Southern Arizona candidates in 2022 election share their views

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

In my early 20s, I traveled to my local Marine recruiting station to make my enlistment official. Along with a dozen other recruits, I raised my hand and swore an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is not an oath I took lightly and I was proud to make that commitment to my country, and accept the mortal obligations that came with it.

Over the next four years, I served with young idealistic men and women who conducted themselves with integrity. I made lifelong friendships and drew inspiration from their stories.

It was in the Corps that I also fell in love with public service, and I began a career to protect people against dangerous individuals who would do them harm.

That short drive to the recruitment office would take me on a journey to work as a prosecutor in Denver, Maricopa County, and later in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. It would also take me on to serve as Maricopa County’s top election official, and on a campaign to serve as Arizona’s next secretary of state.

Now, as I travel around Arizona, meeting with people in diners and coffee shops, I am struck by how often I hear the same thing — we are dangerously close to losing our democracy.

Since the Jan. 6 insurrection, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and the rest of the MAGA crowd have been executing a plan. They wish to control election outcomes by controlling the election offices.

They’ve recruited and assembled a group of candidates who are willing to ignore legitimate election results if they don’t like the outcome. They want to hand select the winners, voters be damned.

My opponent in the secretary of state race is one such candidate. He’s traveled the country spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, and has already promised to hand the 2024 election to Republicans — falsifying the results if necessary.

He is a liar, potentially violent, and represents an existential threat to American democracy.

He has a long history of associating with violent separatists and extremists. He claimed to be a member of the Oath Keepers, one of the largest far-right anti-government paramilitary organizations.

He helped organize the movement that led to the January 6th insurrection, and marched on the Capitol himself.

He defended the white supremacists who held a violent rally in Charlottesville, and worked as coordinator for an organization that supported the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon.

He believes in baseless conspiracy theories like the one that says elected officials are involved in a secret pedophile network.

He is working with a vigilante group of sheriffs from around the country to intimidate citizens at polling stations under the guise of preserving election integrity.

It was also recently reported that he keeps a “Treason Watch List” and encouraged his social media followers to stockpile ammunition.

How can we give someone like this the power to oversee our elections?

I take the oath I first made 30 years ago seriously. Voting is the cornerstone of democracy. The office of Arizona Secretary of State might not come with a uniform, but it too is responsible for protecting our freedom.

Let’s join in common cause, defeat this danger and defend our elections.

The fate of our democracy hangs in the balance.

Correction: This guest opinion was corrected to reflect the accurate age Fontes enlisted in the Marines. The Star ran the guest opinion as it was submitted.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

By Kirsten Engel

Special to the Arizona Daily Star (Aug. 26, 2022)

Kirsten Engel is a former state senator, an environmental attorney, and a candidate for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District.

Once again, Arizona is bearing the brunt of a national, indeed a global, crisis. The Colorado River, lifeblood of 40 million Americans, is in peril. Long known to be over-allocated, unprecedented climate change-driven drought is today finally forcing a reckoning that drastic cuts will be required to preserve the once mighty river.

Climate change makes this everyone’s problem. But inaction by President Biden’s Department of the Interior has made it Arizona’s problem.

The good news is that the Biden administration can require cuts be taken equitably from all Lower Basin states, and importantly, from the river’s biggest water user, California. The bad news is that it has failed to follow through on its promise to do so. The even worse news is that, as a result, Arizona will be forced to continue to sacrifice more, while California and other states continue to use water in a crisis. This unfair distinction will carry far reaching and harmful consequences for farmers, municipalities and future generations.

According to the Supreme Court, the federal government has sweeping powers over Colorado River management, especially the Lower Basin, with Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation acting as “water master.” Back in June, with water levels in the river’s major reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, plummeting, Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton, appointed by Biden in 2021, announced that the Basin states had 60 days to cut 2-4 million acre-feet from their river allocations (roughly 15 percent of the river’s flow). If they didn’t, the Bureau said it would do it for them.

It seems this was just talk. Despite the states’ failure to come up with such a plan by the deadline last week, the Biden administration has done just about nothing.

Time is not on our side. Lake Mead and Lake Powell are barely above one-quarter of their capacity. If they fall much lower, they will be unable to generate hydroelectric power for millions in the West. The most effective and least disruptive steps — building more storage capacity, switching to less water-intensive farming practices, adopting water reuse and recycling programs, retrofitting homes and businesses with water-efficient appliances — all need time to develop, fund and implement.

Luckily we now have $4 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act and over $8 billion from the Infrastructure Act to help us do so. But further delay will shrink our options to the most short-term reduction measures available — measures such as paying farmers to fallow their fields year by year — rather than those that permanently transition our economy to a less water-intensive future.

Arizona is paying the price of the delay in increasingly bigger water cuts. Under the 2019 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), in 2023 Arizona must cut a fifth of its entire allocation. And California? Zero. Granted, California must shoulder future cuts should Lake Mead continue to drop, but this will occur only after Arizona has reduced nearly 800,000 acre-feet of water in mandatory cuts together with voluntary cuts negotiated with Tribal governments and others.

The DCP (which I supported as a member of the Arizona Legislature) was critical to keeping Lake Mead water levels up while we waited for a 2026 renegotiation of the River’s management guidelines. But recent events have made clear that the situation is much more dire than then understood and the DCP-mandated cuts are plainly insufficient to get us to 2023, much less 2026. Bigger cuts are required and they will need to come from other Basin states, most importantly, California.

Nature, economics and fairness all argue in favor of the Biden administration acting quickly to provide at least the framework of an equitable plan requiring the states and Mexico collectively reduce 2-4 million acre-feet from their Colorado River diversions. The river can’t wait, and nor can we in Arizona.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Flagg is a candidate for South Tucson City Council:

“Rental prices up 57% from 2021,” was the headline in Sunday’s Star. The article then said that this was a cause for concern among tenants, which may be the understatement of the year. Tenants are terrified.

Can you imagine the stress and anxiety that comes with worrying about how a 57% rent increase might force you and your family to be evicted?

The 57% increase screams out for the need for rent control. Roughly half of city of Tucson households are renters. In the city of South Tucson, even more are renters. Both are notoriously low-wage cities, and their wages are not going up. Meanwhile, all other living expenses, including gasoline and food prices, keep increasing.

This housing crisis has combined with gentrification to wreak havoc on housing affordability and all the human suffering that goes with it. Lower-income communities get hurt first and worst. Huge rent increases have led to many more people living undignified lives on the streets of Tucson and South Tucson.

There is an urgent need for some form of rent control even though the state government has prohibited local jurisdictions from implementing rent control. Also needed is a massive outlay of public funds to create and preserve the housing units needed to adequately address this extreme crisis. The problem with developers, with a few exceptions, such as the David Wohl projects and Maryann Beerling with Compass Affordable Housing, is that they build houses to make maximum profit, so they do not build truly affordable housing. They make more money developing luxury housing and market-rate housing. The issue of developers not building affordable units because they face pushback from residents opposed to density, congestion and noise is more of a collective excuse for allowing this massive social problem to exist.

Many people say that gentrification is inevitable and that these nearly impossible to pay rent hikes are the product of free market forces.

This is not true.

Gentrification, which has morphed into the housing crisis, happens because developers are supported and enabled by layers of decisions and votes by elected officials and bureaucrats in local jurisdictions. The situation is neither inevitable nor hopeless because we the people can vote these officials in or out of office.

That is why after 39 years of living and working at the Casa Maria Catholic Worker Soup Kitchen, I am running on a slate, with Roxanna Valenzuela and Cesar Aguirre, for the South Tucson City Council.

In the 1.2-square-mile city of South Tucson, we have our own City Council, courts, zoning laws, and police and fire. The challenge is how to use these unique opportunities in a creative way to defend our city, aka Barrio Libre, from monied interests poised to displace current residents and transform South Tucson into something that looks more like downtown Tucson than South Tucson.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Nickerson is a candidate for the Arizona Senate in Legislative District 17:

As a man, who will never have to decide whether to have an abortion, I hesitate to weigh in on this discussion. However, as your next state senator, I will be required to make laws that will affect medical care for every pregnant woman in Arizona.

As a pastor, I have counseled many women on this and know that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is far more complex than the current, heated “pro-life,” “pro-choice” debate frames it. I also know that the implications of anti-abortion legislation, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, are equally complex and far-reaching.

Those who dogmatically say “yes” to all anti-abortion legislation dismiss the fact that some pregnancies put the life of the woman in great jeopardy. For example, a molar pregnancy occurs when an egg has been fertilized, but there is an abnormal growth of the cells that develop into the placenta. The result is a fetus that will not survive outside the womb. This condition can lead to cancer. In most cases, a simple D&C procedure is performed to remove the molar tissue. But this medical procedure is considered criminal under many anti-abortion laws. The same can be said for ectopic pregnancies, which are more common but present similar consequences. In both situations the longer the pregnancy continues, the more likely it is that the woman will die. In these cases, the “pro-life” decision is an abortion to save the woman’s life.

Others maintain that anti-abortion legislation will result in fewer abortions. This is a fallacy. Women will continue to seek abortions, but their options will depend on discriminatory economic factors. A woman who has the means can travel to a state that has upheld the right to choose, and have a safe medical procedure without any legal repercussions. Another woman, for whom travel or absence from work is unaffordable, may find that an unsafe, risky back-alley abortion is her only option.

Doctors should be free to advise pregnant women on health decisions and consequences, without suffering penalties from legislative mandates.

“Pro-choice” also means that if a pregnant woman sincerely believes that all abortions are wrong, she can choose to carry her baby to term, even if she is advised of high risk to her own health and life. She can weigh advice from her doctor and if she chooses, her spiritual advisor. But it is her life and her decision.

As your state senator, I will make sure that these decisions are made by pregnant women and their doctors, not by legislators, many of whom will never be faced with having to make this heart-wrenching choice about their own bodies.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

By Mark Johnson

Special to the Arizona Daily Star (July 14, 2022)

Mark Johnson is a retired water utility manager who worked in top management positions for three of the nation’s largest water utilities. He has been a community volunteer his entire life. He is a candidate for Marana Town Council.

Ensuring an adequate water supply is one of my major campaign platform items as a candidate for Marana Town Council. I have provided true, fact-based data and analysis of the current water situation, all supported by my 40-year career in the water utility industry.

Let’s clear the muddied waters with the following water truths.

Water supply in Arizona is managed on a regional and local level. The Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) is our regional water system and includes the Avra Valley Aquifer and the Upper Santa Cruz Aquifer. Tucson Water, Marana Water and others manage their local water systems within TAMA.

At the regional level, TAMA’s goal is to achieve regional safe-yield, i.e., water out (pumping) is balanced by water in (natural and artificial recharge/replenishment). Any imbalance is overdraft.

From 1985 through 2020, TAMA has a cumulative overdraft of 1.8 million acre-feet. This means that over this 35-year period, 1.8 million acre-feet more water has been pumped from the aquifer than replenished. This fact is rarely discussed.

In recent years, TAMA has achieved annual safe-yield by replenishing the aquifers with Colorado River Water via the Central Arizona Project (CAP). However, considering the perilous situation with the Colorado River system, the Arizona Department of Water Resources predicts that TAMA safe yield as it stands “may be unlikely” with further Colorado River shortages.

Regional groundwater quality is also a big concern, as portions of the aquifer are contaminated with PFAS compounds and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently lowered the health advisory level to essentially zero for these chemicals in drinking water.

Although the regional water supply situation has improved in recent years, the future is not rosy with Colorado River water shortages, groundwater contamination issues and there is still the 1.8 million acre-feet deficit from past over pumping.

At the local level, Marana residents get water service from Marana Water or Tucson Water.

The incumbents tout that groundwater levels in Marana Water wells have risen and therefore all is good. But that is misleading because these wells are located adjacent to the replenishment facilities that are percolating Colorado River water into the aquifer! There are other wells farther away from these sites where water levels have dropped. They are not telling the whole story.

Furthermore, groundwater level has nothing to do with how much groundwater can be withdrawn. Marana Water will soon reach the point where its current approved 100-year water supply annual CAP allocation and recycled wastewater will be used up to meet rising water demand and then groundwater must be used. However, Marana only has a one-time groundwater allowance of about 3,000 acre-feet (one year of water). When that’s gone, any groundwater removed must be replenished with Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District water which is costly, shorter-term (not 100 years) and can be subject to the same cut backs as CAP water. The incumbents simply state there is plenty of groundwater and leave out the important details.

According to public records request data provided to me by Marana, the Marana Planning Commission and Town Council have approved 28,850 building lots as of the end of 2021. Marana has enough existing approved 100-year supply to provide water to 11,620 of those lots. Therefore, there are 17,230 lots of which there is not an approved 100-year water supply. The majority of the approved lots were the result of rezoning, whereby housing density was increased by a factor as high as 18. Rezoning and approving subdivisions prior to obtaining an approved 100-year water supply is not a sustainable action. It is reckless.

When I am elected to the Marana Town Council, I will work toward: 1) eliminating the TAMA cumulative overdraft, 2) monitoring aquifer groundwater quality and ensuring compliance with drinking water standards, 3) establishing a bona fide 100-year water supply before any rezoning and subdivision approvals, 4) ensuring Marana’s 100-year water supply takes into account that CAP water is not 100% reliable and 5) any groundwater replenishment water must be from a 100-year water supply source.

Rest assured; I will provide clear water facts.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

The Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade, removing federal protections for the right to have an abortion — and opening the door to restricting more of our rights.

To make matters worse, our current Arizona attorney general has indicated he will seek to enforce the currently-enjoined territorial law (enacted even before Arizona became a state in 1912) that makes it a crime for anyone to provide an abortion.

When I’m speaking to the voters of Legislative District 18 at their doors, I hear a common refrain: Shock, that the Supreme Court could reverse a policy that women have counted on for half a century. Anger, that six unelected justices could so suddenly take away the rights of half the population to control their own bodies. Fear, that other fundamental rights will fall next.

Now we know that it’s up to each state whether we have the right to access the full suite of health care options during pregnancy, including abortion. And given the laws Arizona has recently passed with its thin Republican majority, our concerns are valid.

I share the voters’ concerns, for I was recently pregnant. I had my second child almost four months ago, and watched with concern–bordering on panic–as our state Legislature passed laws during my pregnancy impacting the health care I could receive.

Due to pandemic precautions, a shortage of health care workers from burnout, or simply the provider’s policy — or all three — I was not able to schedule my first appointment until I was 12 weeks pregnant. Remember, the “weeks” begin counting from the last menstruation, so a person can be considered a few weeks pregnant immediately after conception.

Although I had been trying for pregnancy and testing regularly, my first appointment at 12 weeks was not much more than a confirmation that yes, indeed, I was pregnant. It would not be for a few more weeks that I would be able to have the additional tests that could confirm that the pregnancy was proceeding without complications for my health and the health of the fetus.

Earlier last year, the Legislature passed a law criminalizing the provision of abortion for reasons of genetic abnormalities, and I was waiting for my own test results during the time this law would go into effect. Thankfully, this law was quickly put on hold while lawsuits were pending.

But just last week the U.S. Supreme Court allowed that law to go into effect while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals continues to consider its legality.

I’m so grateful to Mayor Romero and the Tucson City Council, who recently announced a directive that Tucson police will not make arrests over these new laws. And I’m thankful that the Democratic nominee for state attorney general, Kris Mayes, has promised she will not prosecute people for seeking or providing abortions.

However, there continues to be uncertainty in Arizona over what the state of the law is at this exact moment, and what additional restrictions on our individual freedoms will follow.

But here’s another thing I hear at voters’ doors: Resolve that women will rise up as a result of this decision and ensure that we protect our rights once again.

Now that the Supreme Court has removed federal protections to access an abortion and to control our own bodies, it is more important than ever to elect people at the state and local levels who will fight for our rights.

We need to elect representatives who can speak from experience and who will not be swayed by dreams of bipartisan action.

That’s why I’m proud to be the only LD18 Senate candidate endorsed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and Arizona List as a champion for protecting reproductive rights. I will do my utmost to be faithful to that trust if elected, for the sake of all who are capable of pregnancy.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Gutierrez is a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 18:

We now know that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. This will negatively impact so many, and it will disproportionally affect women of color and poor women the most. It will also hurt people in our LGBTQIA+ communities.

I am fortunate. I never had to make the decision to have an abortion, actually it was the opposite. My husband and I struggled to become pregnant twice. These two young adult daughters of ours do not have the same choices and rights that I’ve had my entire life. The right to abortion is one that all people who become pregnant should have. It is not a decision that should be given to the government.

As a public high school teacher, I’ve had several students who have become pregnant during high school. There is no easy decision to be made. Some can talk to their families, but not all. Some became pregnant after consensual sex, but not all. Some have chosen to continue with their pregnancies, but not all. I will fight to ensure this right to abortion for my daughters, my students and for anyone who does not want to continue a pregnancy.

For all who call themselves “pro-life,” I have a few questions. Do you support more money for healthcare and childcare after the birth? Do you support tax money funding health pregnancy care? Do you support real sex education in schools so that we might lower the unwanted pregnancy rate in the first place? Do you support free birth control? Do you support condoms in school and vasectomies for men who don’t want to support children that they produce?

It’s so interesting to me that many “pro-life” supporters do not support any of these ideas. So, it seems that it isn’t really about life, but it is all about controlling pregnant people’s bodies.

It’s time that we demand that the term pro-life stop being used flippantly when it comes to reproductive freedom. Why do lawmakers insist that they have the right to dictate what we do with our bodies when it comes to pregnancy, but not vaccines or masks?

Because this isn’t about life, it’s about control.

As long as they can control our bodies, they control our lives. Let’s stop controlling bodies. Let’s stop controlling women. Let’s stop pretending that this is about life and not about control. Reproductive freedom is a human right and I will not stand by and watch it be taken away without a fight. This is one of the reasons that I chose to run for the Arizona State House. For my daughters, my students and all people who are pregnant, let’s stand together and fight!

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Hernandez is president of the Sunnyside Unified School District Governing Board and a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD 21:

The positive impact that Latino communities have on the U.S. should be celebrated. We have over 5 million small businesses that contribute a collective $800 billion to the American economy every year. More than 60 million of us work, attend school, raise our families and give back to our communities here.

We deserve to have a voice on the issues that affect us, especially when these issues will impact our access to banking and financial resources.

CNBC reports that Hispanic Americans are paying nearly three times as much as white Americans to keep their bank accounts open, and Brookings Institution data shows that 32% of Latino Americans are either unbanked or underbanked. This is a significant barrier to financial stability. And a serious issue that could affect many in our communities. Congress should focus on economic policies that will help us build wealth and access the banking services that modern life requires.

I am specifically concerned about certain harmful legislative policies that are making their way back to the Senate floor. Twelve years ago, Congress passed the Durbin Amendment, which added regulations to interchange fees, the fees merchants pay to process debit and credit card transactions in their stores. The fees help keep our massive electronic payment system up and running and fund crucial features like fraud protection.

The Durbin Amendment added multiple debit regulations that took billions out of our electronic payment system, regulations that they’re now trying to extend to our credit system.

First, the amendment imposed a routing mandate, which forced banks to add an additional “unaffiliated” payment network to their debit cards. This meant that instead of always processing debit card transactions on the reliable payment networks they know, merchants were free to choose a cheaper network that is rarely the most secure.

The Durbin Amendment also placed a cap on the interchange fees that merchants pay per transaction. Naturally, massive retailers saw major cuts to the amount they paid in interchange fees and gained nearly $100 billion in extra revenue. Yet studies show this has had little to no impact on their prices for consumers. This is because it is never truly passed down to us, the consumers. These big corporations make more money while we pay more.

Proponents of the Durbin Amendment will argue that it helped marginalized consumers, but we can look at numerous studies from Harvard University, the Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. Federal Reserve and know that this is not the case. Interchange fee revenue helps to pay for perks like rewards programs and fraud protection while allowing banks to keep account fees low and free checking accessible. When banks saw billion-dollar interchange fee losses, they made huge cuts to all of the above, contributing to a total consumer loss of between $22 and $25 billion.

Losses of this scale always hit financially marginalized Americans the hardest, and the fallout from the Durbin Amendment was no exception. More than 1 million people lost their bank accounts after this amendment made banking more expensive, according to a study from George Mason University. The people hurt came primarily from Black and Brown communities and low-income areas that already face disparities in banking access.

On top of hurting consumers, the Durbin Amendment is bad for our small businesses. This is why folks from national Latino advocacy groups like the Latino Coalition and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce have spoken out against it. Hispanic Chamber President Ramiro Cavazos even wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this year pointing out that the 2010 routing mandates caused, “roughly two million Hispanic small businesses to see price increases as a result of the original regulation American consumers.”

Extending routing mandates to credit cards is the wrong choice for Latino consumers and our small businesses. Our electronic payment system will be gutted, banks will lose billions, and try to make up those losses by raising interest rates and fees, reducing rewards programs and restricting credit access. Congress should reject any policies that will restrict credit access from Latinos.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Abraham is a state representative from Tucson and a candidate for the Arizona Senate in Legislative District 18:

The first time I ever shot a gun was in basic training for the Army. Not only did the Army give me an education on the many practical aspects of guns, but much more importantly, my experience ingrained in me a complete respect and clear perspective on how to interact with them. And I think Arizona, and America, can learn from that example.

First, I learned that we don’t call them guns. We either call them by their type — pistol, rifle — or more often, we call them “weapons” to emphasize the power of these devices. If you want to get yelled at in basic training, just use the word “gun” around your drill sergeant — I certainly learned the hard way not to make that mistake.

I remember feeling scared and nervous before pulling the trigger for the first time. But not because this was my first time touching a firearm. These feelings arose from the fact that the I had just spent 16 hours a day studying, learning about, and training to use a weapon. I read manuals on the rate of fire, distance, and bullet velocity at which these weapons shoot. I saw pictures of real-life battlefield damage these weapons do. I trained on dummy weapons and even trained on high-tech simulators, all before I ever fired a real bullet.

Looking back, what the Army was doing with all this training was building a culture of respect for these weapons that is built from an understanding of the power they hold and the responsibility that comes with having access that power. That culture of respect is supported by policies. Here’s how they do it.

To start, every single soldier is vetted and background checked before they even step foot at basic training, and we are regularly checked up on after that.

We are required to re-qualify on our weapon systems every single year, with days of training and shooting practice each time. Like clockwork, we train and train again to ensure our competency.

We also undergo constant screening for mental health. In my basic training class, we had a solider get red flagged for a mental health issue. I watched as the very first thing the drill sergeant did was separate that soldier from their weapon. Only then did they address the solider.

We store our weapons like they are gold. We have alarm systems around our weapons vault, and if those alarms ever fail, we post soldiers to guard the vault 24 hours a day. If a weapon is missing on base, everything stops, everywhere, until the search is complete and successful. It literally becomes our top priority.

From my training to my current service, the Army has provided me with a firsthand view of what commonsense gun laws look like in practice — background checks, training, red flag procedures, and safe storage requirements.

The measures aren’t based on a dislike or opposition to gun ownership. Quite the opposite – they’re based on respect for the power these weapons have. And the finest defensive force in the world has decided that guns and these policies go hand in hand.

I think we can learn from them to make our state a better place. Commonsense gun policies work in the Army to make us effective and keep us safe. They can work in Arizona too.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Roxanna Valenzuela is a candidate for South Tucson City Council:

Two years ago, two unexpected crises shifted my life forever — the pandemic and the gentrification of my home. These crises forced me to change my perspective and my purpose in life.

I grew up in the South Park neighborhood, the barrio right next to South Tucson, in a Habitat for Humanity house where to this very day my parents still live. I’m a Tucson High School grad, class of 2005. Most of my family lived in this tight-knit community. I remember every street where each of my tias lived. I remember the local restaurants, the businesses where families would shop and hang out.

Our Mexican culture was everywhere — the Norteño festivals, the greyhound swap meet, mariachi bands and the lowrider cars shows.

One of our favorite customs was to attend the vigil for the Virgen de Guadalupe every year on Dec. 12, the gifts we got from Ramon Gonzalez’s Miracle on 31st Street Christmas party, and when our dad would treat us to brunch at Rigo’s when he had extra money. Our family did not have much money, but we held onto our Mexican values of respect for the family and our community. One of my biggest fears is that my daughter won’t have the chance to grow up in the same or better environment that I did because our culture will be stolen from us.

What I witnessed during the pandemic was alarming. Our people were evicted from their homes and there were no decent alternatives, no way to re-establish family stability, no way to help the family’s mental health after being uprooted.

Several months ago, I went with my colleagues from Casa Maria Catholic worker community (where I now work) and knocked on almost every single door in the City of South Tucson. Virtually everyone we spoke with was afraid of being displaced from their homes. They feared the landlords who were renovating would raise the rent, forcing them out. They saw the investors who were harassing them with postcards as threatening their home and their community lifestyle.

The people of South Tucson know that the laws protect realtors, landlords and developers and not low-income families. Our housing can be pulled out from under us, and with it our mental health, while the developers build and make a profit.

This displacement is part and parcel of gentrification. I am running for South Tucson City Council to promote policies that give people a fighting chance to stay in their homes. I plan to support an aggressive affordable housing plan and more programs that lead to homeownership for low-income families.

I’m running on a slate with my two friends, Cesar Aguirre and Brian Flagg. We are far from being your regular politicians. We stand independent and are ready to defend the people of South Tucson with all that we have.

Roxanna Valenzuela is a candidate for South Tucson City Council. She is a community organizer and former small business owner who grew up in the barrios of South Tucson.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Allmond is a Democratic candidate for the Arizona State House of Representatives in Legislative District 17:

As a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and a mother of four children, I am more qualified to speak on the tragic events in Uvalde, Texas, than most. Military service members know the destruction an assault rifle will always inflict on a human body. We must not allow weapons of war to be sold as recreational entertainment. Their sole purpose is to kill and to kill in a devastating fashion.

The Declaration of Independence holds that we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is a reason the word “life” is listed first. If you are not alive, you have no liberty. If you are dead, you cannot pursue happiness. The victims in Uvalde were slaughtered. Our children are absolutely not expendable.

The American gun lobby abuses the privilege of gun ownership. They are directly responsible for the death and maiming of American children. Consider for a moment, bullets from an AR-15 traveling three times the speed of a handgun. The shrapnel sends shock waves throughout young bodies. Bones are shattered. Organs explode. It’s a bomb going off in their bodies!

When originally written, the U.S. Constitution did not give blanket permission for citizens to own any future weapon that could possibly be created. In the world of the Founders, their point of reference was a musket. Tragically, in the seconds it might take for the mythical “good guy with a gun” to reach for their weapon, dozens of children can be mowed down. There is no time to react, let alone protect the innocent. While the children in Robb Elementary School were screaming in their classrooms, the police cowered outside putting their personal safety first. The loudest voices in the gun debate scream about tyranny, but real tyranny is being murdered in spaces that should have been safe. Places of worship. Grocery stores. Schools. The list is too long.

Polls reveal regardless of political party affiliation, over 80% of Americans want universal background checks for gun purchases. We want restrictions on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. Require every individual buying a gun to view autopsy photos of the children slaughtered by their cluelessness.

Contrary to our shared public values, the gun lobby stomps its feet like spoiled brats while our children are forced to grow up too quickly; participating in active shooter drills and learning how to apply tourniquets to their classmates and teachers. My three youngest children have participated in active shooter drills since they were in preschool. Assault rifles are not toys and our children are not the enemy.

We demand Congress pass gun legislation now. Our children must thrive and live without fear of being gunned down. We will never stay silent!

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Nathan Davis is a Democratic candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 18:

In April, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee released a report projecting a $5.3 billion budget surplus. Since then, the Republican majority in the Arizona Legislature has mostly put forward plans to cut taxes for the rich and expand vouchers for private and religious schools.

I’d like to put forward an alternative: put it all into our public schools.

I experienced the repercussions of the decision to underfund our public schools as a teacher: students not receiving the support they need, classrooms without working A/C in August, families and educators frustrated and dejected.

While campaigning for the Arizona House of Representatives, I’ve spoken with scores of families concerned about the state of public education.

After decades of systematic underfunding, it’s time that we elect leaders who will do more than just bringing public education funding back to pre-Great Recession levels. It’s time that we push for policies that expand what we mean by public education.

I have three proposals that I will put forward if elected to the Arizona House of Representatives.

First, universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old in Arizona. Child care is a significant burden for Arizona families and preschool is too often out of reach. Studies suggest that the return on investment in preschool education is roughly $10 dollars for every dollar spent. Other states and Washington, D.C., have embraced the need to provide high-quality, public preschool. It’s time that Arizona follow suit.

Second, free two-year community college for every high school graduate. Most Arizonans live within a reasonable drive from a community college. For thousands, they are a gateway for higher education and job training. Every dollar invested in community college education leads to an average return of $5.40 for the student and $2.10 for the state.

Third, we must bring the per pupil funding for public schools to at least the national median and pass additional policies to support K-12 schools, students and educators.

The voters made clear in their approval of Proposition 208 that they want the state to spend more on public education. With the budget surplus, we can fulfill the will of the voters and fund public education based on the Proposition 208 formula.

Additionally, we must fund all-day kindergarten throughout Arizona; place a cap on class sizes and allocate the funding necessary to hire additional teachers and build and supply additional classrooms; and provide additional funding to programs like Teach for Arizona and Arizona Teaching Fellow to train and attract new educators.

With the current budget surplus, Arizona has the opportunity to radically invest in the future without raising a single dime in new taxes. Let’s not waste this opportunity.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Priya Sundareshan is a Democratic candidate for the Arizona Senate in LD 18:

We’re all waiting for the Arizona Legislature to pass a budget for the coming year, and hoping desperately that our legislators will put the $5.5 billion surplus towards what voters have long been clamoring for — our public schools. But instead, it appears that they are busy passing laws that (as even they admit) don’t need to be passed.

Is the Legislature focused on other pressing issues that face Arizonans, like making sure that we use water responsibly in the face of cuts from the Colorado River, or transitioning away from fossil energy given the worsening impacts of climate change?

Nope — but something that was important enough to the Republican majority last week was adding more hurdles to voting. Last week, the Legislature sent a number of election-related bills to Gov. Ducey for his signature, including one banning same-day voter registration. Never mind that Arizona law already prohibits same-day voter registration, because we require voters to register to vote 29 days before an election!

This is a pattern for our current Legislature, which this year also passed a law requiring all registered voters to provide proof of citizenship, in violation of federal law. (That was the same week they passed other dangerous bills in search of a problem, banning abortions at 15 weeks’ gestation and attacking transgender children). And last year they passed a law to weaken our beloved vote-by-mail system, hoping to kick voters off the mailing list if they miss a few elections. Plus, let’s not forget the “fraudit,” which cost us taxpayer money, time, and national embarrassment, handing over Maricopa County ballots to a set of grifters merely to confirm the 2020 election outcome while finding zero evidence of fraud.

I advocated against these bills while leading the state Democratic Party’s Election Integrity Committee. These changes to our voting laws are unnecessary and a waste of time. I have volunteered alongside members of the Republican and Libertarian parties in the processes that ensure our elections are secure: from the logic and accuracy testing before the election to confirm that the machines are counting ballots correctly, to the hand count audit of ballots after the election to confirm again that the machines counted correctly. The people who serve as poll workers take their responsibilities seriously to make sure the ballots are securely transported from polling locations.

I’m grateful for our local and county officials overseeing elections, who work very hard to ensure the security and accuracy of our democratic process. They’re even improving our voting procedures! Thanks to the actions of our Pima County recorder and supervisors, our county is joining other Arizona counties to institute vote centers that will make it possible to vote anywhere in the county. From my experience working in voter protection and running an information hotline, I can tell you that many voters were confused about where they could cast a ballot. And I can tell you how heartbreaking it is to hear that a voter made the effort to vote, but was at the wrong polling place and didn’t have enough time to get to the correct location to cast their ballot. This year, Pima County voters will have more options!

Our elections are secure. But at the state Legislature, the Big Lie of election fraud persists. We can ask Gov. Ducey to veto these bills, but he has not yet rejected a voter suppression bill sent to him. Make no mistake — we need a new Legislature with a Democratic majority if we are going to escape this whirlpool of lies.

In the meantime, we have a chance through the Arizona Fair Elections Initiative to approve changes to make voting easier and more accessible than ever before, and they can use your help now collecting signatures to put that question before the voters in November.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Kat Stratford is a Democratic candidate for the state House of Representatives in LD 18:

It looked like an archetype of a haunted house as we pulled up. Three stories tall with worn paint, and covered in vines, the house my mother was born in lies in ruins. A fitting end to a building that once played host to “ruined” women: the Evangeline Booth Maternity Home in Richmond, Virginia.

There’s a lot we don’t know about the woman who gave birth to my mother. But we know that in 1947, a woman named Rachel had found herself pregnant and unwed 26 years before Roe v. Wade. Abortions were illegal, and even obtaining an illicit operation was expensive and dangerous; botched abortions accounted for about 40% of maternal deaths during this time.

If a hasty wedding was out of the question, women were often sent to maternity homes and hidden away until the baby was born. Often, these homes were abusive. Women were not told what to expect, and left to labor alone in the dark for hours before delivery. Some birth mothers were not even allowed to see or hold their baby. Many were unlawfully coerced into adoption, and told they had no rights in the matter.

We don’t know how Rachel was treated. We know that she cared for my mother for the first 6 weeks of her life, and named her Judith. We know that she named her next child after the baby she’d given up. A 1950 census showed her waitressing in Richmond, indicating that her family never accepted her after her pregnancy- a common consequence at the time. She eventually married and had other children. She died in 2001.

Some years later, my mother, named Ann by her adoptive parents, found herself pregnant, unwed, and just beginning a career in computer programming. In her state, Ann had a choice. She chose to terminate her pregnancy and start a family on her own terms when it was right. Many years later, she had my sister and I.

Until recently, I never understood my sister’s fascination with our biological family. She began piecing together the mystery of our ancestors in her spare time, and eventually traced our biological grandmother, grandfather, cousins, and more. But still, these were people who I felt had rejected us. Rachel had made that choice.

It wasn’t until my sister organized a pilgrimage to our mother’s birthplace that I decided to read more about the circumstances that led to my mom’s adoption. As we explore the ruins of this place, I look at the boarded up windows, and imagine Rachel looking out at the street. Maybe holding my mother. I picture that winter, when she would hold her baby for the last time.

As I mentioned, we don’t know a lot about Rachel. I don’t know whether she wanted my mother, or hoped the father would marry her. I don’t know what kind of bond she may have formed with my mother in caring for her. Did she love her? How could she not? There’s a million questions whose answers lay in an unremarkable cemetery plot in Virginia, where they’ll remain forever shrouded in mystery. But there is one thing we do know:

Rachel never had a choice. My mother did, thanks to laws that came before Roe v. Wade cemented our right to choose in legal precedent.

My sister and I are the direct products of my mother’s right to choose. We are also products of a choice that was denied to another woman a generation before.

It’s been 74 years since Rachel was robbed of her choice; the same choice that is being taken from her great-grandchildren.

There’s a lot I don’t know about Rachel. But I know one thing: she’d hope we have more rights than she did. She’d want us to have a choice.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Abraham is a state representative from Tucson, representing Legislative District 10. He is a candidate for state senate in Legislative District 18:

It’s no secret that Arizona has a major water problem. Wells are going dry in rural Arizona, Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at record lows, and a federal Tier 1 water shortage has been called in our state.

Water can be a complicated and an intimidating subject, but the potential solutions are simple in concept. The problem is that we are not going to have enough water in Arizona in the future based on our current uses and projected growth. The solution can be broken down into two approaches — to bring more water to Arizona (augmentation) or to use less water (conservation).

The governor has released his idea for solving our water problem in the form of the Arizona Water Authority. This water authority would be an entity that would help finance water augmentation projects, such as a desalination project in the Sea of Cortez.

I am glad to see the governor focus on Arizona’s water problem and propose to spend $1 billion to address our water needs. But I believe water conservation should play a major role in our efforts to solve this crisis.

As a legislator, I take the experiences I have had and apply them toward problems we face in Arizona. As a small business owner, I am always limited by the recourses my business has and decide on which projects to pursue based on the rate of return. As an Army officer, when I’m tasked with a mission, I decide on the best course of action based on how much time each approach would take, and its probability of success.

I look at water the exact same way as I run my business and lead in the Army. We need to measure conservation versus augmentation based on the rate of return, probability of success, and time frame of each approach.

Water is commonly measured in the unit of an “acre-foot,” which equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep. The best projects save water at the lowest cost per acre-foot over the lifetime of the project and can be completed in the shortest time. When you compare the two, conservation is simply cheaper, more reliable, and faster than augmentation.

Conservation is a model that we’ve proven locally. Tucson Water reports that their high efficiency toilet incentives save water at a cost of less than $250 per acre-foot over the lifetime of the project. Their programs to upgrade irrigation systems and washing machines save water at a cost of around $1,000 per acre-foot. These projects are easy to replicate and take no more than a month to complete.

Beyond our cities, there are plenty of opportunities to incentivize water conservation. Transitioning agricultural land from flood irrigation to drip irrigation can save water for under $250 acre-foot over the lifetime of the project — even after factoring in transition costs, irrigation experts testified at the Legislature. Again, these projects are easy to replicate and a take less than a month to complete. When you consider that over 70% of the water used in Arizona is used for agriculture, these projects alone can save hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water per year.

Now, compare that to our best estimate for an augmentation project. The desalination project in the Sea of Cortez is estimated to deliver water at a cost of as much as $3,000 to $4,000 per acre-foot – 3 to 12 times more expensive than conservation solutions. It will also take at least a decade to complete and has a much smaller probability of success due to the complexities of the project — including environmental impact studies, international coordination, land acquisition, construction, maintenance, and more.

Arizona has major water challenges, and all options should be available to us. Augmentation will play a role in our future, and for Arizona to thrive in the long run, we need a healthy balance of water conservation projects and water augmentation projects.

But we don’t have time to wait for solutions — we need water now. The best bang for our buck is conservation policies that incentivize projects and promote better water use now. Conservation is cheaper, easier, and will yield water on a quicker timeline.

That is why I am fighting at the Legislature to expand the scope of the Arizona Water Authority to include conservation, not just augmentation. The water crisis is too important for us not to fight with everything we have.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Gutierrez is a teacher in the Tucson Unified School District and a candidate for the Arizona House in LD 18:

What should Arizona do with a $5 billion surplus? Well, as a public school teacher and Arizona state House candidate, I’ve got a few ideas.

Arizona is notorious for spending the least amount possible on public education. In turn, we spend among the least amount per pupil, have one of the lowest median teacher salary structures in the country and we have schools that are literally crumbling. This has been the long-term plan of the GOP, and they have done a very good job at being very bad to public education. I have some ideas for the surplus money, and since the Republicans aren’t including the Democrats in our Legislature to be part of the discussion, I write to all of you.

This $5 billion surplus includes roughly $4 billion that can easily be spent on one-time expenses that will greatly benefit our schools. The heat is on and many school districts have buses with no air conditioning and are in need of repair. Many of us teach in buildings that have no working air conditioning. At my school, there are tiles that have pulled up from the floor and not enough usable classrooms to give each teacher their own space.

We can use some of this surplus to renovate rooms, put flooring in, update air conditioners, and replace and repair portable classrooms that are falling apart. Our desktop computers are over 15 years old and my department’s printer (yes, one printer for the department) is ancient.

Some of that $5 billion could go a long way for these incredibly needed upgrades in schools across our state.

Safety is a concern on many parents’ minds, including mine. A portion of this $5 billion would be very well spent on hallway and entrance cameras, updating security gates and locks and making sure our buildings are safe for all who are on campus. In some classrooms, we can not hear emergency announcements because the systems have never been updated. This is not because we haven’t wanted to spend money on updating. It’s because there is no money in the school district budget to do the updating.

Let’s talk about text books. I was a text book salesperson in 2002 in California. I sold books to middle and high schools. These were high-quality books with new literature and state standards built into them. When I got to my current school in 2013, I was shocked to see those very same books that were from 2002 on the shelves of the English classrooms. As a matter of fact, they are the very same books being used today. It is unjust to ask teachers and students to use outdated textbooks when we have billions in our budget.

You might be wondering why I haven’t proposed spending this money on salaries. After all, Arizona teachers and staff are extremely underpaid. We absolutely do need to spend money on salaries. There is approximately $1 billion in recurring money that should go to teacher and staff salaries. The money that we need to use for bringing our teacher salaries to at least 25th in the nation, or giving all the paraprofessionals and security and secretaries and lunch workers a raise to get at least $15 an hour, has to come from a sustainable source. That must come in a budget line item that lasts longer than the expected surplus over the next few years.

Guess what? We can afford that too! We have always been able to afford public education to be funded, but the party in charge has never made it a priority. They won’t. In order for us to fully fund our public schools and give every single student a quality and equitable education, we must vote. I will “fight like a teacher” to get that done. I ask that you make it a priority to contact your state legislators today and ask them to spend the money on education. I ask that you mark your calendar now for Aug. 2, 2022. That is the primary election and it is critical that we all vote.

I am going to continue to fight like a teacher to win a seat in the House and bring my teacher’s voice to our Legislature. Please raise your voice and demand that we serve our Arizona children today.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Mathis is a Democrat who represents LD 9 in the Arizona House of Representatives. He is running for election in the new LD 18:

Arizona has a budget surplus of over $5 billion. This gives us the opportunity to make a substantial down payment to reverse a 30-year decline in supporting public education.

Voters made it clear where they stand on public education funding when they approved Proposition 208 in November 2020. The “Invest in Education Act” would have brought class size, teacher salaries and teacher retention out of the cellar, where Arizona now ranks, and closer to the national median.

But the Arizona Supreme Court intervened, ruling that spending limits would prevent schools from using the revenue generated by Prop 208, and this ultimately rendered the entire measure invalid. In theory, the Legislature could have suspended those limits or referred a corrective measure to the ballot but the majority party was not interested.

To be blunt: the people want to put more funding into our public schools. Elected Arizona Republicans, by and large, don’t.

This debate isn’t difficult to understand. Democrats, Independents, business leaders and the majority of voters believe one of the state’s principal responsibilities is to educate the future workforce of Arizona. The state budget should reflect this priority.

Our kids are our future. What happens in public schools today will form the foundation for our economy in the decades to come. We should be improving opportunities for our young people by hiring more teachers, training them better and producing better-educated students. Arizona’s children do not deserve any less than kids in Texas or Colorado or New Mexico. The stronger we make our public schools, the more we will see high-wage jobs staying in and coming to Arizona.

Republicans prefer tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthiest Arizonans and taxpayer-subsidized vouchers to pay for private schools. Vouchers already divert $300 million from public education but Republicans insist that middle-income taxpayers should pay even more to support private schools. Voters had their say in 2017 when 65% opposed a ballot measure to expand vouchers but Republicans didn’t get the message. Legislation to expand vouchers has moved through the Legislature on party-line votes.

Other developments in Phoenix illustrate the challenges ahead. In less than an hour, the House Appropriations Committee recently passed sweeping changes to K-12 funding, including the elimination of additional pay for experienced teachers. This would cut teacher salaries, which are already 49th in the country. Another Republican-backed bill responded to the shortage of qualified teachers by weakening the requirements to become a teacher.

And yet, Arizona’s budget surplus means resources are now available to address the most serious issues facing K-12 education: teacher and staff salaries, class size, retention of good teachers and a chronic shortage of counselors. In 2020, Gallup surveyed 3,600 Arizona residents for the Center for the Future of Arizona and again found that education was a top priority. 73% — a majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents — said we should spend more on public education and 92% agreed we should ensure all public schools have high-quality teachers and principals.

Public funds should be spent on public schools. Voters should be allowed to eliminate the spending cap and current funding sources like Prop 301 must be protected. We should strive to fund schools and teacher salaries at least at the nation’s median level if not greater.

Whatever shape the current legislative budget negotiations take, we should take full advantage of our historic $5.3 billion budget surplus, which includes an ongoing annual surplus of over $1.5 billion, and dedicate $2 billion of it to significantly strengthen and stabilize public education.

With our expanding economy, growing population and the increasing need for an educated and skilled workforce, why shouldn’t Arizona become a national leader in public education investment and outcomes?

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Rep. Raúl Grijalva represents Arizona's 3rd Congressional District. He is running for reelection in the new 7th Congressional District:

President Biden recently announced that he is weighing broad student loan forgiveness for nearly 43 million people. He should. It’s the right thing to do.

Many conservatives and wealthy Republicans have indignantly called President Biden “desperate” and mocked the president for its consideration, but the facts remain: Arguments against canceling student debt are arguments for keeping generations of Black and Brown borrowers in debt, held back from investing in their communities, and maintaining the racial wealth gap.

As student debt ticks higher, it’s clear that we need to immediately act to help those desperate individuals that are forced to take on student loans to afford a higher education, especially our educators.

The introduction of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program in 2007 was a godsend for educators. After 10 years of qualifying payments, loans would be forgiven. Sixteen years later, most educators have yet to receive that promise.

Educators and other public servants who were promised loan forgiveness under PSLF were met with frivolous and at times unlawful administrative barriers and errors. Countless borrowers were forced into administrative deferment — many numerous times — which added significant accumulation of interest when loans were transferred to other servicers. Servicing transfers led to months of processing delays and lost payments, which were not included in the recent revisions.

Recent revisions to the PSLF by the Department of Education restored hope by counting previously disqualified payments and ineligible loans. The Department estimates that these revisions will move 550,000 borrowers “closer to cancellation,” which may still not be enough to ease the financial burden of the pandemic on our nation’s educator workforce.

Our current public servant student loan forgiveness program is based on making 10 years of qualifying payments before qualifying for full student loan forgiveness. With low teaching salaries and high cost of education and certification, this system makes little sense and deters future educators-especially those in high needs areas and fields-from entering the profession. The future of the education workforce and well-being of our children is at stake.

To become a teacher, a 2022 high school graduate could take on as much as $39,500 in student loans for a bachelor’s degree. In addition to a bachelor’s degree, the average teaching certification program costs $15,000. For many teachers in Arizona and across the nation, the math does not add up.

In some states, teacher salaries are under $40,000 while the cost to become a teacher greatly exceeds that, forcing many educators to take on second and third jobs to make ends meet.

Ultimately, the greater impact of these costs are on educators of color, who disproportionately take out student loans, compared to their white counterparts, and are desperately needed in communities that look like them.

The pandemic underscored the financial insecurity of the teaching profession. While many degrees afford social mobility, degrees in education often fail to offset the cost of entering the teaching profession or provide a living wage.

Many educators have said enough is enough. Arizona is one of many states currently facing a teacher shortage and less than one in five vacancies were filled in 2021, and over half by non-certified teachers.

In celebration of Teacher’s Appreciation week, the best gift the Biden administration could give is to immediately forgive student loans for teachers and wipe away debt for millions of families and professionals struggling to build their wealth. There is no excuse to delay much needed student loan forgiveness, which was a key part of its platform upon entering office.

In the meantime, the Biden administration should update the PSLF program to provide necessary financial security and incentivize educators to remain in the profession. The Department of Education should shift to a tiered system of partial and sequential forgiveness based on years of service.

We should further fix the administrative errors and accommodate teachers by changing qualifying student loan payments to qualifying years of service. The Department of Education should also consider reimbursement of educator credentialing costs and absolve teachers who qualify of their student debt.

Performing duties as a public servant should be rewarded, rather than forcing educators across the nation to their breaking point. Teachers should be celebrated for teaching through a crisis, not punished if they must choose between life and livelihood during a global pandemic.

We all likely have a teacher to thank for guiding us on our journey. They have encouraged students and people, including myself, to pursue knowledge and become lifelong learners. Dr. Jill Biden is a daily reminder of the importance of teachers.

Immediate action should be taken to cancel student debt. It’s time for the Biden administration to show their appreciation for educators and other public servants before student loan repayments restart. There are nearly 50 million students in public school; failing to support teachers will be detrimental to this generation and the future leadership of our nation.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Morgan Abraham is a state representative from Tucson, representing District 10:

Like many Arizonans, my parents came to this state in search of a better life. My dad immigrated to this country with no money and no college degree, and chose Arizona for the opportunity to get a job and build a life. My mom, a lifelong schoolteacher, chose Arizona for the state’s strong public education system at the time.

Driven by people with similar stories, Arizona has grown rapidly over the past 50 years, and is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Families moved here for high-quality public education, and for economic opportunity. And in doing so, they built our state into what it is today.

I am so grateful for my parents’ decision to plant roots in Arizona. My dad was able to get a great education, and later, a great job. My mom felt valued as a teacher and made a living wage. With those jobs, they were able to give my brothers and sisters and me access to more opportunities than they had ever had.

Arizona’s investments in education meant that I was able to go to high-quality public schools, which allowed me to go on to attend the University of Arizona. Now, I work to do my part to make this state better as a small-business owner, Army Reserve officer and current member of the Arizona Legislature. With the foundation of a strong educational system and their own hard work, my parents were able to better their lives and lift our family up. That was what Arizona was all about!

Today, I fear that Arizona promise is slipping away. It’s true that we got hit harder from the Great Recession than many other states, which resulted in Republican budgets balanced on the backs of our schools. But even as our state recovered from the Great Recession, the public education funding never recovered. Our inflation-adjusted per-pupil state and local spending on education is actually lower today than it was when I went to school. That is unacceptable.

At the Legislature I always hear talk about making Arizona a more competitive state. I hear people talk about having a competitive tax rate, business climate etc. It’s time we start talking about how uncompetitive we are on education and how we need to do something to fix that now!

While we have failed to fully fund education in the state over the last 10 years, other states continue to increase education funding, leaving Arizona further behind, and now we’re at 49th place in per-pupil spending. How does being nearly dead last on such an important metric help make Arizona more competitive?

Right now, across the state, classrooms are being led by a series of stand-ins as we deal with a massive teacher shortage that is worsening every year. Students who could be the next innovative scientists or successful small business owners or great teachers themselves are in classrooms that don’t have full-time teachers assigned to them. How does that help make Arizona competitive?

The good news is that there’s a straightforward solution. Thanks to the hard work of Arizonans, we have a budget surplus of $5 billion. We don’t need to raise taxes, and we don’t need to cut spending from other areas of government. The funding is available to invest in education today. All we need to do is act. We can and must make a massive investment in education — this year — using our budget surplus.

I believe it’s time we invest in the next generation of Arizonans, just like previous generations invested in me. It’s time we commit to giving the next generation of Arizonans more opportunity than we had. It’s time we restore the promise of Arizona, one based on an incredible public education system and the economic opportunity that follows. And we can start now.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Davis is a Democratic candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 18:

Our right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. When our republic comes under attack by a faction seeking to curtail the right of citizens to vote and participate in government, it is paramount that we remove that faction from power through the ballot box.

We are, once again, witnessing the rollback of voting access across the United States and right here in Arizona. The recent efforts to restrict or eliminate mail-in voting and to undermine the confidence in the outcome of our elections typify the current attacks on the democratic process.

Widespread adoption of mail-in voting in the United States has its roots in the Civil War. In the 1864 election, 19 Union states passed laws to ensure soldiers far from home could participate in that pivotal election. Mail-in voting would continue to be used for soldiers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and eventually many states expanded the option to the civilian population.

In 1991, Arizona voters were allowed to request an absentee ballot for any reason. In 2007, lawmakers created the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) to allow citizens to vote by mail without requesting a mail-in ballot every year.

Today, nearly three-quarters of Arizona voters cast their ballots by mail. Voting by mail is widely used by Republicans, Democrats and Independents. The latest attacks, including last year’s bill to eliminate the PEVL and the recent attempt by the Arizona Republican Party to have the Arizona Supreme Court rule early voting unconstitutional, are an affront to our rights as citizens in a democracy and contrary to the wishes of most Arizonans.

A recent poll by OH Predictive Insights showed that Arizonans (74% overall) support mail-in voting. Additionally, support is very strong among voters aged 55 and older (84%), voters enthusiastic to vote in the upcoming election (81 percent) and voters who have lived in Arizona for more than five years (79%).

I believe that the Arizona Legislature should adopt three key policies to strengthen voting rights and access to the ballot.

First, the Legislature should reinstate the Permanent Early Voting List. Last year Gov. Doug Ducey signed SB 1485, which eliminated the “Permanent” aspect of the PEVL. I fully support the current initiative to restore the PEVL and expand voting accessibility for Arizonans.

Second, the Arizona Legislature should pass a law to allow voters’ mail-in ballots to be counted so long as they are postmarked by Election Day and received within two weeks of Election Day. This would end the confusion surrounding when the last day to mail in a ballot is and allow voters all the time they need to deliberate their vote.

Third, the Arizona Legislature should pass legislation to establish Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) and Same Day Voter Registration (SDVR). According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 1 in 4 Arizona citizens over the age of 18 are not registered to vote. With AVR, citizens are automatically registered to vote when they interact with a government agency like the Motor Vehicle Department. (Citizens can opt out of registration after the fact.) SDVR would allow voters to correct errors, such as updating an address or changing a name, or new citizens of Arizona to register to vote on or near Election Day.

The narrative of our nation is one of democratic expansion. Through constitutional amendments and legislation, we expanded citizenship and voting rights to previously excluded groups, including Blacks, Native Americans and women. New technologies allowed for voting to be more easily counted and new policies, such as voting by mail, allowed easier access to the ballot.

I’m running for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 18 to fight for our fundamental and constitutional rights as citizens of both Arizona and the United States. We deserve a legislative majority that will work to expand democratic participation, not place hurdles in the path to progress.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Hernandez is a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 21:

Minority-owned TV networks have had to claw and scrape for years to earn a place in cable and satellite channel lineups, overcoming obstacles — including unhelpful government agencies — at every turn.

Contrast this long struggle with the red carpet rolled out for the fringe right-wing disinformation network One America News (OANN), which AT&T and DirectTV helped launch by providing a reported $57 million in funding. Even after OANN became a cesspool of race-baiting division, Big Lie sedition and COVID-19 misinformation, it took a full-scale campaign from LULAC and other civil rights advocates to finally convince DirectTV to change its mind and drop the network.

But this double-standard between the struggles faced by diverse media outlets and the door held open for right-wing propaganda networks didn’t end with DirecTV’s welcome change of heart. In fact, the same story is now playing out in a contentious fight to fill the final open seat at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Gigi Sohn, President Joe Biden’s nominee to fill the pivotal role and break the commission’s current 2-2 partisan deadlock, has a deeply problematic track record on media diversity issues. As a senior staffer at the FCC in 2016, she masterminded a plan to give Google a government permission slip to steal, repackage and monetize TV programming without paying one cent to its creators.

Diverse creators screamed in opposition, with the strong support of civil rights leaders, creative industry unions and diverse lawmakers on Capitol Hill. But Sohn ignored these warnings entirely, pushing her own Big Tech-aligned ideological agenda over any concern for how her proposal would impact vulnerable, underrepresented communities.

It’s a troubling pattern we’ve seen throughout Sohn’s career. During an earlier debate over a proposed telecom merger, Sohn even suggested civil rights organizations weren’t entitled to voice their own opinions on such issues because, in her words, they are “not in the core expertise or core goals” of our movement.

But Sohn sings a very different tune when it comes to helping fringe right-wing extremists like OANN gain entry to the nation’s living rooms. OANN’s president strongly endorsed her nomination in November, praising her as an ally who had helped his network gain wider distribution. And rather than recoil in disgust and reject his support, Sohn openly bragged about it at her first confirmation hearing, gushing about how “proud” she was to have “worked with them for years to get access to cable subscribers after operators refuse to carry them.”

It’s galling to hear an advocate who has steamrolled civil rights voices and diverse creators for years now brag about helping “Donald Trump’s favorite TV network” get a wider audience. But it’s particularly jarring to hear this double-standard from a self-described progressive who is Biden’s handpicked choice to swing the balance of power on a deadlocked FCC.

This concern only grows in light of Sohn’s admission that she won’t be eligible to participate in any FCC matters relating to broadcasting retransmission or copyright. While Sohn has tried to minimize this recusal as “extremely narrow,” it effectively means she couldn’t be a champion for minority-owned broadcasters even if she wanted to.

Small, independent broadcasters locked in retransmission disputes with massively large cable and satellite companies will get no help from Sohn — or by extension, from the deadlocked FCC her recusal would produce.

I’m at a loss to understand why Democrats are risking such a critically important nomination on such a flawed candidate.

Biden should withdraw this nomination and consider other options. In particular, he should consider nominating one of the many highly-qualified, experienced and capable Hispanic telecommunications experts that the White House ignored in its initial consideration.

Representation matters — both on TV, and at the agencies that regulate it.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Engel is a candidate for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District:

Last week, the Arizona State House voted along party lines to end the freedom of Arizonans to choose an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. All that now stands in the way of this law going into effect is an extremely unlikely veto from Gov. Doug Ducey and the U.S. Supreme Court’s even more unlikely reversal of a similar Mississippi restriction as a violation of Roe v. Wade.

As a teacher of young adults, as an Arizona legislator who served for five years on behalf of constituents who elected me to stand up for their health-care rights, and above all, as a mom who has chosen to raise a family, I am outraged by this assault on my daughter’s generation and their dreams for their future.

Already our generation’s lack of action on climate change and voting rights is adding anxiety and uncertainty to their lives. Must we also deprive them of their very rights to their own health-care choices, sentencing even those who are victims of rape or incest to bring a risky or unwanted pregnancy to term? And let’s not forget the ban will disproportionately upend the lives of the most vulnerable in our community; low-income people of color who lack adequate health care or who cannot afford to travel out of state to receive a legal abortion in a neighboring state like Nevada or California.

But it’s also wrong to think that this debate is just about abortion and that only those seeking an abortion are impacted. This will affect all Americans.

The high court’s much-anticipated reversal of Roe is just the tip of the iceberg of a decades-long concerted effort by political conservatives to read out of the Constitution any protection for rights not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

After all, Roe is built on a foundation, the idea that all Americans enjoy a fundamental right to privacy that protects them from unwelcome government intrusion into their private lives and personal choices. A woman’s right to choose abortion if she wants it is just one of those rights.

If this Roe-guaranteed right falls, a whole host of implied Constitutional rights that we take for granted will no longer be safe either. This includes the right to have children in the first place, the right to choose to avoid having children by using contraceptives, the freedom to have the personal relationships we choose and to marry whom we love, and the right to raise our children as we see fit.

Already a sitting U.S. senator, Mike Braun, R-Ind., suggested, before walking it back, that if the court abandons the privacy right undergirding Roe, states should once again be able to decide on their own, without interference from the court, whether to prohibit interracial marriages, or outlaw contraception. As Braun put it, “If you are not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you are not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.”

I would expect Arizona would continue to guarantee these fundamental individual freedoms even without the Supreme Court’s constitutional backstop, but I had also thought the state would safeguard the reproductive health care rights of my daughter’s generation. Now I’m not so sure.

It is time the U.S. Congress stepped in to guarantee the Constitutional rights and freedoms that Arizona and at least twenty-five other states are taking away and that the Supreme Court is poised to abandon.

It can start, whatever the Supreme Court does this term, by passing legislation guaranteeing by statute the half-century old Constitutional right: the fundamental freedom of all to choose, when they decide that it is right for them, to safely and legally end a risky or unwanted pregnancy.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Hernandez is a state representative for Legislative District 2 and a candidate for Congress in Arizona’s 6th Congressional District:

The latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirms what many Arizonans already know to be true — the climate crisis is here and urgent action is needed to reduce carbon pollution. At least 3.3 billion people worldwide are highly vulnerable to increasingly deadly climate-change-fueled heat waves, extreme weather, air pollution, diseases and displacement.

Our state is already experiencing the harms of a climate in crisis. Arizona is facing the worst drought in 1,200 years, our wildfire season continues to increase in length and severity, and heat waves are worsening. Without climate action, communities of color and low-income communities, which are hit first and worst by pollution and climate change, will bear the burden of this crisis and experience more deaths from extreme heat.

Serious action to address climate change and strengthen the U.S. economy for all requires substantial investment in ways that will deeply reduce emissions while building domestic supply chains and creating and protecting good jobs for workers and communities across the nation.

In Tucson, we’re doing everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our dependence on foreign oil while bolstering our city’s thriving renewable energy sector. While there is tremendous potential for renewable energy to power even more cities and towns across Arizona, including Tucson, the legislative district I represent, this future is still out of reach for many communities and my constituents.

Electrifying our economy with carbon-free technology from solar power to electric vehicles to fully electric high-speed rail is coming, and our global competitors are rushing to capture the economic, jobs and manufacturing benefits of this shift. And our competitors are moving fast.

All of the United States’ major economic competitors, and particularly China, have made significant and strategic investments in the production and deployment of these technologies. If the U.S. fails to make proportionate strategic investments over the next decade, America’s manufacturing and renewable energy sectors and its workers will fall even further behind in the most important global economic race of our time.

Ensuring a brighter future requires policymakers like myself to leverage all the tools at our disposal to facilitate the transition to this clean energy future to ensure that we make renewable energy technology here in the U.S. The actions that Congress takes now will determine whether the U.S. leads in deploying clean energy technologies of the future and whether U.S. workers and communities see economic gains from this transition.

This has the potential to transform not only the vehicles we drive and the homes we live in, but also the lives of the workers who build them — ensuring a clean, prosperous and equitable future for all.

Historic investments, such as those proposed by President Joe Biden and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2021, are essential to getting this job done. It would be a win-win for Arizona, bolstering our state’s growing clean-energy economy and fighting climate change in the process.

However, the $550 billion in proposed climate investments is now stalled in the Senate, at a time when communities across our state urgently need a path forward to fight pollution and build healthier communities.

With so much on the line for Arizona and the rest of the United States, climate action cannot wait. I urge Arizona’s Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema to support investments in the expansion and retooling of domestic clean energy, electric vehicles and high-speed rail, and the transformation of our industrial sector to reduce carbon pollution and enhance competitiveness — all while building good jobs right here Tucson and across the nation while investing in the communities that need it most.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Grijalva represents Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District. He is running for reelection in the new 7th Congressional District:

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the American dream was falling out of reach for too many in Arizona and across the nation. But the pandemic has only further exposed what has been true for far too long: The deck has been stacked for big corporations and the wealthy while working families continue to be left behind.

Despite a record economic rebound with gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021 reaching its highest annual growth since 1984 and unemployment insurance claims near their lowest levels in 50 years — the last two years have aggravated many existing challenges and prompted new ones.

One such challenge is the high cost of child care. Even though the federal government considers child care “affordable” only when it costs less than 7% of a family’s income, many working families spend 35% of their income on this basic necessity.

A minimum-wage worker in Arizona spends, on average, about 44% of their income on child care. And the high cost of child care makes it harder for parents, especially working moms, to hold down a job. With many struggling to afford child care, it continues to slow our nation’s economic recovery and stifle working families’ ability to recover financially from the pandemic.

And now, higher prices, exacerbated by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and unprecedented supply chain disruptions from the pandemic, are straining household budgets and depriving workers of the full benefits of our strong economy and the largest wage gains we’ve seen in years.

My Democratic colleagues and I understand that we need to lower costs, raise wages and reinvest in working families and communities so that more Americans can get ahead. That is why I was proud to help enact a government funding bill that will help the middle class and working families afford the cost of living in America and right here in the 3rd District of Arizona.

We’re addressing inflation, rising costs and prices at the pump. Democrats are fighting to increase wages and protect consumers from price gouging by Big Oil and meat processors who are raking in record profits.

To help alleviate this burden, the government funding bill includes $158 million to help small and medium American manufacturers with supply chain issues. It also invests $37 million in efforts to expand clean and renewable energy sources, weaning our dependency off Big Oil. For our nation to truly be energy independent, we must end our reliance on fossil fuels by expanding renewable energy technologies.

Investing in our community’s future is critical, which is why I helped secure more than $6.3 million for community projects for the 3rd District of Arizona. These funds support jobs, underserved areas, tribal communities, schools, seniors, health care facilities, foster economic development, and address environmental issues in Southern Arizona. Each project will revitalize our community and make it healthier and more resilient than before.

Our legislation does so much to help working Arizona families. It helps families tackle child care needs and early learning through increased funding for child care and development programs, Head Start, and preschool development grants.

To help students access better opportunities, the bill provides record funding for education, including for high-poverty students and students with disabilities, English-language learners and expands access to postsecondary education through successful programs like Pell Grants.

But funding for education alone is not enough. That is why we are investing in high-quality job training and apprenticeship programs to ensure today’s workers have the skills to succeed in good-paying union jobs, filling the many job openings for which employers cannot find qualified workers.

To make sure that we are supporting Main Street businesses, this job training is coupled with strong support for small-business owners and entrepreneurs with increased funding for the Small Business Administration and Community Development Financial Institutions to help our local businesses get the capital they need to grow and thrive.

No one can thrive in the 21st century economy without internet access, and this legislation meets the demands of our modern world with funding to connect more communities, especially in rural and tribal areas, to high-speed internet. It also expands teleheath provisions that have made health care accessible throughout the pandemic.

Finally, this bill will strengthen core government services that working families rely on, such as taxpayer services at the IRS to help people get tax refunds quicker. Even better, we pay for these increases by cracking down on big corporations and wealthy tax cheats who are not paying their fair share.

After decades of disinvestment catering to the wealthy and well-connected, it is time to put government to work for working people. This bill isn’t perfect. There’s still a lot of work to do and legislation that the Senate needs to address. But I am proud of the transformative investments in the government funding bill we just passed and President Joe Biden signed into law that will help the middle class and working families in Arizona.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Stahl Hamilton is a state senator and a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 21: 

With the legislative session well underway, I am struck by the chaos and cruelty imposed upon the people of our state. I am not surprised.

Pushing back against policy crafted out of fear intended to subvert and control was the impetus behind my advocacy work that eventually led me to run for office. It was never my desire to be a politician. My calling and vocation are rooted in another discipline: religion. And before I go any further, it is important to state that I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. That is why I am probably the most surprised to find myself drawn to politics and felt compelled to run for office.

My journey to where I am today didn’t happen overnight — it was at least a decade in the making. In 2008, responding to the extreme funding cuts to education, I began navigating issues that eventually led to school closures impacting my children and my husband (a public school teacher in TUSD). Also, during this time, I was executive director of the Presbyterian Church camp, serving children throughout the state. This experience gave me an understanding of how the legislative policies affected children throughout the state. It wasn’t just happening in my backyard.

As I volunteered in my neighborhood school, served children and teenagers throughout the state, and tried to make ends meet for my family, I joined a couple of legislative advocacy groups, which included a field trip on an Education Advocacy Day in 2016. We were treated to a walk-through of the state House of Representatives floor during this trip.

I quickly found one of my representative’s desks and snapped a selfie, and in doing so, I noticed a lot of Bibles on desks, which gave me pause. I was confused to see Bibles on the desks of government employees. And then, I learned that each floor session begins with prayer and then the Pledge of Allegiance.

I left the Capitol that day with more questions than I had when I arrived. Beyond the questions of the separation of church and state, I wondered if all of those who had Bibles on their desks actually read them because the lens with which I read compels me to look out for the most vulnerable in our communities, extend grace to those who seem to deserve it the least, and to remove the heavy burdens and barriers that keep people in poverty.

In my short time in the Legislature, I realize that there is no clear separation of church and state in our Legislature. Many Republican legislators in the majority craft policy to legislate morality cloaked in religious language as if the religious views of the proponents are the only ones that matter or hold the corner on truth. Our founders understood the perils of legislating religious doctrine. They were right then, and they are right today.

This past week the state Senate passed a bill, SB 1399, along party lines to allow foster care agencies to discriminate based on religion. This legislation is especially concerning, given that there are not enough families to care for the children in the foster care system. This move will narrow the field of families eligible to take in children. It will be the children who bear the brunt of this legislation.

Our job as elected officials should be to work for Arizonans, making life better, not injecting religious ideology into policy. This legislation is just one example of how Christian nationalism is seeping into our state statutes, blurring the lines between politics and religion.

There is no justification for imposing a set of religious beliefs upon those who hold differing beliefs or even no religious belief. It undermines our democracy and our freedom of religion.

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Abraham represents LD 10 in the Arizona House of Representatives and a candidate for Arizona Senate in Legislative District 18:

With every day seeming to bring news of significant changes in our world, it can be hard to keep track of everything that’s going on. Like many, I’m especially concerned by the invasion of Ukraine, an international conflict that involves our European allies.

As a member of the Army Reserve, I’m thankful that we have thoughtful, clear leadership from the White House and across the West to help guide us through these uncertain times.

But as a Democratic legislator serving in the state House, I know we can’t afford to be distracted from what’s going on elsewhere in Washington, on Capitol Hill.

In the same week that the world watched Russia’s abhorrent attack, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida recently outlined an 11-point plan that laid out policy priorities for a potential Republican Senate majority. The plan should worry every Arizonan.

Among many proposals, it specifically calls for every American to pay federal income taxes. That particular plank caused immediate backlash from many who pointed out that retirees would have to pay higher taxes — after paying into Social Security for their entire working lives.

The reaction from the public was so strong that Sen. Scott backpedaled to say that retirees would be exempt. But he said nothing about the many low-income Americans, including many military veterans exempted from federal income taxes, or active-duty service members eligible for specific exclusions on their federal income taxes. The men and women who put their lives on the line for our country shouldn’t see their taxes increase next year — especially in an economy where the wealthy are doing better than ever.

But that’s not all.

This Republican plan would sunset any law after five years. That would mean hundreds of laws that have been on the books for years would have to be renegotiated, re-passed, and re-signed into law every five years.

For example, the Veterans Choice Act, championed by the late Sen. John McCain, gives veterans the option to seek private health care when the Veterans Affairs system doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to. Under this plan, that law could simply expire — limiting options for veterans when they need it most.

But that’s not the only law threatened. Sen. Scott’s plan for a Republican majority threatens every law.

What happens to the Social Security Act or the Medicare and Medicaid Act in five years? Many older Arizonans could see the health care and retirement benefits they need go away.

And the Affordable Care Act? It could be dissolved, forcing many Arizonans with preexisting conditions off their insurance.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to depend on Congress — the body whose failures have given us multiple shutdowns of the federal government — to have to successfully negotiate every law on the books, and do that in time and without political gamesmanship. The stakes are just too high for Arizonans to take those risks.

This Republican plan would affect us all. And as Arizonans, we deserve to know where our Republican elected officials stand.

For example, Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its protections for those with preexisting conditions, taking his health care repeal lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now he’s running for Senate. Does he support this plan to endanger that law, and so many others that Arizonans depend on?

Trying, uncertain times like these require leadership. I strongly urge Attorney General Brnovich and Gov. Doug Ducey to give Arizonans the certainty they deserve by vocally opposing this ridiculous Republican plan.