Sheriff Nanos could face probe over suspension of political rival

Pima County Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to seek a “criminal review and investigation” into Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos’ decision to put his political opponent on paid leave three weeks before Election Day.

Supervisors have agreed to approach the offices of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Arizona to investigate Nanos’ pre-election actions against his Republican rival Heather Lappin, a jail commander, and Aaron Cross, the leader of a union in the department who is a critic of the sheriff.

“I can’t believe we’re talking about this, frankly, because this shouldn’t be necessary,” Heinz said Tuesday. “I find it stunning that we’re here, that an elected official of this county, someone the voters trusted in 2020 with their safekeeping … has decided for what appears to be personal political gain to violate − I believe − the oaths we all take: to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the state of Arizona.”

Additionally, Heinz sought a vote to censure Nanos “for violations of the First Amendment Free Speech rights” of Lappin and Cross, “on dubious and false claims of electioneering while in uniform, which neither of them did.”

But a vote on the censuring of Nanos did not happen. That’s because, Sam Brown, the county’s chief civil deputy and board advisor, to Supervisors they lacked the authority to censure another elected official.

As of about 4 p.m. Tuesday, Nanos was ahead of Lappin in the sheriff race by 4,006 votes, unofficial results showed.

Lappin and Cross were placed on paid leave while early voting was going on and three weeks before Election Day.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

The department has said Cross was suspended because he campaigned for Lappin on two separate occasions while dressed in in clothing that made him look like he could be on duty. Cross filed a federal lawsuit shortly after getting suspended, saying it violated his free speech.

U.S. Federal Judge Raner Collins said that Cross’ actions were a violation of the Hatch Act, which states that state or local officers or employees can not use their official authority or influence to interfere or affect the results of an election. And although Collins denied a preliminary injunction, he told the department to tighten its rules on what employees can wear while participating in political activities, the Star previously reported.

Nanos on Tuesday said the board “can request any investigation they like.” But, he continued, it won’t change the fact that the judge ruled Cross violated the Hatch Act.

“In spite of the lies spewed by Mr. (Heinz) in his written agenda to the Board, their being placed on Admin Leave with Pay caused them ZERO harm or restrictions,” Nanos said in a written statement to the the Star. “Admin Leave with Pay is a tool commonly used throughout the county so there is less disruption at the work place while the matter is investigated. Unfortunately the Board is seemingly ignorant of their own policies.”

Nanos noted that both Lappin and Cross “were not suspended” and instead placed on paid leave, “a distinct difference,” he said: “a suspension is disciplinary, admin leave with pay is not.”

Nanos told the Star that Lappin and Cross “were never required to stay home or not campaign.”

But the letter Lappin received on Oct. 15 required her to be “available” during work hours, the letter shows. Lappin also was told in her meeting with her supervisor and others that her works hours “will be Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 … you are required to be at home, available any time between those hours by phone,” audio of the meeting shows.

Heinz, a Democrat like Nanos, said is it “unconscionable” for an elected official to use “the resources of that position to impair” a political opponent.