SEPTEMBER 7, 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.

One year ago, Charlie’s life ended far too soon. And while we remember what Charlie accomplished, I think it is important that we also remember how he lived.

Charlie said he wanted to be remembered for his faith. I believe he accomplished that.

We all knew how much Charlie loved God. His faith wasn't something he simply talked about. It guided the way he lived, the way he treated people, and the way he approached those who disagreed with him.

And that is one of the things I admired most about Charlie.

He listened. He actively listened.

Charlie didn't attack people simply because they disagreed with him. He didn't try to silence them. In fact, he did just the opposite. He brought them to the front of the line. He invited the difficult questions. He welcomed disagreement. And then he listened carefully enough that, many times, he could find one small point where they agreed.

Think about how powerful that is.

Charlie sought agreement first—and then discussion.

You could hear the compassion in his voice. Even in disagreement, Charlie remembered something we should never forget: the person standing across from us is also a child of God.

He didn't have to compromise his beliefs to show someone respect.

Charlie understood that America is a big country filled with people who have different backgrounds, different experiences, and different viewpoints. But he also understood that some things are so important, so precious, that we must be willing to stand up and defend them.

Faith.

Family.

Freedom.

Truth.

And our country.

When we lost Charlie, the world seemed to stand still for many of us. For me, that day became even more difficult. Just a couple of hours after Charlie passed, my mother unexpectedly passed away as well. I wasn't sure how life was supposed to go on after a day like that. But somehow, it does.

And over this past year, I have tried to live a life that both Charlie and my mom would be proud of.

Charlie understood that if we want to save this country, we have to reach our young people. We have to expose them to truth. We have to teach them to think, to ask questions, to listen, and to have the courage to stand for what they believe. Charlie believed young people could help save this great nation.

Now it is our responsibility to pick up that mantle and continue the work. For me, that means running for the Dysart School Board. That is one way I believe I can make a difference in the lives of today's students.

But each of us has to ask ourselves: How am I going to impact the next generation? How are you exposing young people to truth?

Maybe it is raising your children or grandchildren in faith.

Maybe it is volunteering at your church.

Maybe it is mentoring a young person who needs someone to believe in them.

Maybe it is becoming involved in your local school.

Maybe it is simply sitting down with a young person and listening to what they have to say.

We are leaders in our families and in our communities, and every one of us has an opportunity to carry Charlie's legacy forward. Last year, when my grief was overwhelming, I volunteered at the memorial at Dillon's Western Trails Ranch. I hadn't waited tables in probably 40 years, but I picked up a pen and a pad, took orders, delivered food, and served wherever I was needed. It wasn't anything important or impressive. It was simply something small I could do to get through my own grief while honoring Charlie and my mom by serving others.I will volunteer again this year as well.

Because Charlie served.

Charlie listened.

Charlie stood for truth.

Charlie loved God.

And Charlie believed in the future of America.

Imagine how different our country could be if each of us followed that example a little more closely.

If we listened before we attacked.

If we looked for common ground before we focused on our differences.

If we stood firmly for our beliefs while still treating those who disagree with us as children of God.

And if each of us made it our responsibility to reach just one young person with faith, truth, hope, and love.

Charlie did his part.

Now it is our turn.

May we honor Charlie not only by remembering him today, but by continuing his work tomorrow.

And may we leave behind a country—and a generation—that would make Charlie proud.

God bless Charlie's memory, God bless his family, and God bless the United States of America.

Maricopa County Voters Are Moving Away From Both Parties

The August voter registration numbers in Maricopa County caught my attention, and I believe they tell us something important about where voters are politically.

During August, the changes were:

• Independent: +5,789
• Democratic: -3,788
• Republican: -6,990

The totals provided for the end of the period were:

Independent: 963,415

Republican: 879,620

Democratic: 708,250

Maricopa County's official voter-registration system confirms the broader picture: voters outside the two major parties represent an enormous portion of the county's electorate. The county updates its live registration totals regularly.

What stands out to me isn't simply that Republicans lost registrations or that Democrats lost registrations. Both parties lost voters while Independents gained them.

Why?

I believe many voters are simply exhausted by the political extremes.

People are tired of being told they must agree with every position taken by a political party. They're tired of personal attacks, purity tests and the idea that anyone willing to work with someone from the other side must somehow be a traitor to their own beliefs.

Most people don't live their everyday lives on the political extremes.

They want safe neighborhoods, good schools, affordable groceries, responsible growth, secure elections, reasonable taxes and a government that actually functions. They may be conservative on one issue, moderate on another and disagree completely with both parties on something else.

That doesn't make them uninformed. It makes them independent thinkers.

Independents Cannot Be Ignored

These numbers should be a wake-up call, particularly as we head toward November.

Winning an election cannot simply be about motivating the most committed members of your own party. Candidates must also give Independent voters a reason to support them.

And that doesn't necessarily mean abandoning conservative principles. It means explaining how those principles translate into solutions for ordinary people instead of constantly talking to the political base.

There is another important caveat: registration movement alone doesn't prove why individual voters changed their affiliation. My belief that political exhaustion is contributing to the shift is an interpretation of the numbers, not something the registration data itself can establish.

But the trend deserves attention.

The middle is not empty. In Maricopa County, it is enormous.

The party that learns how to listen to those voters instead of lecturing them may ultimately be the party that wins in November.

Maricopa County Elections Needs You: Become a Poll Worker

The November General Election is quickly approaching, and Maricopa County needs people willing to step up and help make our elections happen.

The Maricopa County Elections Department is currently recruiting poll workers to assist voters during the upcoming General Election. This is a great opportunity to serve your community, learn more about how our elections actually work, and be part of the process firsthand.

Some voting locations are open only on Election Day, while others operate for multiple days during the early voting period. That means there may be opportunities available even if you cannot commit to working throughout the entire election period.

You don't have to be an elections expert. Maricopa County provides the training you need, and poll workers are paid for both their required training and the hours they work.

Poll workers perform an important public service. They help voters check in, answer questions, assist with the voting process, and help ensure voting locations operate efficiently and professionally.

We often hear people say they want secure, transparent, and well-run elections. One of the best ways to understand and support the process is to participate in it.

It takes all of us to hold elections.

Regardless of your political affiliation, elections depend on members of our community who are willing to give their time and do the work.

Instead of simply watching the election process from the outside, consider being part of it.

Arizona Voters Are Wary of Data Centers—but Are They Getting the Whole Story?

A new Arizona poll should get the attention of anyone involved in technology, energy, economic development or local government.

According to the latest Arizona Public Opinion Pulse from Noble Predictive Insights, a majority of registered Arizona voters oppose additional large data-center development. Only 30% support additional development, while 13% remain unsure. More strikingly, 35% strongly oppose additional data centers, compared with just 9% who strongly support them.

When voters were asked to weigh economic development against concerns about water, electricity and infrastructure, 61% favored limiting additional development, compared with only 18% who favored encouraging it for investment and tax revenue. That preference crossed party lines: 54% of Republicans, 71% of Democrats and 61% of Independents chose limits.

Those numbers matter. But they also raise another important question:

What information are voters using to form their opinions?

There is no question that data centers create legitimate policy challenges. They can consume enormous amounts of electricity, and some cooling technologies use significant amounts of water. Communities should ask hard questions before approving them.

But there is also an extraordinary amount of misinformation circulating about data centers—and we now have evidence that at least some of that information has been deliberately amplified by foreign-operated social-media accounts.

A Chinese Bot Farm Entered the Data-Center Debate

On August 28, reports emerged that X had identified what it described as a Chinese-operated bot farm consisting of approximately 200,000 accounts. According to X, about 200 accounts were posting material that could manipulate the American debate surrounding AI data centers and energy policy, including amplifying concerns about electricity prices and grid strain.

That deserves attention, particularly because America and China are competing for leadership in artificial intelligence.

But this discovery should not be interpreted to mean that Americans who oppose data centers are bots or that legitimate concerns aren't real. Independent researchers examining some of the identified accounts found very little engagement, and reporting indicates that genuine grassroots opposition to data centers exists across the country.

Both things can be true: Americans can have legitimate concerns about data centers, while foreign influence operations simultaneously attempt to exploit those concerns.

That is exactly why separating facts from fear is so important.

Let's Talk About the Facts

First, data centers use a lot of electricity.

There is no reason to pretend otherwise. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed approximately 4.4% of America's electricity in 2023 and projected that they could consume between 6.7% and 12% by 2028. A newer Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory update estimates data centers could represent roughly 9.5% to 15.3% of U.S. electricity consumption by 2030.

That means Arizona absolutely must plan for generation, transmission and distribution before approving enormous new loads. But many data centers bring their own power generation and the excess is additional power generation that the ratepayers did not fund.

But another widespread claim—that ordinary Arizona families will simply be handed the bill for all that infrastructure—leaves out an important part of the story.

The Arizona Corporation Commission held a large-load workshop this year specifically addressing this issue. Participants discussed the principle that large users that cause additional system costs should pay those costs rather than shifting them onto other customers. Protections can include minimum bills, longer contracts, collateral requirements and direct assignment of generation and transmission costs.

SRP similarly says new large-load customers must pay upfront for infrastructure upgrades identified through its Large Customer Integration Process. Its pricing structure also imposes minimum billing requirements on qualifying large customers.

APS says it is pursuing the same basic principle. Its proposed structure would require extra-large customers to cover the infrastructure necessary to serve them rather than shifting those costs to residential customers. The APS rate case addressing these issues remains before the Arizona

Corporation Commission, so some proposed protections have not yet received a final decision.

What About Water?

This is probably the issue where the phrase "data center" is least useful by itself.

Data centers are not all built the same way.

Past cooling systems can consume substantial quantities of water through evaporation. DOE guidance specifically acknowledges that cooling towers can have significant water requirements.

But newer facilities can use very different technologies. The Department of Energy notes that modern facilities using closed-loop cooling can dramatically reduce water consumption because water is recirculated through the cooling system rather than continuously consumed through evaporation.

That distinction matters tremendously in Arizona.

Instead of asking simply, "How much water do data centers use?" we should be asking:

What cooling technology will this particular facility use? Where will its water come from? How much will it consume annually? Will it use potable or reclaimed water? What happens during extreme heat? And who pays for the infrastructure?

Those questions produce far more useful answers than blanket claims that every data center either consumes enormous quantities of water or uses virtually none.

President Trump Has Made Data Centers a National Priority

There is also a national-security component to this debate.

President Donald Trump has explicitly supported expanding American AI and data-center infrastructure. In July 2025, he signed an executive order making rapid data-center infrastructure development a priority and directing federal agencies to streamline permitting for qualifying projects. His administration described AI infrastructure as important to America's economic prosperity, scientific leadership and national security.

The administration also announced more than $90 billion in AI and energy investments in Pennsylvania, including billions for data centers and supporting energy infrastructure.

The policy argument is straightforward: artificial intelligence requires computing power, computing power requires data centers, and whichever nations control the technology and infrastructure underlying AI will have an enormous economic and strategic advantage.

China certainly understands that.

Americans should too.

Arizona Needs Facts, Not Fear

The Noble poll tells us something important: Arizona voters are concerned.

We shouldn't dismiss those concerns.

If residents are worried about water, show them the project's actual water requirements.

If they're worried about electricity, show them where the additional generation will come from.

If they're worried about their electric bills, explain the rate structures and contractual protections designed to prevent costs from being shifted onto existing customers.

If they're worried about infrastructure, show them who is paying for it.

And if a proposed project cannot satisfactorily answer those questions, local officials should

demand better answers.

But we should apply the same standard to claims made against data centers.

A meme is not evidence. A viral Facebook post is not an engineering study. A frightening number without context isn't analysis. And now that a foreign influence operation has reportedly attempted to insert itself into America's data-center debate, verifying information before sharing it becomes even more important.

Arizona does not have to choose between blindly approving every data center and banning them.

There is a third option:

Demand responsible development.

Require developers to disclose their water needs. Require realistic energy plans. Protect existing ratepayers. Require appropriate infrastructure. Evaluate each project based on its technology, location and actual impacts.

Then let the facts—not rumors, social-media algorithms, political narratives or foreign bot farms—drive the decision.

The future of technology is being built right now.

Arizona should make sure we understand exactly what we're saying yes to—and exactly what we're saying no to.

I have written many times about the proposed data center coming to the West Valley. This month, the City of Glendale is expected to annex the property into the city, marking another important step forward for the project.

There has been a great deal of discussion—and unfortunately, misinformation—surrounding data centers and their impact on our communities. I believe it is important that residents have access to accurate information and hear directly from those involved.

Below is an interview discussing the project, how it will operate, and what it could mean for the future of the West Valley.

Don't take it from me. Look at what President Trump said.

Ralph Heap Remains in Clean Elections Program as Questions Over Campaign Spending Continue

On September 2, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission once again found itself dealing with Republican Arizona Corporation Commission candidate Dr. Ralph Heap and the controversy surrounding his publicly funded campaign.

At issue was Heap's attempt to get out of the Clean Elections program again—a program he voluntarily entered and from which he sought taxpayer-funded campaign financing.

The Commission rejected that request.

Heap's attorney, Tim La Sota, made no secret of the campaign's desire to sever ties with Clean Elections.

“We'd like to have this in our rearview mirror,” La Sota told commissioners. “We'd like to have the commission in our rearview mirror, frankly, at every level.”

But there is a problem with putting Clean Elections in the rearview mirror: there are still questions that need answers.

The Signs That Started the Questions

Long before Heap received his Clean Elections funding, large blue Heap campaign signs began appearing across Arizona.

That raised an obvious question: Who paid for them?

Campaign finance reports available at the time did not appear to account for the number of signs voters were seeing across the state. Questions were subsequently raised with the Clean Elections Commission about whether the signs represented campaign expenditures that should have been disclosed.

Heap's campaign has maintained that the signs were obtained through a lawful extension of credit from a sign company.

But that explanation created another question: How much credit was extended, what were the terms, when was the expense incurred, and was everything properly reported under the rules governing a participating Clean Elections candidate?

Those are not insignificant technicalities.

Heap voluntarily chose to participate in Arizona's publicly funded campaign system. Candidates who make that choice receive public money but, in return, agree to restrictions, disclosure requirements and oversight that do not apply in exactly the same way to traditionally funded candidates.

Clean Elections Is Investigating

The Commission has separately been investigating the circumstances surrounding Heap's campaign signs and spending.

That distinction is important.

The Commission's refusal to allow Heap to leave the program should not be interpreted as a finding that he violated campaign-finance law. Whether violations occurred is a separate question that must be determined through the investigative and enforcement process.

But allowing Heap to simply leave the program while those questions remain unresolved could have raised an entirely different concern: Can a candidate voluntarily enter Clean Elections, obtain the benefits associated with participation and then exit when the program's oversight becomes uncomfortable?

The Commission's answer, at least in Heap's case, is no.

Public Money Means Public Accountability

This controversy is bigger than one candidate or one campaign.

Clean Elections is funded with public dollars and was created, in part, to increase transparency and reduce the influence of private campaign money.

When a candidate voluntarily chooses that system, taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing where campaign resources came from and how campaign expenses were paid.

That is especially important when the candidate is seeking a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission, one of the state's most powerful regulatory bodies. Commissioners make decisions involving electric utilities, energy policy, water companies and billions of dollars in infrastructure and utility investments.

Voters should expect candidates seeking that authority to meet a high standard of financial transparency.

The Questions Aren't Going Away

Heap and his campaign are entitled to present their evidence and defend their actions. An investigation is not proof of wrongdoing, and conclusions should be based on evidence rather than political assumptions.

But the public is equally entitled to answers.

How much did Heap's signs actually cost?

When were they ordered?

When did the campaign become financially obligated to pay for them?

What were the terms of the extension of credit?

Were all of those obligations disclosed when required?

And did every aspect of the arrangement comply with the rules Heap agreed to follow when he voluntarily became a Clean Elections candidate?

Those questions cannot simply be placed in the rearview mirror.

The September 2 hearing made one thing clear: Ralph Heap remains a Clean Elections candidate, and with the benefits of public financing comes the responsibility of public accountability.

Now Arizona voters should watch what happens next.