The Arizona Daily Star's endorsements for 2024

Editor’s note:

The Star’s endorsements are coming late in the cycle this year, for a host of reasons, but the bottom line is we still believe in a community newspaper’s role in endorsing candidates for election and we were determined to fill that role.

As executive editor of the Arizona Daily Star, I produce the Opinion pages daily. For that daily task, I frequently confer with the Daily Star’s volunteer Editorial Advisory Board. The board was absolutely invaluable in helping the Star reach its endorsement decisions.

That is not to say the endorsements that follow represent unanimity of thought on the advisory board. They do not. The board was chosen partly for a spectrum of viewpoints, so I certainly didn’t expect these calls to be unanimous. Instead, the endorsements represent the best consensus possible of the advisory board’s views as well as my own, and as the author of these endorsements, I accept responsibility for them. But I cannot thank the advisory board members enough for their assistance and well-thought perspectives.

I am also grateful to the readers who consistently provide a thought-provoking range of views in our Guest Opinions and Letters to the Editor. As I read all of them every day before they are published, our readers themselves can be credited with having significant influence on these endorsements.

I should add here that the endorsements are entirely separated from the work of our newsroom. Our reporters and news editors have no involvement in this process.

— David McCumber, Executive Editor

President: The Arizona Daily Star endorses Kamala Harris.There has never been a clearer choice than the one voters have in this year’s Presidential election.

This time around, Donald Trump is not an unknown quantity, as he was in 2016. His four-year term in office, the chaotic insurrection and ugly transfer of power at its end, and his behavior over the four years following his presidency are all available for American citizens to evaluate.

We cannot excuse or normalize January 6. The very fact that Trump now describes what happened as a “day of love” and its violent perpetrators “hostages” should be disqualifying. There are so many things that Trump has said and done that are disqualifying, from mismanaging a pandemic to blowing up the deficit by $8 trillion with tax cuts for billionaires to fomenting the insurrection in the first place.

His border outrage feels fake; his disdain for all immigrants and those from “shithole countries” feels real.

His stated intentions would cripple the economy — enormous tariffs, mass deportations, more tax cuts for the rich — yet somehow he’s been frequently evaluated as “better for the economy” than a centrist, consensus-seeking former prosecutor, attorney general, U.S. senator and sitting vice president with a degree in economics.

Indeed, of all the disinformation peddled by MAGAs in this cycle, the persistent jabber that Kamala Harris is mentally deficient — parroted by Trump himself — is the most vile, racist, sexist lie of all.

Harris’ campaign with vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz has made a compelling case for the creation of middle-class opportunity, the revitalization of small business, the reining-in of runaway housing and healthcare expenses, and the pursuit of clean-energy solutions to climate change. All deserve to be near the top of any President’s to-do list.

By contrast, Trump has painted a false, dark picture of America under siege by “others.” His constant mendacity and virulent nativism gives his campaign a harsh and cynical cast — fully supported by vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance. Even more concerning, Trump has displayed an autocratic bent that should concern everyone with interest in the preservation of the American republic.

The choice is not close or difficult. The stakes are as high as they get. The Arizona Daily Star urges its readers to vote for Kamala Harris for President.

U.S. Senate: the Arizona Daily Star endorses

Ruben Gallego.The truth and Kari Lake continue to be estranged.

The Republican former newscaster is an enthusiastic part of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party — and like its leader, former President Donald Trump, she still refuses to acknowledge that he lost his presidential reelection race in 2020 — or that she was defeated in her bid for the Arizona governorship in 2022.

Also like Trump, many of her public pronouncements are rated “false” by fact-checkers.

Take her debate with Gallego on Oct. 9. That night, several of her primary assertions, involving border issues, abortion, Social Security and Gallego’s voting record, were found by Politifact to be false.

Gallego has moved toward the center during his Senate campaign, but we see that as a feature, not a bug. If his voting record in the Senate matches positions he has espoused during the campaign, he would be a very middle-of-the-road Senator. Which we happen to think is just fine.

Congressional District Six: The Arizona Daily Star endorses

Kirsten Engel.Kirsten Engel has rock-solid qualifications for Congress. An environmental lawyer and a law professor at the University of Arizona, served in the Legislature for five years. She was spurred to enter politics by seeing the effects of Arizona Republicans’ underfunding of public education as she volunteered at her daughter’s Tucson school. She is an expert on water issues — something eternally and increasingly important to Arizonans.

Her opponent, incumbent Juan Ciscomani, is also well-qualified. He is a charismatic young Republican from an immigrant family. He is a relatively moderate Republican, which is a prerequisite for an exceedingly “purple” district, one of the most competitive in the country. Formerly a senior adviser to then-Gov. Doug Ducey, he, too, has an outstanding resume and personal story.

For us — and the Star’s editorial advisory board was definitely divided on this endorsement — the difference lies in Ciscomani’s deep opposition to abortion and his concerning ties to the Patriot Academy, an ultraconservative organization dedicated to the concept of training new political leaders to remove the divide between church and state.

No freshman member of the House has any real clout. But Ciscomani must be held to account for the mess the Republican majority made of this Congress, with very little of substance accomplished and culture wars and attacks on President Biden taking precedence over the real work of governing.

Also, while Engel has perhaps unfairly targeted Ciscomani for opposing the failed border-security bill which never even got to a vote in the House, he has bought into the Trump rhetoric on immigration and border, which we believe to be dangerous and overdrawn. When Trump paints immigrants as rapists and escapees from mental institutions and says they are “poisoning the blood” of America, Ciscomani, with deep knowledge from his own family’s immigration story, has a responsibility to push back, but we have not seen that. Which is perhaps the biggest reason of all for a change.

The Arizona Daily Star supports Kirsten Engel for Congress in Arizona’s 6th District.

Congressional District 7: The Arizona Daily Star endorses Raúl Grijalva.Grijalva has a long and distinguished record of public service to Tucson, Arizona and the United States. He has been a congressman for more than two decades, and for another two decades-plus served as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson Unified School District governing board.

In Congress, he has previously chaired the House Natural Resources Committee and has long served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He has been a leader in the House Progressive Caucus.

His opponent, Republican Daniel Butierez, is a small-business owner and contractor and has an admirable personal story of redemption following drug addiction, homelessness and prison.

Grijalva, who has been fighting cancer, has declared this is his last run for office. His outstanding record of service easily merits our support in this valedictory campaign.

Ballot measuresArizonans must sort through a daunting mountain of verbiage on this year’s ballot — some 13 ballot measures, 11 of which are “referred” to the ballot by the Legislature and two of which are citizen initiatives.

Of the 11 legislative referrals — all of which are opposed by the Star — we see several of the most odious as attempts to undermine the will of the public.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Before we take a tour through all of those referrals, let’s address the two citizens’ initiatives:

The Arizona Daily Star endorses Prop. 139 to enshrine in the state Constitution abortion rights up until fetal viability.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which invalidated Roe v. Wade and allowed states to set their own abortion laws, the pro-choice movement worked to get this initiative on the ballot. If passed, it will protect the right to abortion up until fetal viability — considered to be 22-24 weeks. After that point, abortion would be allowed if necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.

It would supersede the state law passed earlier this year which eliminated an 1860s-era ban and replaced it with a 15-week limit.

In the post-Roe era it has become clear that such state constitutional protections are needed, and the Star supports this initiative.

The Arizona Daily Star endorses Prop. 140, a constitutional amendment to create “open” primary elections.

It would turn all primary elections into open elections in which all primary candidates, regardless of primary, run against each other and the winners go to the general election. If the Legislature chooses, ranked-choice voting could be used in general elections instead of a two-person runoff.

Opposed by both political parties, Prop. 140 would make it easier for the 34% of Arizona voters not registered with any party to use their potential influence.

We support this proposition because we believe it to be a needed tool to give independents a voice — but also because we believe it will moderate the current extreme polarization in the state’s politics. Party primary voters tend to be more toward the extremes of the parties’ positions, and so the threat of being “primaried” by a more extreme candidate results in candidates staking out relatively extreme positions. We believe if everyone voted in one primary regardless of party, and independents also voted, candidates would gravitate to more reasonable and centrist positions. We think that is a change that is desperately needed.

Opponents on our advisory board cited confusing language and the imperfect architecture of the measure, which leaves it to the Legislature to decide whether the top 2 primary finishers would move on to the general or whether a ranked-choice voting system would be implemented. Ultimately, though we agree the proposition could have been more straightforward in its construction, we believe that its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

The Arizona Daily Star supports the passage of Prop. 140.

Now for the legislative referrals, which, again, we oppose:

Prop. 133 seeks a constitutional amendment to preserve the current structure of party primary elections and block the state from implementing alternatives — a direct effort to block Prop 140, the citizens’ initiative to open primaries to independent voters.

Prop. 134 would make it much harder to get a citizens’ initiative on the ballot — already an uphill battle. As the Star has previously stated in an editorial, we believe that this effort to shut down a citizens’ initiative process that has been important to Arizona’s governance throughout the state’s history is dangerous and misguided. It is part of a long-running attack by Republican legislators to a process they dislike because it’s a direct challenge to their lawmaking powers.

Prop. 135 would give the Legislature power to limit emergency declarations by the governor. The roots of this go back to the coronavirus pandemic, when Gov. Doug Ducey kept an emergency declaration in place for two years, angering fellow Republicans in the Legislature. Republicans tried to limit the governor’s emergency powers with a bill last year, but current governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it. A proposed constitutional amendment should be looked at without considering the current dysfunction between our Democratic governor and Republican-led Legislature, but we do not believe a compelling case has been made to transfer power from executive to legislative branch.

Prop. 136 would allow challenges to the constitutionality of a citizen initiative before it goes to a vote. We believe this simply falls into the bucket of another effort to curtail Arizonans’ initiative powers, and therefore we oppose it.

Prop. 137 would protect two Arizona Supreme Court justices currently up for a retention vote, and also eliminate retention elections for judges. After the Arizona Supreme Court voted to uphold the state’s 1860s-era ban on abortion, pro-choice forces mobilized to vote out two Supreme Court justices who upheld the ban and are up for a retention election, Kathryn King and Clint Bolick. (More on the retention vote later.) Cynically, a win for Prop 137 would allow King and Bolick to keep their jobs even if they lose the retention vote on this ballot. But more concerning is that it essentially would give Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court justices essentially lifetime positions (barring a high level of misconduct.) While we have concerns about the judicial retention system, we do not believe giving judges carte blanche is good government.

Prop. 138 would create a constitutional amendment to reduce the subminimum wage for tipped workers. Right now, this proposition is a solution in search of a problem, since the effort it originally targeted, a measure to force restaurant owners to pay full minimum wage to tipped workers, died in court. If this proposition is defeated, the status quo on tipped workers’ compensation would remain, which seems fine with us. While the effort to protect restaurants — and by extension, workers’ jobs — can be seen as well-intentioned, we don’t believe it is necessary.

Prop. 311 would enact a state law adding a $20 fee to be paid by convicted criminals to fund a $250,000 benefit for fallen first responders. The so-called “Back the Blue Act.” is a response to the criticisms of police and physical attacks on first responders, and proponents argue it will help recruit new officers. Opponents note that survivors of fallen officers already receive generous benefits, including full replacement of the officer’s salary, paid out to the spouse, or a smaller amount to children, as well as $437,000 in educational benefits for children. We believe existing benefit provisions are sufficient.

Prop. 312 would enact a state law giving tax relief to property owners affected by unchecked drug use or homeless activities. It is an effort to bypass a Hobbs veto of a 2023 bill that would have forced cities to act faster when complaints over transients are made. Phoenix and Tucson have also been sued over this issue; Phoenix lost and Tucson won. Under this proposal, property owners could get tax refunds for costs they incur if a city or county “follows a policy, pattern or practice of declining to enforce existing laws” prohibiting illegal camping, drug use, panhandling and other activities.

The Star does not believe the Legislature should follow a practice of evading gubernatorial vetoes through ballot measures, and this is no exception.

Prop. 313 would change state law to require a life sentence for a conviction of class 2 felony child sex trafficking. Judges already have the option of sentencing such convicts to life but may impose a lesser sentence if circumstances warrant. We oppose more mandatory-sentencing strictures.

Prop. 314 would change state laws to allow Arizona police to arrest people who cross the Mexican border between ports of entry. It is another effort to overcome a Hobbs veto. The measure would also create higher penalties for deaths related to fentanyl smuggled across the border — but doesn’t address deaths linked to domestically sourced fentanyl.

We believe enforcement against illegal border-crossers is properly the province of federal law enforcement, principally the Border Patrol, and that this measure amounts to political posturing and is constitutionally suspect.

Prop. 315 would require legislative approval for any change in state rules that will cost more than $500,000. It’s an effort to evade a Hobbs veto of a bill from the Legislature’s right-wing Freedom Caucus. Again, we find this unneeded.

Judicial retention: Should Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King be retained? The Arizona Daily Star — reluctantly — supports yes votes on their retention.

While we strongly disagree with Bolick and King’s votes to reinstate an 1864 total ban on abortion after the Dobbs decision, we do not believe justices should be thrown off the court because of a single decision we disagree with. We do not favor giving judges essentially lifetime appointments, as per Proposition 137, but neither do we agree with removing justices based on one case decision.

We believe Bolick and King are out of touch with mainstream voters on the abortion issue. Does that disqualify them from their seats on the Supreme Court bench? We do not believe so. We think judicial retention should be based on a far more temperate evaluation of judicial performance. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review gave both Bolick and King favorable ratings.

Pima County Sheriff: The Arizona Daily Star endorses Republican Heather Lappin over incumbent Democrat Chris Nanos.

The evidence indicates that Nanos has a temperament unsuitable to both law enforcement and leadership. He’s displayed vindictiveness, a hot temper and questionable judgment. He suspended opponent Lappin and Sergeant Aaron Cross, a Lappin supporter and union leader, after Lappin posted a picture of deputies protesting against Nanos, wearing clothing that resembled their work uniforms.

Whether or not Nanos was within his legal rights, suspending your opponent in the heat of a campaign is an absurd thing to do. A better leader would have placed himself above such an act, recognizing that to outside observers, the optics of such a move are awful despite the technical details he relied on in support of his actions.

Lappin, who runs the intake facility at the detention center, is light on experience. But her opponent has shown himself unworthy of his position, and she has earned a shot to show she’s capable of performing well in the county’s top law-enforcement job.

Pima County Treasurer: The Arizona Daily Star endorses incumbent Republican Chris Ackerley over Democratic challenger Brian Johnson.

The fact that Ackerley won the support of two Democrats to gain appointment to the Treasurer role reflects how respected he is in the Treasurer’s Office. He was appointed in April to fill the term of retiring Republican Beth Ford and had been chief deputy in the office prior to his appointment. Johnson has been active in neighborhood and regional volunteer work and with the Service Employees International Union, in addition to working in the Assessor’s Office and Finance & Risk Management in county government. He is a fine and qualified candidate, but Ackerley gets the edge because of his direct experience in the Treasurer’s Office.

Pima County Attorney: The Arizona Daily Star endorses incumbent Democrat Laura Conover over Green Party candidate Howard Druan.

Conover effectively won re-election when she defeated Mike Jette in the Democratic primary. We support her reelection and her overall vision for her office. We believe she must be more aggressive in prosecution of felony domestic violence cases, and she has pledged to reexamine her office’s performance in that area.