AUGUST 3, 2026

CONTRIBUTIONS HELP PAY FOR THE WEBSITE, CONSTANT

CONTACT, AND DUES TO ATTEND CLUBS TO HEAR

SPEAKERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!

Arizona Republicans Have Their First Lieutenant Governor Nominee

Arizona's first-ever lieutenant governor race is beginning to take shape. Republican gubernatorial nominee Andy Biggs has announced former State Senator Sine Kerr as his running mate, making her the Republican nominee for Arizona's first lieutenant governor. The position was created after Arizona voters approved Proposition 131 in 2022, and this November will mark the first time voters elect a governor and lieutenant governor as a ticket.

Kerr is a longtime West Valley resident, rancher, and farmer whose career has been closely tied to agriculture and water policy. Growing up in Arizona's agricultural community has given her firsthand knowledge of how valuable and limited water resources are in our desert state. She most recently served as Arizona's Executive Director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency after serving in the Arizona Legislature.

Before that appointment, Kerr represented Legislative District 13 in the Arizona Senate from 2018 through 2025 after serving in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2016 to 2018. During her legislative career, she chaired the Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee and became well known for her work on agriculture, water policy, rural issues, and economic development.

From a political perspective, Kerr appears to be a choice aimed at broadening the Republican ticket. She has built relationships throughout Arizona and has generally been well regarded across different wings of the Republican Party. As the campaign moves toward the November general election, Republicans will be looking to present a unified ticket.

Arizona voters should remember that they will not cast a separate vote for lieutenant governor. Unlike some states where candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run independently, Arizona's governor and lieutenant governor run as a single ticket. A vote for Andy Biggs will also be a vote for Sine Kerr as lieutenant governor.

The Democratic side of the race is still incomplete. Governor Katie Hobbs has not yet announced her choice for lieutenant governor. Under Arizona law, both gubernatorial nominees must name their running mates by September 4, which is 60 days before the general election. Political observers expect Hobbs to make her announcement before that deadline as the general election campaign ramps up.

President Trump Makes His Position Clear: America Needs More Data Centers

Data centers have become one of the most debated topics in America. Communities across the country are weighing the benefits of new technology investments against concerns over electricity demand, water use, and local infrastructure. Last week, President Donald Trump made his position unmistakably clear: he believes the United States must embrace data centers if it wants to remain the global leader in artificial intelligence and technology.

The President's message was simple. America cannot afford to lose the AI race to China or other foreign competitors. Modern data centers are the backbone of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, cybersecurity, banking, healthcare, manufacturing, and national defense. Without them, the United States risks falling behind in one of the most important industries of the future.

Data Centers Should Pay Their Own Way

Perhaps the most significant part of President Trump's announcement was not simply his support for data centers—it was his insistence that American ratepayers should not bear the cost.

Through the White House's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, major technology companies agreed to build, bring, or buy the new electricity generation needed for their facilities and to pay for any required transmission and infrastructure upgrades. The goal is straightforward: families and small businesses should not see higher electric bills because a private company builds a massive AI facility nearby.

The pledge also encourages companies to negotiate separate electric rates, pay for infrastructure whether they fully use it or not, invest in local communities, and, when practical, make backup generation available during emergencies to improve grid reliability.

That approach addresses one of the biggest concerns many communities have raised—that residential customers could end up subsidizing the enormous power demands of AI data centers.

Selling Communities on the Benefits

President Trump also encouraged governors and local officials to educate their communities about the economic benefits of data centers. He argued that communities welcoming these projects stand to gain significant private investment, construction jobs, tax revenue, and long-term economic growth.

While some critics question how many permanent jobs a data center creates after construction, supporters point to billions of dollars in capital investment, improved infrastructure, and increased local tax revenues that can support schools, public safety, and roads.

What About Water?

Another common criticism is that data centers consume enormous amounts of water.

That concern is understandable, but it is also important to recognize that today's facilities are much different than those built years ago.

Modern data centers increasingly use advanced cooling technologies that dramatically reduce water consumption. Many employ closed-loop cooling systems, recycled or reclaimed water, air cooling, or hybrid cooling technologies that require far less freshwater than older designs. Technology companies continue investing in new cooling methods because reducing water use also lowers operating costs and improves efficiency.

As the industry has evolved, both energy efficiency and water efficiency have become major design priorities.

Arizona Is Well Positioned

Arizona continues to attract data center investment because of its available land, stable business climate, reliable infrastructure, and growing workforce.

For Arizona communities, President Trump's position aligns with an approach that many residents can support:

• Welcome high-tech investment.
• Require companies to provide or pay for their own power generation.
• Protect residential ratepayers from increased utility costs.
• Encourage the use of modern technologies that reduce water consumption.
• Create jobs and expand the tax base without shifting costs onto local families.

Looking Ahead

The debate over data centers is unlikely to disappear. Artificial intelligence will continue driving demand for computing power, and communities will continue asking legitimate questions about energy, water, and infrastructure.

President Trump's position attempts to strike a balance: encourage America to lead the world in AI while ensuring that technology companies—not homeowners and small businesses—pay the cost of the additional electricity their facilities require. Whether that balance is achieved will depend on how states, utilities, and technology companies implement those commitments in the years ahead.

My viewpoint

If you've read my previous newsletters or blog posts, you know I have been a strong supporter of data centers. I was encouraged to hear President Trump publicly express his support for this industry and recognize its importance to America's future. Too often, when I discuss data centers online, I find that many people are relying on outdated information. Like every other technology, data centers have evolved significantly over the years. Today's facilities are far more energy efficient, use dramatically less water than older designs, and many companies are investing in their own power generation so they don't shift costs onto residential ratepayers.

Data centers are no longer a luxury—they are critical infrastructure. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives depends on them, from online banking and healthcare to streaming services, emergency communications, and artificial intelligence. They are also essential to our military and national defense, providing the computing power needed to protect our country. At the same time, China has been working to shape public opinion against America's technology and energy industries, including data centers. We should evaluate these projects based on facts, science, and what's best for the United States—not on narratives promoted by one of our greatest strategic competitors.

Complaint I Filed Against Dr. Ralph Heap Now Making Statewide News

Several weeks ago, I filed a formal complaint with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission regarding Dr. Ralph Heap's campaign for the Arizona Corporation Commission. At the time, I believed something didn't add up.

After seeing what appeared to be hundreds of Heap campaign signs throughout the West Valley—and later across Arizona—I reviewed his campaign finance reports. I found only a single reported expenditure of approximately $644 for campaign signs. That immediately raised a question: How could a statewide candidate have so many campaign signs with so little reported spending?

I submitted a complaint asking the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission to investigate whether the campaign had accurately reported its expenditures.

That complaint has now become the focus of statewide attention.

Dr. Heap won the Republican primary for the Arizona Corporation Commission. However, before receiving approximately $360,000 in Clean Elections funding, participating candidates must sign a declaration, under penalty of perjury, certifying that their campaign finance reports are complete and accurate.

As of this writing, Dr. Heap has not signed that certification. As a result, the Clean Elections Commission has not released the public campaign funds.

According to correspondence from the Commission, Dr. Heap or his attorney was asked to respond by 6:00 p.m. on July 27. A response was submitted after that deadline. Rather than addressing the substance of the Commission's concerns, attorney Tim La Sota requested additional time to respond. I have included a link to that letter below so readers can review it for themselves.

The Executive Director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Tom Collins, informed Dr. Heap's attorney that the Commission had identified what it described as "substantial evidence" that the campaign finance reports did not disclose expenditures for campaign signs or identify the source of the funds used to purchase them. Collins also stated that these issues could affect Dr. Heap's ability to truthfully certify, under penalty of perjury, that his reports are accurate.

Since my complaint was filed, Dr. Heap has amended several campaign finance reports. However, those amended filings still do not appear to disclose additional campaign sign expenditures beyond the original reported amount.

There are several possible explanations for the discrepancy between the number of signs observed and the expenditures reported. The campaign may have fully reported all required expenditures, additional reporting may still be necessary, or the Commission may ultimately determine that no violation occurred. Those are questions the Commission's investigation is intended to answer, and no final determination has been made.

Some have asked why I filed this complaint. My answer is simple: campaign finance laws exist for a reason, and they should be applied equally to every candidate. It should not matter whether someone is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining public confidence in our elections.

I also recognize the broader political implications. Republicans now face the possibility of losing a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission in the general election. In my opinion, the Republican primary became unnecessarily divisive when outside organizations such as Turning Point Action and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported challengers against incumbent Republicans. Whether or not that strategy proves successful in November remains to be seen, but it has unquestionably created additional challenges for the Republican ticket.

Ultimately, my complaint was never about personalities or political factions. It was about ensuring that every candidate follows the same rules. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission will now determine whether any campaign finance laws were violated and what, if any, action is appropriate. Until then, the investigation remains ongoing, and Dr. Heap is entitled to the presumption that no violation has been established unless and until the Commission reaches a final conclusion.

Arizona Clean Elections has sent a letter to Dr. Ralph Heap's attorney, Tim La Sota, outlining the requirements that must be met before campaign funds can be released. According to the letter, Dr. Heap also has the option of withdrawing from the Clean Elections program altogether. Arizona's Clean Elections system was designed to reduce the influence of special interests by limiting the role of large campaign contributions. Candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission are strongly encouraged to participate because the Commission regulates public utilities, and the program helps prevent utilities and their lobbyists from attempting to gain influence through campaign donations.

Given the circumstances, I believe the responsible course of action would be for Dr. Heap to withdraw from the race. If i file a complaint with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office regarding the campaign finance issues, and the potential civil penalties are significant if violations are found. Fortunately, Arizona law provides a mechanism for another qualified conservative candidate to be placed on the ballot, ensuring Republicans do not risk losing this important seat to a Democrat. At this point, the decision rests with Dr. Heap. I hope he will put the interests of the voters and the conservative movement first and do the right thing.

The Arizona Corpotation Commission is holding a hearing August 4th at 3:00PM. The link is below if you would like to watch.

Court Strikes Proposition 143 from Arizona Ballot

One of the Arizona Legislature's highest-profile ballot referrals will not appear before voters this November.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como ruled that Proposition 143 violated the Arizona Constitution's Separate Amendment Rule, ordering the measure removed from the 2026 General Election ballot. Republican legislative leaders have since confirmed they will not appeal the decision, bringing the legal challenge to an end.

Proposition 143 originated as HCR 2040, a Republican-backed ballot referral approved by the Legislature. Unlike citizen initiatives, legislative referrals do not require petition signatures or the governor's signature. They are placed directly on the ballot following approval by a majority of the Arizona Legislature.

The proposal sought to make sweeping changes to public employee unions. Among its provisions, it would have prohibited school districts from using taxpayer-funded resources to support labor unions, barred payroll deduction of union dues, prohibited union recruiting during employee orientations, restricted teachers from using school email or paid leave for union business, and prohibited state and local governments from negotiating collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions.

Judge Como concluded that the proposal improperly combined two separate constitutional amendments into a single ballot question. One section dealt specifically with school districts and union activities, while another broadly prohibited collective bargaining agreements by state and local governments with labor organizations representing public employees.

Arizona's Constitution requires that voters be allowed to vote separately on distinct constitutional changes. The court found that combining those issues into one proposition violated the Separate Amendment Rule because voters could not approve one proposal while rejecting the other.

The broader language also created concern that the measure would extend well beyond teachers' unions and affect organizations representing police officers, firefighters, 911 dispatchers, and other public employees. The court rejected arguments from Republican legislative leaders that the language should be interpreted more narrowly, finding that the measure's own definitions were broad enough to encompass public employee unions generally.

The ruling drew unusual bipartisan reactions.

Attorney General Kris Mayes called the decision a significant victory for public employees. Representative Matt Gress, a Republican who initially supported the proposal, said removing the measure eliminated uncertainty facing police officers and firefighters, adding that first responders must retain their ability to advocate for the resources needed to protect Arizona communities.

The Arizona Education Association praised the decision as well, arguing that lawmakers had spent valuable legislative time pursuing a measure targeting educators instead of addressing Arizona's ongoing teacher shortage.

Regardless of where Arizonans stand on public employee unions, the decision serves as another reminder that ballot measures must satisfy constitutional requirements before voters ever have the opportunity to decide them. In this case, the court determined that Proposition 143 combined separate constitutional questions into a single proposal, preventing voters from considering each issue independently as required by Arizona's Constitution.

We must protect ESAs and stop the opposing ballot measure from passing.

Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment During Heated Senate Hearing

One of the most anticipated congressional hearings of the year ended in dramatic fashion Wednesday as former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The hearing, chaired by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), focused on the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the origins of the coronavirus, federal funding for research involving viruses in Wuhan, China, and more than 1,100 pages of Dr. Fauci's private pandemic diary entries that were recently released by the committee.

Fauci Declines to Answer Questions

Before questioning began, Dr. Fauci announced that, on the advice of his attorneys, he would invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions from committee members.

Over the course of the approximately three-hour hearing, Fauci repeatedly declined to answer questions posed by Senator Paul and other Republican senators, invoking the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times.

In his opening remarks, Fauci argued that the hearing was politically motivated. He said Senator Paul had spent years seeking to prosecute him and stated that he believed any answers he provided could be used in an effort to pursue criminal charges against him.

Republicans Press Long-Standing Questions

Republican members of the committee sought answers to several issues they have investigated for years, including:

• Whether federal grants awarded through EcoHealth Alliance supported gain-of-function research connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
• Whether Fauci publicly minimized the possibility that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory accident while privately acknowledging it as a possibility.
• Whether newly released diary entries reveal differences between Fauci's private assessments and his public statements during the pandemic.
• Decisions surrounding lockdowns, school closures, masking recommendations, and vaccine policies.

Because Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment throughout the hearing, those questions went unanswered.

The Debate Over the Fifth Amendment

One of the legal issues discussed during the hearing involved whether Fauci could invoke the Fifth Amendment after receiving a preemptive presidential pardon from former President Joe Biden.

Senator Paul argued that because Fauci had been pardoned for actions taken during his government service, he no longer faced criminal jeopardy for those actions.

Legal experts, however, have noted that a presidential pardon does not necessarily eliminate every circumstance in which a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment. A witness may still face potential legal exposure for future statements, including allegations of perjury or false statements made during sworn testimony.

Tensions Escalate

The hearing became increasingly contentious as members questioned Fauci and his legal team.

At one point, Senator Paul ordered Capitol Police to remove one of Fauci's attorneys from the hearing room after repeated disputes over committee procedures. The attorney later criticized the decision, while Republicans defended the action as enforcement of committee rules.

What Happens Next?

At the conclusion of the hearing, Senator Paul announced that the committee intends to consider whether to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions after being subpoenaed.

If approved by the committee, any contempt resolution would still face additional procedural steps before any penalties could be imposed.

A Continuing Political Flashpoint

More than six years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the government's response continues to generate intense political debate. Republicans maintain that significant questions remain unanswered regarding the virus's origins, federal research funding, and pandemic decision-making. Fauci and his supporters argue that years of investigations have become politically driven efforts to discredit public health officials rather than objective fact-finding.

Wednesday's hearing did little to settle those disagreements. Instead, it highlighted how sharply divided the country remains over the pandemic and the legacy of the officials who guided the nation's response. Whether the committee ultimately votes to hold Fauci in contempt—and what legal effect such a vote would have—will likely become the next chapter in a controversy that has persisted long after the public health emergency ended.

This hits home

Watching this hearing was incredibly difficult for me because it brought back memories of one of the darkest periods of my life.

In 2021, I spent six weeks hospitalized with COVID-19. I suffered from bilateral pneumonia, sepsis, kidney failure, hypoxia, tachycardia, and blood clots. During that time, I underwent two emergency surgeries and spent nearly a month on a BiPAP machine fighting for every breath. After I was finally discharged from the hospital, I spent even longer in rehabilitation trying to regain my strength. I remained on supplemental oxygen for nearly two years and continue to deal with the effects of long COVID. I never received a COVID vaccine and refuse it to this day. I recognize just how fortunate I am to still be here when so many others never made it home to their families.

My experience has left me with emotions that are difficult to describe. Like many Americans whose lives were forever changed by the pandemic, I still struggle with anger over the baseless decisions that were made by Fauci and others. Whether those decisions involved lockdowns, school closures, masking guidance, vaccine recommendations, or research oversight, I believe the American people deserve honest answers and full accountability. Congressional oversight is an important part of restoring public trust, even when the questions are uncomfortable.

Dr. Fauci is a megalomaniac.and pure evil. I hope he pays in this world and the next.

Patriot Happy Hour: Building Friendships Beyond Politics

Last week's Patriot Happy Hour was another tremendous success! We had Republicans and conservatives join us from all over the Valley, and we even welcomed guests who made the drive from Prescott. It is always encouraging to see people willing to travel just to spend an evening with like-minded friends.

A couple of attendees who arrived early asked me, "So what happens at these happy hours? Do you have speakers?"

I smiled and explained that Patriot Happy Hour is a little different.

The goal isn't to have a lineup of speakers or another political meeting. The goal is to bring Republicans together from across the Valley to simply get to know one another. There is far too much division within our party today. Sometimes the comments I read on social media or hear at political meetings are incredibly harsh over relatively small disagreements.

I started Patriot Happy Hour because I want Republicans to see each other as friends first. It is perfectly okay to disagree on a candidate, a policy, or even the direction of the party. Healthy debate is part of the political process. But at the end of the day, we should still be able to shake hands, laugh together, and remember that we have far more in common than what divides us.

Of course, politics comes up in our conversations. It wouldn't be a room full of politically engaged people if it didn't! But we also talk about our families, our jobs, our grandchildren, vacations, hobbies, and everyday life. Those conversations remind us that there is so much more to life than politics.

From time to time, candidates stop by to introduce themselves. One of the things I enjoy most is that there are no podiums, no prepared speeches, and no campaign rallies. Instead, attendees have the opportunity to sit down and have genuine one-on-one conversations. You get to know the real person, not just the polished version you see at a campaign event. Those personal conversations often tell you far more about a candidate than any speech ever could.

If you've never attended a Patriot Happy Hour, I hope you'll consider joining us. Whether you've been involved in politics for decades or you're just beginning to get engaged, you'll find a welcoming group of people who enjoy good conversation, good food, and great company.

Patriot Happy Hour is held on the last Wednesday of every month, and we'd love to see you at our next gathering. Come make some new friends, reconnect with old ones, and be reminded that building relationships is every bit as important as winning elections.