Insiders in the Pima County Democratic Party weighed in on the growing list of controversies surrounding Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos on Monday night, but took no action against their fellow Democrat.
While the party’s executive committee closed the meeting to the press, several people in the room confirmed that a majority of Democrats at the meeting couldn’t decide whether to formally censure the two-term sheriff.
Nanos didn’t attend the meeting, but said he would be willing to talk to members of the executive committee privately before the next meeting, which won’t be held for another month.
The holdouts reportedly said they wanted to review documents, talk with Nanos and see more evidence related to the accusations against him. But there is no guarantee the committee will act a month from now. Or ever.
The Democratic sheriff has been in the fight of his political life over the last few weeks.
He’s currently staring down problems like:
A formal confrontation with the Pima County Board of Supervisors over allegations he lied on his job application
A lawsuit from the ACLU accusing him of cooperating with ICE
A recall effort
National criticism for his handling of the Nancy Guthrie case
And an independent legal finding that he “used his authority and department resources for political gain” by suspending his political rival weeks before his last election.
If the PCDP Executive Committee eventually opts to censure Nanos, know that it is more of a political statement than a punishment.
A censure would carry no real consequence for Nanos, who is in the middle of his second term as sheriff.
At most, it could convince some Democrats to sign onto the recall effort being run by Republican Daniel Butierez.
We still think that’s a longshot — the GOP Congressional District 7 candidate would need roughly 120,000 signatures from registered voters to make the recall election a reality.
The last time we can remember the PCDP attempting to censure one of their own was in 2019, when local Democrats tried to censure then-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema for backing two of President Donald Trump’s nominees. That effort failed, but the Arizona Democratic Party ultimately censured her in 2022.
Another political fight today
Today’s Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting will feature the four elected Democrats and lone Republican heading behind closed doors to talk about Nanos.
Last month, all five supervisors directed their outside counsel to draft a series of questions that Nanos will have to answer — or potentially face removal from office.
Like the Pima County Democratic Party, supervisors have signaled growing concern about Nanos following recent media reports about his conduct in office, including the allegations he lied on his job application with the county 40 years ago.
Two weeks ago, the supervisors were tight-lipped about what they want Nanos to talk about under oath. But we now have a better idea of the questions they’ll be lobbing his way.
The executive session item lists “matters ranging from his work history to other personnel, management or internal affairs matters of concern, to immigration enforcement, to any other related matters.”
Nanos told us two weeks ago he would be willing to answer questions under oath.
“I look forward to answering any questions the Board may have regarding my past,” Nanos said.
It now appears those questions have expanded to include broader actions he has taken in his role as sheriff.
But Nanos essentially has two options: answer the questions — or risk being removed from office.
Supervisors are relying on a territorial-era law to compel Nanos to testify, and they could remove him if he refuses.
You can watch the Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting here, things get underway at 9 a.m.
The discussion on Nanos isn’t the only thing on the Pima County Board of Supervisors’ agenda today.
And no, we are not talking about the eight proclamations that the supervisors will read tomorrow.
Here are the top four things we’re watching.
Unmasking the feds: The supervisors are still wrestling with an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement from wearing masks, which now has the boring bureaucratic title of “regulation of unidentified masked groups causing intimidation.” There is a carve out for “identified law enforcement officers” which might allow ICE and other groups to continue to wear masks, but only if they pay for better patches on their “uniforms” that identify which agency they represent. Both Tucson police officers and Pima County Sheriff deputies have a policy not to wear masks.
Traffic tickets will cost more: The supervisors will also hear a request from the Pima County Superior Court to increase the court automation and technology fee from $40 to $100. The money will help address the “rapid escalation of technology costs” and the “need for advanced cybersecurity measures.” This fee would jack up the price of civil traffic tickets, divorce records, name changes, and other cases by $60. We’ll note the Biden administration gave the courts $3 million a few years ago to upgrade their courtrooms.
Supporting mail-in voting: Sure, it is only a non-binding resolution, but the supervisors are expected to oppose the recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump that would put significant limits on mail-in voting. This is as good a place as any to note this is Trump’s second executive order designed to control elections and the first EO has already been overturned. Both Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes have already filed a lawsuit to overturn the new executive order.
Hiring the next administrator: The supervisors will also review a formal plan to recruit and hire the next Pima County administrator as Jan Lesher retires at the end of the year. The hottest ticket in town will be getting a highly sought-after spot on a citizen’s advisory board to choose the replacement, with each supervisor getting to appoint two people to the board. But a small group of residents are already trying to put their thumb on the scale, suggesting the next county administrator should get paid a lot less than Lesher’s annual salary of $330,000.
What’s with all the vinegar?: Anthony Dunham, a Republican candidate for state Senate in the competitive Tucson-area Legislative District 17, had his parental rights temporarily revoked in 2022, the Republic’s Ray Stern reports. His wife at the time punished his daughter from a previous marriage by making her drink apple cider vinegar until she vomited, as well as spraying vinegar in his younger children’s faces and locking them in their bedrooms so long they were forced to urinate on the floor. None of the punishments were determined to be illegal and they came to light as part of a custody dispute with Dunham’s first wife. Dunham said he knew the incidents would come up during his campaign and said he’d be OK, “as long as the facts are put out there.” Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, who is teaming up with Dunham as she runs for re-election in LD17, defended his actions.
“Unless you’re Jesus running for office, you’re going to get imperfect,” she told Stern.
Look south, not north: Tucsonans have been talking about building a passenger rail line between Tucson and Phoenix for years, but it looks like we might get a line from Nogales to Tucson first. Officials in Mexico are building more than 2,000 miles of rail line, including a line to Nogales, Sonora, Connor Greenwall reports for KJZZ. Back in January, Southern Arizona officials talked informally about extending the line north to Tucson and Pima County Supervisor Matt Heinz says the conversation since then has been encouraging.
“This is not some sort of pie in the sky, maybe this could happen. Like, they are doing this,” Heinz said.
Back in action: For the first time since her mother went missing two months ago, Savannah Guthrie was back at the anchor desk on Monday, per the Associated Press. Her co-hosts at the “Today” show gave her a warm welcome and Guthrie was moved when she saw a fan outside the studio with a “Welcome home Savannah” shirt.
The nuances of madness: Having a local team make a run at a national title, like the UA men’s basketball team just did, brings some hometown benefits you might not expect, Nick Rommel reports for Arizona Public Media. It’s not just throngs of fans heading to local bars and restaurants. A tournament run involves multiple games, which means multiple visits to those bars and restaurants. Plus, first-time patrons sometimes turn into regulars. Business owners say fans who want to watch a game aren’t in a rush, which gives waiters and cooks some breathing room. And if you’ve got a banquet hall, then you can pack in hundreds of rowdy patrons.
Unfortunately, college sports is not our beat, so the big game wasn’t a big boon to this local news operation. But the 2026 election is going to be our Super Bowl. Please help us cover it by clicking this button.
Tune in: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is holding a town hall this morning at 11 a.m. at the office of Ward 2 Council member Paul Cunningham. And if you want to really nerd out on politics this week, Joe is going on AZPM’s “The Press Room” this Friday at 8:30 p.m.
It’s always fun to watch somebody dismantle a carefully crafted corporate messaging campaign.
Retired newsman Michael Chihak took apart the public relations blitz that Tucson Electric Power launched on the Arizona Daily Star’s opinion pages as the utility pushes for a rate increase.
Those of you who follow the Star’s opinion pages have seen op-ed after op-ed from TEP executives and their supporters (along with plenty of op-eds from people who aren’t thrilled about the rate hike).
And maybe you’ve noticed those executives getting a little squirrelly as Attorney General Kris Mayes homes in on the rate-hike plan? Chihak sure has.
“Of late, the utility’s op-eds have turned defensive,” Chihak writes. “One VP in January whined about people ‘casting doubt on TEP’s integrity.’ A retired exec in February bridled at criticism that transparency was lacking, referencing the 1,600-page rate request posted online. Laden with financial and technical language, it’s opaque, not transparent.”