An election challenge against Democratic Reps. Alma and Consuelo Hernandez ended in Pima County Superior Court on Friday — but the political fight around their campaigns is just getting started.
Both were challenged by constituents in their respective districts over a section of Arizona law that bars candidates from running for office if they owe more than $1,000 in campaign finance fines to the Arizona Secretary of State.
On paper, it’s a pretty clear rule. In practice, it’s anything but.
A 2018 Arizona Supreme Court decision makes the law difficult to enforce without involvement from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office — creating a legal gray area that candidates across the state have learned to effectively navigate.
The ruling by Pima County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Kuhn is now being appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Shortly after the ruling, Alma took to Twitter to attack her Democratic rival, former Tucson City Councilman Rocque Perez, who filed one of the three lawsuits against the sisters. To be clear, Perez and a constituent in Legislative District 20 filed separate, but virtually identical, lawsuits against Alma.
The veteran lawmaker sidestepped questions about owing an estimated $128,630 in fines to the Secretary of State’s Office, instead accusing Perez of playing “Trump-style” politics.
“It’s a tired, Trump-style playbook, distract, deflect, and try to rig the field. I’m not going anywhere. I’m doubling down because he has chosen to misuse public resources and the time of our Superior Court for a political stunt,” Alma wrote on Twitter.
(For simplicity and clarity, we’re gonna use Alma and Consuelo’s first names throughout this story.)
We’re not totally sold on the Trump comparison. Election challenges have long been a bipartisan campaign tactic in Arizona — a legal pressure point used by candidates of all stripes to try to knock opponents off the ballot.
An hour later, Consuelo framed the court decision as a win of her own — calling it a victory against shadowy “dark money” efforts tied to an unnamed political opponent.
It’s unclear who Consuelo was referring to. There are five candidates running for two seats in Legislative District 21, including Democrats Maritza Higuera, Miranda Lopez, Stephanie Stahl Hamilton or if you like a dark horse option, Republican Christopher Kibbey.
We are not aware of any independent expenditure groups targeting the Hernandez sisters, although those groups rarely put out press releases. But we did briefly consider the Hernandon’t crowd in our rogue’s gallery of suspects.
In her Twitter post on Friday, Consuelo asked people to donate to her campaign after attacking her unnamed political rivals.
Perez fired back, and he didn’t mince words.
“My opponent has called me a piece of shit and an unserious candidate for holding her accountable,” Perez wrote on Facebook.
Perez calculated that between Alma, Consuelo and their brother Daniel — who also used to be a state lawmaker — they’ve racked up more than $360,000 in fines for late or missing filings with the Secretary of State.
“Exposing this flaw in Arizona’s campaign finance law, exposing how the Hernandez family has benefited from it, and forcing movement on those unpaid fees is a win,” he wrote. “Alma has been in office for eight years and has done nothing meaningful to strengthen this system or support the Secretary of State in fixing it.”
A spokesperson for the Secretary of State acknowledged there is a serious issue with enforcing campaign finance laws and worked with Democrats in the House this year to add some teeth to the existing laws on the books.
The Democratic-backed bill went nowhere, although that's par for the course for Dem bills in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Perez said he is not going to appeal the decision in his case, but he expects the other two challenges are headed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Given the narrow window before the Pima County Recorder prints ballots, we expect the other two cases to be heard soon.
An anticipated political battle between Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos and the county supervisors won’t end with a face-to-face showdown.
Nanos confirmed to the Tucson Agenda that he will send his lawyer to hand over written responses to their questions.
To catch you up, the entire Board of Supervisors voted a month ago to require Nanos to respond to a series of allegations — including misconduct while in office and questions about whether he was truthful about his time with the El Paso Police Department when he was first hired by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department more than 40 years ago.
Two weeks ago, the Supervisors agreed on four questions they wanted Nanos to answer — with the subtle threat of using a territorial-era law to compel him to testify or begin the process of removing him from office if he refuses.
One of the questions focuses on Nanos’ decision to discipline his former political rival, Lt. Heather Lappin, and one of her political allies, union leader Sgt. Aaron Cross — and it may be the most politically damaging for the 70-year-old sheriff.
In April, Lappin filed a $2 million claim against the county — a precursor to a formal lawsuit — over Nanos’ actions in the weeks leading up to the 2024 general election. Nanos, a Democrat, beat Lappin by a razor-thin 481 votes.
A leaked portion of a 65-page report from Tucson-based NorthStar Employment & Legal Solutions, commissioned by the county, found Nanos violated county ethics rules when he suspended Lappin — and likely Cross as well.
“The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Sheriff Nanos used his authority and department resources for political gain,” the report dated March 19, 2026 declares.
The report also found the sheriff violated county code of conduct rules when he included confidential information in a press release announcing Lappin’s placement on paid administrative leave. We are having a hard time finding that press release, so if any one has it please send it to Joe.
But the report lands on a familiar limitation: while Nanos committed an ethical breach of county policies, “the Sheriff is not subject to these policies as an Elected Official.”
Tomorrow, the supervisors will discuss whether to release the full 65-page report. County officials have declined previous requests to make it public, citing attorney-client privilege — and noting that HR investigations are rarely released in full.
Setting a record for screw-ups: Environmental advocates want to put a stop to the April 29 auction of 160 acres of state land for the Copper World mine in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson. They claim state officials messed up a half-dozen times in the official notice they sent out for the auction, per the Tucson Sentinel’s Paul Ingram. The notices had conflicting times for the auction, the wrong land sale number and the map that shows the land to be auctioned mistakenly put the 160 acres in Maricopa County.
New boss takes the reins: Tucson’s new police Chief Monica Prieto is focusing on continuity as she takes over, and that means sticking with evidence-based practices and pattern-tracking that her predecessors put in place, Arizona Daily Star columnist Tim Steller writes in a Q&A with the new chief. She’s also setting her sights on raising the number of sworn officers, putting officers in “hot spots” for traffic-related injuries, and more.
Tucson meets tinsel town: A Tucson film project with a big dose of Danny Trejo’s acting premiered at The Loft Cinema on Sunday, per KVOA. The film, “Choir Practice,” which the Loft bills as a “gripping crime thriller about an unconventional Catholic priest, a lost migrant, Tucson cops and a violent international drug cartel,” was written by former KVOA anchor Sally Shamrell. Among its stars are University of Arizona student JJ Urquidez and Tucson native Jon Proudstar.
Not on our land: Tohono O’odham Nation officials are adamantly opposing the Trump administration’s plan to build a double-layered border wall along the Nation’s 62-mile border with Mexico, the Star’s Emily Bregel and Henry Brean report. The “smart wall” would include a 150-foot “enforcement zone” between 30-foot-tall walls. Tohono O’odham Tribal Chairman Verlon Jose said the wall would divide ancestral lands, which is why tribal officials have opposed these types of wall projects for decades. Plus, Jose says, “the wall does not work.”
You know what actually does work? Local journalism. Help us out with a few bucks and we’ll keep holding your elected officials’ feet to the fire.
No, not that Nancy: The Pima County Sheriff’s Department is once again under fire, this time for posting on Twitter “Update: Nancy has been located.” If you thought the department was referring to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, you’re not alone. The post went viral as hundreds of thousands of people thought there was finally a break in the case. But the post was about a different missing woman named Nancy, Sarah Lapidus reports for the Republic. It isn’t clear why the department posted just the woman’s first name, instead of the full name like it usually does.
Debates season is right around the corner!
As we prepare to grill the candidates as part of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission legislative debate series, we want to know what issues matter most to you.
Sure, we know you care about issues like education, elections, water, the border, infrastructure and the environment.
But those are pretty broad.
So this week, we’re asking you to help us narrow it down a bit by filling out some simple surveys. Today’s “What’s Your Issue” is about social services.
Think of it this way: If we can only ask candidates about one of the subtopics on this list, what should it be?
When it comes to social services
Don’t get us wrong, we think kids are great.
Big fans. Huge. No notes.
What we are less sure about is whether the youth of Pima County are going to get anything out of a proclamation declaring “Youth Week in Pima County” for a full week next month.
To be clear, we’re not picking on the next generation of doctors, nurses, lawyers and bureaucrats — we’re just wondering what exactly a proclamation does here beyond existing.
Does it come with snacks? A parade? A coupon? Anything?
What we are asking is why there are 17 proclamations/award presentations on the county supervisors’ agenda tomorrow.
Maybe we can expect a proclamation on too many proclamations at the next meeting.
At this rate, it feels inevitable — and honestly, we’d support it.