this community to shoulder the costs of its expansion, it should demonstrate that it is equally willing to invest in the people, staffing and safety measures necessary to operate it responsibly.

Arizona should welcome responsible economic development. But responsible development means more than bigger facilities, longer trains and higher profits. It also means adequate staffing, safe operations and respect for the communities that will live with the consequences long after construction is complete.

Thought Petition Season Was Over? Think Again.

Just when you thought signing candidate petitions was behind us, it is time to pull out the pen again.

Several of our Maricopa County Republican incumbents are already looking ahead to the 2028 election cycle, and they need our help collecting the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.

Among those currently asking voters to sign their petitions are Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, Superintendent of Schools Shelli Boggs, and County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. There may be other county officials beginning the process as well.

It may seem incredibly early. We just finished one election cycle, and most voters are probably more than ready for a break from petitions, campaign signs and election season. But collecting thousands of valid signatures takes time, and experienced candidates know there is no reason to wait until the last minute.

Signing a petition does not cost anything, and it only takes a minute. More importantly, signing a nomination petition does not mean you are committing to vote for that candidate in 2028. Your signature simply helps give that candidate the opportunity to qualify for the ballot and make their case to voters.

For incumbents such as Sheridan, Boggs and Mitchell, starting early also provides some breathing room. Campaigns typically collect substantially more signatures than the minimum required because some signatures inevitably are found invalid or may be challenged.

So, when you see volunteers carrying petitions at Republican meetings, community events or other gatherings, don't automatically walk past because you think petition season is over.

Stop and sign.

Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, Superintendent Shelli Boggs and County Attorney Rachel Mitchell will need thousands of valid signatures to reach their goals for 2028. Taking a few moments today can help ensure Republican voters have strong candidates on the ballot when the next county election arrives.

And if you see petitions for other Republican county incumbents, take a moment to look at those as well.

2028 may sound like a long way away, but successful campaigns start long before Election Day.