2018 Elections: Arizona Daily Star endorsements

As you unavoidably know, it’s election season.

And that means, for those of us on the Arizona Daily Star’s Editorial Board, it’s endorsement season.

We’ve had questions from readers asking how we make our endorsements — and what an endorsement means.

Like most professions or organizations, journalists often operate in a world where we know what we’re talking about — and we can forget that what is second-nature for us on the inside makes no sense from the outside.

I liken it to me going to the auto mechanic — I’m not going to fall for the “You need headlight fluid” line, but I don’t understand how it all goes together so my car will run.

So, I’m going to answer some of our most-asked questions and complaints:

What is an endorsement?

The Star’s Editorial Board endorses candidates and ballot propositions that we conclude, after much research and discussion, are the best option.

We make endorsements because voters are busy, and we view it as a community service. We have more access to candidates than the average voter, and it is our job to pay close attention to what’s happening in our communities year-round.

Sometimes voters want our endorsements so they can follow our advice —sometimes they want to know who not to vote for. Either way, we are glad to help.

I don’t mean to shout, but I think this bears capital letters: OUR ENDORSEMENTS ARE NOT PART OF THE STAR’S NEWS ELECTION COVERAGE. The Editorial Board and news department are independent of each other.

Sometimes the candidates we endorse are stellar candidates. Sometimes, we would like to choose “none of the above.”

Every election is a choice, and someone will win, so we think it is our civic duty to weigh in and offer some guidance.

I’ve been in the Editorial Department for about a decade, and I can recall maybe one or two races where the Star’s Editorial Board couldn’t in good faith recommend any of the candidates for office.

Who makes the endorsements?

The Star’s Editorial Board makes the endorsements.

The news reporters don’t weigh in on the Editorial Board’s endorsements (or other opinion content), and we on the opinion side don’t weigh in on news coverage.

Advertisers do not get a voice in the Star’s endorsements, nor in our news coverage.

The Editorial Board includes: President and Publisher John D’Orlando, Star editor Jill Jorden Spitz, editorial writer Luis Carrasco and me, as Editorial (Opinion) Page editor.

Our names appear on the Editorial Page daily.

Cartoonist David Fitzsimmons is not part of the board.

How do we decide who or what to endorse?

The first step is deciding which races to endorse. We are an Opinion staff of two, which means that while the Editorial Board decides what to say, Carrasco and I are the people who write the endorsements.

We choose the races where we can be of the most use to readers, which usually means the big races — governor, U.S. Senate and House — and the Legislature.

We extend an invitation to candidates in those races, asking them to meet with the Star’s Editorial Board for an interview. Almost every candidate accepts.

We prefer to meet with candidates for the same race together, but sometimes the scheduling doesn’t work.

The interviews include the Editorial Board and are open to news reporters and photographers, too. They are on-the-record conversations, and we often record them for reference or clarification later. Candidates can record them, too.

We research the races and candidates, looking through past coverage for previous campaign promises, performance, statements made, civic engagement and knowledge of relevant issues.

We meet as an Editorial Board and discuss. Sometimes the decision is easily made, sometimes it takes more conversation and research. An endorsement evaluates candidates against each other — elections aren’t about the Platonic ideal candidate.

We know you’ll agree, and disagree, with our endorsements. We welcome your criticism, because it means the conversation continues —and that’s what elections need. Email Editorial Page editor Sarah Garrecht Gassen at sgassen@tucson.com

Education is a key issue in all state races this year, and the gubernatorial contest between Doug Ducey and David Garcia is no different.

Candidate after candidate has stressed not only its importance, but also how Arizona has failed to meet its obligation to properly fund public schools. After years of the Legislature short-changing public education, teachers finally had enough and the #RedForEd movement found the kind of public support that forces all of us to pay attention.

In this regard, Garcia, a Democrat, is unmatched. He has centered his campaign around the issue and promises not only to provide a dedicated funding source but to reform what public education looks like and improve student attainment. He is a charismatic and inspiring candidate whose dedication is as unquestionable as his goal is laudable.

Although we believe, as he does, that education touches nearly every other challenge the state is facing, from economic development to public safety, the Garcia campaign stumbles in recognizing that the answer to every question can’t be “education.”

After much discussion, the Star is endorsing Doug Ducey for Arizona governor.

Ducey, running for his second term, may not be the kind of firebrand on education that many believe is needed — but he has shepherded funding increases through the Republican Legislature.

He pushed for extending Proposition 301, which protects a more than $600 million funding stream for Arizona schools, and led on Proposition 123, settling a long-running lawsuit and providing an estimated $3.5 billion over 10 years to public education.

Ducey is a shrewd enough politician to recognize that throngs of Arizona teachers walking out of their classrooms and converging on the state Capitol, as thousands did last spring, required a response. Before the walkout, and the public support for teachers became vocal, Ducey had said Arizona couldn’t afford more than less than 2 percent in raises. That changed with the growing public demonstrations — and, Ducey said, better-than-expected financial revenue reports, which he credits to his economic policies.

If Ducey is to succeed in a second term, he would do well to reach out to the educators directly, instead of relying on school district administrators to provide insight into the best course of action for public education. He should also reconsider his support of using public funds for private schools.

Garcia is right to go back to education as a driver for economic development and the state’s well-being. But it’s not a quick fix or a universal remedy.

We agree with Garcia’s philosophy that improving the Arizona economy must include paying workers fair wages, providing high-speed internet access across the state, investing in solar energy and focusing on high-tech jobs. The question, however, is how the state can do those things in a near-term way, and Garcia didn’t offer an answer.

A recent report from the Office of Economic Opportunity placed Arizona’s annual job growth rate at 1.7 percent over the next decade, double the projected national rate, with population increasing by about a million people by 2026.

Even so, there is a feeling in Southern Arizona that while Phoenix thrives, our region is often ignored by the Maricopa County-centered state government.

Ducey acknowledges this but notes that not only is Southern Arizona doing better than it has in years, but a continued healthy state economy also will spread and diversify opportunities for the rest of the state. He points to the expansion of Raytheon and Comcast, and the arrival of Caterpillar to downtown Tucson, as important job opportunities that can be built upon.

To his credit, Ducey has visited our region much more often than his recent predecessors and recognizes that the connection with Mexico is vital to the state’s economy — particularly Southern Arizona's.

During his first term, he mended a relationship that had fractured after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law. He also never missed a meeting of the Arizona-Mexico Commission, was the first governor in almost a decade to visit Mexico City and has developed a friendship with Sonoran Gov. Claudia Pavlovich.

Ducey has taken a walk-the-walk approach to child safety, encouraging adoption of children in foster care — when appropriate — and eschewing the notion that the only suitable adoptive parents are straight, heterosexual married couples. He should be recognized for that effort.

He also removed from state employment applications the question that required job-seekers to check “yes” if they’d been convicted of a crime . This is a positive step and allows Arizonans with records to make their cases individually, rather than eliminate any applicant with any sort of arrest record, no matter how long ago.

We do not agree with Doug Ducey on every issue. On balance, however, we think Ducey’s performance as governor merits another term.

The race to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate is one of the most watched in the country, with good reason.

It offers two views of Arizona, and our future:

Martha McSally’s Arizona follows the Trump agenda, embraces tax cuts for the wealthy, values veterans, wants a border wall, seeks to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and is itching for a fight on trade, tariffs, immigration, foreign relations and the environment.

Kyrsten Sinema’s Arizona is more pragmatic than ideological, unafraid to change, concerned about health-care affordability and access, values veterans, supports local law enforcement assisting federal immigration authorities, and is inclined to work together rather than draw battle lines.

The Arizona Daily Star editorial board supports Kyrsten Sinema’s approach to Arizona and endorses her in the race for U.S. Senate.

Southern Arizonans are familiar with McSally, a Republican who is finishing her second term in Congressional District 2. We endorsed her in 2016.

While she has done good work in helping to keep the A-10 fighters at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and being an advocate for the military, we have found her determined march to the political right, and her alignment with President Trump, alarming.

In her quest for a Senate seat, gone is the McSally who supported a bipartisan approach to immigration reform and who portrayed herself as an independent thinker (although she voted with Trump 97 percent of the time).

McSally has avoided unscripted public appearances, preferring to meet with selected groups at job sites or other controlled-access situations — a pattern we find troubling because it excludes contact with most of her constituents.

More than a month ago, the Arizona Daily Star’s editorial board invited McSally and Sinema for an endorsement interview. Sinema accepted, McSally’s campaign did not. Our endorsements are based on candidates’ records, performance and statements.

Sinema, a Democrat, has had an interesting political track. She started as a progressive liberal in the Arizona Legislature and was known for opposing the war in Iraq. She has moved toward the center in Congress, and angered Democrats by not supporting Rep. Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, or Sen. Chuck Schumer as Minority Leader.

Sinema has also cast votes that agree with Trump’s position during her time in Congress. She positions herself as someone independent of partisan dogma, and her voting record supports that. Being able to work across divisions is key to success, especially in political office, and we value her ability to do that.

Sinema’s focus on the pragmatic shows in her legislative record in Congress: She’s put forward changes to the Affordable Care Act, such as delaying the health insurance tax and the medical device tax, and tackled immigration and public safety with legislation to increase the number of Customs and Border Protection officers.

Two moments from our interview with Sinema stood out as we weighed our endorsement choice for Senate: On health care, she talked about how working with others takes compromise, but that the discussion must begin with clear and defined principles to build on. “You don’t just show up with a plan,” she said.

And, when discussing her evolution from the left toward the center-left, Sinema was thoughtful and refreshing in a time when fidelity to an ideology or personality is a litmus test of worthiness: “I am committed to learning and growing,” she said. “I have changed. It has definitely been a process.

“I would hope we would expect our leaders to learn and grow,” Sinema said.

We agree. And for this reason, and others, we endorse Kyrsten Sinema for the U.S. Senate.

Congressional District 2 is a political barometer — a large swath of Southern and Eastern Arizona populated with registered voters closely split between Democrats (136,268) and Republicans (132,730).

The key voters are the 121,090 residents who have eschewed a political party. The district has a bipartisan history and has been represented by Republicans and Democrats, including Jim Kolbe and Gabby Giffords.

Its current representative is Martha McSally, a Republican who has closely aligned herself with President Trump’s policies and is now running for U.S. Senate. In a way, the November vote is a referendum on her performance in CD2, because both candidates to replace her — Republican Lea Marquez Peterson and Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick — were spurred by her actions.

We know both candidates fairly well. The Star’s Editorial department has partnered with the Hispanic Chamber on events, including Tucson City Council political debates, and Marquez Peterson served on our Community Editorial Advisory Board last year, until she declared her candidacy.

And we’ve met with Kirkpatrick multiple times over the years, because CD 1 reaches into Oro Valley and Marana. We did not endorse her Senate run — not because we weren’t impressed by her knowledge and commitment, but because most any candidate would have paled in comparison to the institutional and foreign-policy knowledge that John McCain brought to the table.

Marquez Peterson, a Republican since age 18, is a political newcomer who is well-known in Southern Arizona for her work with community organizations and for expanding the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce throughout the region.

She told the Star’s Editorial Board that she watched and supported McSally, and when it became clear McSally was going for the Senate, she decided to run for CD2. “I thought, I can keep this seat Republican and pro-business.”

Marquez Peterson is casting herself as “hometown,” to draw a distinction from Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who represented Northern Arizona’s District 1 in Congress before losing to McCain in what was his final Senate election. Kirkpatrick moved to Tucson after that 2016 election to help take care of her grandchildren while her daughter completed a medical residency.

She watched as McSally voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act — which Kirkpatrick had supported at a high political cost — and, after doing some polling that indicated McSally was vulnerable, decided to run against her.

The way we see it, after researching each candidate, watching them debate and conducting interviews, the choice boils down to this: If you support Martha McSally, you will likely find Lea Marquez Peterson an appealing candidate.

Marquez Peterson has much to recommend her, including her work promoting trade between Southern Arizona and Mexico, and her local roots.

But.

We have serious concerns about what Marquez Peterson has said during the campaign.

She says she supports Trump’s plan for an expanded border wall “where it makes sense,” an answer that avoids taking a stand.

She said she supports legal status — but not a path to citizenship — for “dreamers,” the young immigrant DACA recipients who were brought into the country illegally by their parents.

She said she supports a private-investment Social Security option for younger people, an answer that isn’t an outright call to eliminate Social Security, but isn’t realistic if the safety net for senior citizens is to continue.

She said she makes a distinction between Trump the person and Trump’s policies, saying she supports the administration, but not always the man. We don’t think the two can, or should, be so easily separated.

While Marquez Peterson describes herself as an independent Republican, she has taken a few pages out of McSally’s playbook. She would not commit to at least two public town halls if she wins office. (McSally has been roundly criticized by many constituents for meeting mostly with small groups of invitees, not in open forums.)

Kirkpatrick said she welcomes town halls and has held many, including with Rep. Paul Gosar, a conservative Republican congressman from Arizona. “I’m not afraid of being shouted at,” she said.

In a debate last week, Marquez Peterson was asked if she accepts climate change science and she didn’t answer the question directly, saying, “I think it is a delicate balance between growing a company and the environmental regulations put in place and making sure that they don’t overreach.”

Kirkpatrick described climate change an “existential threat” and said she, along with the Defense Department, accepts climate science.

When asked in our interview about background checks for firearms purchases, Marquez Peterson said she does not support “taking away” guns from Americans — a statement we found reveals either a misunderstanding of what the idea of universal background checks involves or an outright attempt to stoke fear amid CD 2 voters.

When pressed, she said she does not support requiring a federal background check for private gun sales — a position with which we strongly disagree.

The gun issue is an interesting one for Kirkpatrick, because she has been roundly criticized by other Democrats after receiving a high rating from the National Rifle Association in 2012. She told the Star’s Editorial Board that school shootings have helped change her mind and she now advocates universal background checks for all firearm sales.

Kirkpatrick’s prior three terms in Congress, even if it was representing CD 1, give her a track record. She has been excoriated for her vote on mining in Oak Flats in Western Arizona, but, as she explained it, “It was going to be mined, no question,” so she made sure she was at the negotiating table and added some limitations and environmental studies to the legislation.

Kirkpatrick has the advantage of having served in Congress before, and the Republicans are trying to use that against her, tying her to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — even as Marquez Peterson recently welcomed current Speaker Paul Ryan to the campaign with her.

More importantly, Kirkpatrick’s experience with the federal role in major needs in Arizona — water, infrastructure, homeland security, education — gives her a head start in effectiveness for CD 2.

We have some advice for Ann Kirkpatrick: Do your homework on Southern Arizona. Spend every waking moment connecting with residents. Learn our school districts, town councils, roads, community groups.

The hometown advantage is an advantage, with all else being equal. In this particular race in this particular election, however, we find that Ann Kirkpatrick is the better choice for Congressional District 2.

For over 15 years, Raúl Grijalva has ably represented Arizona Congressional District 3 as a strong progressive voice, speaking up on issues such as health care, the environment and immigration. He should return to Congress and continue to work for his constituents.

His opponent, Republican Nick Pierson, has erred in his attacks of Grijalva’s character and seemed misinformed on multiple points when speaking with the Star Editorial Board. Yet it was also clear that he has an honest desire to help the people of CD3. He should continue to learn about the issues and work to improve his community.

Grijalva’s recent accomplishments include bipartisan legislation that would establish a restoration fund to address the multibillion-dollar national parks maintenance backlog, as well as efforts to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A ninth term in Congress would give him the opportunity to address what he sees as unfinished business: comprehensive immigration reform, removing the threat of uranium mining around the Grand Canyon, helping to revitalize education, and campaign finance reform. All are much-needed measures.

If Grijalva is re-elected and the Democrats take control of the House, both a likely outcome, he will find himself in a difficult position. After spending most of his time in Congress in the minority, it is easy to be tempted into running roughshod over the opposition. While understandable, this would only continue to exacerbate current divisions.

Grijalva is aware of this, and said he recognizes it is up to Democrats to be responsible and restore the regular order and democratic norms that have allowed bipartisan efforts to be rewarded. “Divisions are so deep, that those of us who are leaders of the opposition have a responsibility to talk about unity, to talk about purpose,” he said. “So, from day one, I have to work on that.”

A change in the status quo would not only be liberating for Democrats, but for Republicans as well, Grijalva said. Bills that had support from members of both parties — such as a compromise solution for immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents — would be able to advance after they were blocked by Republican leadership.

Thinking of his legacy, Grijalva said that if he returns to Congress, he will use his experience to quickly push for his legislative priorities, finding bipartisan support when possible and, where there is little, working on proposals that set the template for future discussions.

Raúl Grijalva best represents the voters in his district and the Star endorses him for re-election.

Residents of Legislative District 2, which includes South Tucson, Sahuarita, Green Valley, Santa Cruz County and runs south to the border with Mexico, face a complex set of challenges that include economic development, suburban expansion into rural areas and deficient infrastructure.

The district has been represented by Democrats Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, Rep. Rosanna Gabaldon and Rep. Daniel Hernandez and all are campaigning for re-election. Republican Anthony Sizer is also running for the state House.

Based on the field of candidates, we believe LD 2 would be best served by retaining Hernandez and adding Chris Ackerley in the House and Shelley Kais in the Senate.

Ackerley, a Republican, served a term in the state House from 2015 to 2017. He is a public school physics and math teacher and has led the state teachers’ union, the Arizona Education Association.

Ackerley brings direct knowledge from inside the classroom to the Legislature, a necessity in convincing Republican lawmakers that public education is not a solely Democratic issue. He took days off without pay to join the RedForEd educators’ walkout in the spring.

“It was a powerful movement,” he told the Star’s Editorial Board. “It brought legislative leadership and the governor to the point where they recognized the extent of the problem.

“I am troubled by how partisan the debate has become,” Ackerley said. “The underlying structure of public education is broken and for the last 30 years we’ve put patch over patch.”

Shelley Kais, also a Republican, is a business and training consultant who ran unsuccessfully for the Legislature two years ago. Today, she is a much stronger and more knowledgeable candidate who has clearly studied LD 2 issues and thinks in a big-picture way. Kais, when asked how she views public safety, answered in a comprehensive way. “Public safety starts when you wake up in the morning,” she said, citing a reliable electric grid, confidence that the 911 system will work if needed, and more. “It’s why we all sit here in confidence.”

Kais said education is a necessity for prosperity, as did all the candidates, but she set the issue in a larger context. “We can invest in education or populate a prison,” she said, adding her concern that Arizona has failed to think about education and the school system strategically.

We recommend Daniel Hernandez for another term in the state House based on his practical approach to legislation, which, because he was in the minority party, required a bipartisan approach.

“It’s about trying to find that common ground,” he said, acknowledging that sometimes teaming with more moderate Republicans to kill bad bills from right-wing Republicans is a win in its own right.

Hernandez, a co-founder of the LGBT Caucus, has served on the Sunnyside Unified School District Governing Board, so he also brings a public-education perspective to the Legislature. He’s been endorsed by both the Tucson Metro Chamber and the Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona.

The Star endorses Chris Ackerley and Daniel Hernandez for state House, and Shelley Kais for state Senate in Legislative District 2.

Legislative District 9 is a diverse district that includes areas of central Tucson and the Catalina foothills.

While residents’ most pressing concerns may vary, they all have a strong group of candidates to choose from.

For the Nov. 6 election, the Star endorses Victoria Steele for Senate and incumbents Randy Friese and Pamela Powers Hannley for the House.

Steele, a Democrat and previous two-term representative for LD9, said public education in the state has not only been grossly underfunded, it has also been gutted by vouchers and the School Tuition Organizations set up to administer that money, which hurts all Arizonans.

“This is not just hurting parents and teachers and students, this is hurting our economy, this is hurting our state,” Steele said.

Part of the solution, she said, lies in revisiting corporate tax breaks to make sure they are stimulating the economy as they are supposed to and, if not, doing away with them.

She also advocates for a five-year sunset review on all corporate incentives.

But even more than education, her biggest priority is water, she said, and how the state needs to redouble its drought plan efforts.

Steele faces a solid opponent in Republican Randy Fleenor, who earned his place on the ballot as a write-in candidate. A manager at IBM and a small business owner, Fleenor is well-versed on the issues and his focus on education and poverty line up well with the concerns of his district.

In this election, Steele’s experience gives her the edge, but Fleenor should continue to pursue public service.

Incumbents Friese and Powers Hannley, both Democrats, share many of the same concerns, including education funding, tax reform, environmental protection and gun safety.

Friese supports restoring District Additional Assistance, an education funding source curtailed for almost a decade, and protecting it from the hands of legislators by giving it a dedicated funding stream. Powers Hannley backs establishing a bipartisan tax force that would go over corporate tax cuts and special interest giveaways to determine their effectiveness.

Along with education and water, Powers Hannley said her priorities include making sure that the bipartisan Opioid Epidemic Bill is working as intended; passing the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which guarantees equal rights regardless of sex — and focusing on poverty in LD9 and in the state.

Poor working families can benefit from improving the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, she said, and making sure something like the Legislature leaving unused $56 million in federal child-care funds doesn’t happen again.

For Friese, his priorities also include protecting cities’ and towns’ ability to use tools to create incentives to draw companies in, such as the Angel Investment Tax Credit and the Government Property Lease Excise Tax.

“We need to put aside the ‘D’ and the ‘R’ thing and recognize it’s important to think about what we’re doing for the state, and not what we’re doing for our team and your team,” Friese said.

The Star endorses Victoria Steele for state Senate and Randy Friese and Pamela Powers Hannley for state House in Legislative District 9.

In Legislative District 10, the Star endorses David Bradley for Senate and Kirsten Engel and Domingo DeGrazia for the House.

David Bradley, a Democrat running for his final term in the Senate, has impressive knowledge of the legislative process and the issues that concern his district and the state. His background in child welfare and behavioral health allow him to be a strong voice in support of some of the most vulnerable.

He believes in taking a long-term approach to legislation, saying the message of his career is that we have a duty to those that follow. Part of fulfilling that duty is supporting public education, which Bradley calls the antidote to poverty and the way for economic development to thrive. He also sees schools as not only a place to learn, but also as resource centers that can help at-risk students receive the attention they need — everything from oral health to behavioral issues.

Tax policy is fundamental to most discussions, he said, so he supports a bipartisan evaluation that would look to rebuild the system by looking at personal and corporate income taxes, sales tax revenue and broadening the tax base for the state. Additional revenue is needed not only to fund obligations such as public education, he noted, but Arizona is more than $20 billion behind in much-needed infrastructure improvements and maintenance.

Bradley’s opponent, Republican Marilyn Wiles, is a former federal government worker who runs her own management consulting firm. She is a conservative who said it is time for new thinking and fresh ideas, but fell short on specifics.

Kirsten Engel, a professor of environmental and administrative law at the University of Arizona, said one of the reasons she hopes to be re-elected for a second term is to continue her work on criminal justice reform issues. She is a Democrat and currently part of a bipartisan committee examining incarceration and recidivism in Arizona, which has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the nation.

Environmental and water issues, along with proper funding of public education, including making higher education more affordable, continue to be at the top of her list of concerns, she said. To meet those needs, she advocates for a bipartisan group to examine revenue sources and to best determine which corporate tax reductions are benefiting the state and which are not.

Engel will also push for charter school accountability, reform for School Tuition Organizations and making sure there is transparency in how taxpayer money is being used for private education.

Domingo DeGrazia, an attorney working in foster care and Department of Child Safety cases running for his first term, shares many of the same concerns as the other candidates, including gun safety and judicial reform.

He said it is critical after the Red for Ed movement that legislators follow through on the wish of the people to make sure education funding is in place. Tax incentives and credits should align with the values of Arizonans, he said, and any change to tax policy should protect those making less.

On public safety issues, DeGrazia, a Democrat, said law enforcement should be properly funded not only to be well-trained and well-equipped, but also as part of the support from the community that will help keep them in Arizona, instead of joining departments elsewhere.

Republican Todd Clodfelter, who is running for re-election in the House, faltered during his first term with a bill to force Tucson Unified School District to sell underenrolled Santa Rita High School for pennies on the dollar to the Vail Unified School District. It was a misguided effort that went against local control and would have hurt TUSD taxpayers. He also failed to see how the Confederate flag, a symbol of secession and slavery, was not an appropriate screensaver for a computer he used inside the Legislature.

The Star endorses David Bradley for state Senate and Kirsten Engel and Domingo DeGrazia for state House in Legislative District 10.

The Arizona Daily Star editorial board endorses Hollace Lyon and Ralph Atchue for the state Legislature in District 11, which includes northern Pima County and SaddleBrooke.

Lyon, a Democrat, is running for the House against Republican incumbent Mark Finchem, Republican Brett Roberts and Democrat Marcela Quiroz. While voters will send two candidates to the Legislature, we are limiting our endorsement to Lyon.

For the Senate seat, Democrat Ralph Atchue is running against incumbent Republican Vince Leach.

We endorse Lyon and Atchue because they are impressive candidates, and because we have watched Finchem and Leach operate as two of the most right-wing conservative ideologues in the Legislature, to the detriment of LD11 and the state.

Lyon and Atchue have each run for office before and have made personal outreach a hallmark of their campaigns. Lyon said they have knocked on nearly 14,000 doors in their district, making connections with residents and hearing their concerns personally. This kind of grassroots canvassing, focusing on independent voters, is commendable and informs their positions.

Lyon is a retired Air Force colonel who has twice commanded a squadron, worked at NATO and was a strategic and budget planner for the Air Force.

Her extensive knowledge of setting goals, building systems and creating operational plans will be invaluable in the Legislature.

Atchue served in the Air Force and spent 33 years in the U.S. Postal Service, representing letter carriers and administration in labor negotiations, and retiring as a postmaster.

Atchue said, “The Governor and Legislature have put balancing the budget over everything else. They’re running it like a bargain basement business.”

We think that Hollace Lyon and Ralph Atchue will best represent LD11 and use their skills to benefit the Legislature and Arizona.

The Arizona Daily Star endorses Leila Counts and Adam Ragan for the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board.

They are running against Doug Robson, who owns a real estate management firm, and incumbents Adelita Grijalva and Michael Hicks.

Leila Counts is a fourth-generation teacher with deep roots in the district — her grandmother and mother worked there, and she is a TUSD parent.

She works as a professional development instructor for educational best practices, which she said keeps her in touch with the concerns of educators throughout Southern Arizona.

Counts specializes in positive discipline and would bring a strong voice to efforts to address the discrepancies in discipline regarding race and gender that affect TUSD, as well as most districts in the country.

She has been an advocate for children and families, worked with representatives in expansion of Head Start and Title I funds, as well as supporting better wages and smaller classroom sizes. Being on the board is the next step to bring her advocacy work to the policy level, she said.

Adam Ragan teaches senior English and dual-enrollment writing classes at Sunnyside High School and Pima Community College. The teacher’s voice and perspective are a missing piece in board discussions, he said.

“The benefit of having the teacher’s voice is that every day, from the moment I wake up to the moment I go to sleep and every moment in between, I’m focused on what I can do for my students.”

There are a lot of great things going on in TUSD, such as the dual enrollment program, JTED, career and technical education and AP offerings, some of which aren’t available at charter schools, Ragan noted, but they don’t receive the attention they deserve.

Counts and Ragan both believe it is time for a change on the board and said they would approach their position as an opportunity to refocus the district on student achievement, and to leave behind the petty personal politics that have come to characterize current leadership.

That change cannot come soon enough.

During their time, the incumbents have presided over a mass exodus from a district that has shown only moderate improvement and seems adrift in need of ideas. Grijalva — who has been on the board for 16 years — is highly knowledgeable and has always been a strong advocate for students, but her long tenure has not produced commensurate meaningful results.

Hicks, running for his third term, continues to be better known for his gaffes than for anything else — just earlier this year, he said the women on the board always appeared to be on “that day of the month.”

When his place on the ballot was challenged, he described it as a “blessing in disguise.” A man who shows such little commitment to such an important position does not deserve to be re-elected.

Counts and Ragan identified waning enrollment as one of the key challenges facing the district and how the current board seems intent on being an obstacle instead of providing solutions.

While the Legislature shares blame in not providing adequate funding, the lack of confidence and toxic atmosphere surrounding the Governing Board help push more and more parents to remove their children from the district, leading TUSD toward a death spiral.

This lack of trust in leadership also manifests itself when the district asks for help from voters through bond overrides.

“It’s embarrassing and it’s not representative of the hardworking, caring families that we’re supposed to be working for,” Counts said.

Ragan noted the board often seems to lose sight of why they are there. “They should be asking themselves, ‘How does this help kids? How is this making our children’s education better?’”

It is clear from a recent candidate forum sponsored by the Star, in which only TUSD students could ask questions, that the most important people the district serves are hungry for leadership on issues that affect the quality of their education and life inside their schools.

The Star believes Leila Counts and Adam Ragan can provide that leadership to the TUSD Governing Board.

Four candidates are running to fill two openings on the Pima Community College Board of Governors.

The Star’s editorial board endorses Maria Garcia in District 3, and Debi Chess Mabie in District 5.

Garcia and Chess Mabie demonstrate the thoroughness, vision and attention to detail the PCC board needs as it oversees a community college system with falling enrollment, revenue challenges, low employee morale, previous accreditation problems and the lasting effects of sexual harassment and retaliation accusations made against former Chancellor Roy Flores.

Garcia is running against District 3 candidate Sherryn “Vikki” Marshall, who sat on the PCC board for 12 years before losing in 2012. Marshall was part of the board during Flores’ reign, when the college faced serious problems with accreditation and mishandling of specific programs, and an outside evaluation found the Governing Board members failed to exercise oversight of Flores and in their communication.

During a board candidates’ forum last month Marshall failed to detail how she would operate differently, should she be elected. We view her past board performance as disqualifying for any elected office.

Garcia has clearly done her homework on PCC, talking with faculty, students, staff and community members. She has a handle on the outstanding problems the system faces, including falling enrollment and keeping job training programs current.

Debi Chess Mabie, the former executive director of the Arts Foundation for Tucson and Southern Arizona, has a long history with community organizations in Tucson and beyond. Her skills as an executive and nonprofit leader will translate well to the PCC Board of Governors.

Chess Mabie is facing Luis L. Gonzales, a former Pascua Yaqui tribal councilman, for the seat being vacated by (a different) Luis Gonzales. We wish Gonzales, the candidate, would provide more than generic statements about the role of PCC and the board.

Chess Mabie is focused on job training programs and making sure they’re relevant and current — a key reason why people attend community college – and financial accountability. She is upfront about what she needs to learn about the inner workings of PCC, and takes a deliberative approach rather than making vague, uninformed promises.

For these reasons, the Star’s editorial board endorses Maria Garcia in District 3 and Debi Chess Mabie in District 5 for the Pima Community College Board of Governors.

The Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board is not offering endorsements on any of the propositions this year. However, Star columnist Luis Carrasco offered his thoughts on the seven general ballot initiatives.