Guests - Neal Cornett, Alex Kolodin, David Cancio
A Preliminary Injunction, a Recorder Playing Hide-the-Ball, and a Generation Finding Its Way Back to God
Monday on Winn Tucson opened on a federal courthouse filing and closed on the Book of Job. The distance between those two points — election integrity law and the theology of suffering — covered more common ground than the subject matter might suggest. All of it traced to the same question: what do you anchor yourself to when the institutions around you are failing?
Neal Cornett: The Preliminary Injunction, the EPM's Three Unconstitutional Provisions, and Why November Is the Real Target
Neal Cornett, senior counsel at the Oversight Project in Washington, D.C., joined Winn Tucson on Monday to explain what the organization had filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on Friday afternoon: a motion for preliminary injunction aimed at stopping enforcement of three specific provisions of the Arizona Elections Procedures Manual before they can be used against voters in the 2026 elections.
The Oversight Project, now independent for just over a year, is the government transparency organization that filed more than 80 FOIA lawsuits against the Biden administration and is active in multiple states on open records and election transparency matters. This is their first election case — filed in partnership with the Pima County Republican Party as plaintiff.
The Three Provisions Under Challenge
Provision One: The Electioneering Ban
Arizona law permits electioneering outside the 75-foot boundary around a polling place. The EPM contains language making electioneering illegal if it is "audible from inside" the voting location. The problem, as Cornett explained, is that the definition of "audible from inside" is effectively unlimited.
"Is the door cracked open? Is the door closed? Is it audible to whom inside the building — from way inside or from just inside the door?" The answer depends entirely on the discretion of the election official administering the location.
That discretion, applied by officials who are not neutrally selected, is a weapon. A supporter who is entirely within the legal boundary could be removed on the claim that their speech was audible through a partially open door. There is no standard, no measurement, and no meaningful way to challenge the determination in the moment it is made.
Kolodin sharpened the constitutional dimension in a subsequent segment: most polling places are located in city centers. A ban on audible electioneering from inside a city-center polling location is, in practical effect, a ban on protest in those cities on election day. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — every judge on the relevant panel appointed by Democratic presidents — has already ruled that a prior EPM provision by Fontes violated the First Amendment on nearly identical grounds. He is attempting it again.
"The people that Fontes's allies are saying are trying to take away protest — MAGA, the Pima County GOP — those are actually the guys going into court to defend your right to protest," Kolodin said. "It's opposite day in our state politics right now."
Provision Two: Frequent Voter Challenges as Grounds for Observer Removal
The EPM states that an observer who raises what election officials deem "frivolous" voter challenges can be removed from the voting location. There is no provision for replacement. There is no reinstatement process.
In dense urban counties, this may be an inconvenience. In Arizona's rural counties — where a single precinct can span 3,000 square miles with 10,000 voters and one Republican observer — it is the end of observation entirely.
"You may just not have another option," Cornett said. "And the Arizona statutes require at every voting location an inspector, a marshal, and an equal number of judges from recognized political parties."
The subjective determination of what constitutes a "frivolous" challenge — made by an election official who may be predisposed against the challenging party — creates exactly the kind of arbitrary and disparate enforcement the Constitution is designed to prevent. Pima County Republicans fought for years to win back the right to observe. This provision is a mechanism to revoke it under cover of process.
Provision Three: Uniform and Apparel Restrictions
The third and most significant provision is the one Cornett called "the most right for abuse and the most galling."
The EPM states that individuals wearing uniforms or "apparel generally that an election official deems is meant to deter, intimidate or harass voters" can be turned away from the polling place. A police officer heading in or out of a shift cannot be told to change clothes — a uniform is not like a political t-shirt that can be turned inside out. A Border Patrol agent. A member of the active-duty military. All of them — under this provision — can be denied their franchise at the discretion of a single election worker.
Arizona has significant military presence. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson. Fort Huachuca in Cochise County. Luke Air Force Base in Maricopa County. The Morena Range. Thousands of active-duty and retired military personnel, many of whom may show up to vote on or near their installation in uniform.
"You're in a position where a police officer who is leaving his shift or going into a shift could be turned away from the voting place," Cornett said. "He wouldn't really have any other way to exercise his vote if he hasn't submitted a mail-in ballot."
The constitutional framework is 14th Amendment equal protection: denying certain categories of citizens the privileges and immunities of their citizenship. Fontes's own justification — that he is concerned about impersonation of law enforcement — does not require this provision. There are existing criminal statutes that address impersonation. And as Cornett noted with controlled bewilderment, the presence of a law enforcement officer at a polling place would in any reasonable person's estimation make other voters feel safer, not less safe.
The Supreme Court precedent at issue is Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky — a Tea Party-era case in which the Court struck down Minnesota's prohibition on "political attire" as unconstitutionally vague, finding that it would require election workers to maintain a mental Rolodex of policy positions to apply. The EPM provision is, if anything, broader and vaguer than what the Supreme Court rejected in that case.
The Timeline: Why This Filing Happened in May
Several reporters asked Winn over the weekend why the injunction was filed now. Cornett was direct: because the general election is the target.
"What I would like to do and point out is that we're in a very good position to have a decision on this by November," he said. "The earlier the better. There is a general principle in election law that you don't want to change the rules too close to an election."
The motion was filed in May to allow sufficient time for briefing and ruling before November, when nine congressional seats, the governor's race, school board races, and multiple ballot measures will place every Arizona voter into direct contact with these provisions.
The primary in July matters. Cornett acknowledged he cannot guarantee a decision before July 21st. But the primary is how parties select their candidates. The general election is how Arizonans choose their government. That is the election that requires full protection.
One additional context: the transition from precinct-based voting to voting centers — made in the name of convenience — has systematically complicated both administration and oversight. Precinct voting produced same-day results and a known local roster of voters. Voting centers produce lines, Sharpie gates, and a broader surface area for disputed outcomes. None of that is addressed in the current lawsuit, but it frames why the EPM provisions matter: every ambiguity in a complex voting system is an opportunity for the person administering it to choose who participates easily and who is turned away.
What They're Asking For
The preliminary injunction asks for a statewide order — not just Pima County — stopping enforcement of the three challenged provisions pending the resolution of the case.
Cornett closed with a framing that cut through any appearance of partisanship: "This is going to be good for all parties. This is going to give much clearer rules of the road going forward that are not as ambiguous and not subject to the potential for abuse."
To follow the case: the Oversight Project can be reached through their Washington D.C. headquarters. Winn confirmed she will continue to update listeners as developments occur.
Alex Kolodin: Budget Fights, Fontes's Lies, and the Recorder Playing Hide-the-Ball in Pima County
Alex Kolodin, LD-3 state representative and candidate for Arizona Secretary of State, called in directly from the field — he had spent part of the weekend at LD-18 in Tucson and at the Northside Regulators event, and the Monday conversation picked up precisely where the injunction hearing had left off.
The Constitutional Stakes of the EPM Challenge
Kolodin framed the legal challenge in the language of the legislature's first duty.
"The first duty of the legislature is to protect the Constitution. When the chief elections officer tries to make it a crime to wear what you want to the polls, that's a First Amendment problem. When the chief elections officer tries to make it harder for our police and Border Patrol agents to vote, that's a 14th Amendment problem — he's trying to deny certain types of people the privileges and immunities of citizenship."
He also made a point that no liberal media outlet had chosen to make: the provision banning audible electioneering near polling places effectively bans protest in Democratic-leaning urban cores on election day. The people who went to court to fight it are the Pima County GOP and the Oversight Project — the same people the left accuses of wanting to ban protests.
"You know who is actually trying to ban protest is Adrian Fontes. And it's a very very frustrating thing to me that the people Fontes's allies say are trying to take away protest are actually the guys going into court to defend your right to protest."
The Budget: Fontes's Lies, Confirmed
Kolodin brought news from the legislative front that has direct implications for election integrity. The legislative budget committee — the body that oversees appropriations — had finally acknowledged something he had been raising for the better part of a year: Adrian Fontes lied to them about how much money he needed to run the CD-7 special election.
"They've explicitly said to me: he lied to us about how much money he needed to run that CD-7 special election. I go — well, that's what I was telling you he was doing. But they finally realized it."
The Republican budget sent to Governor Hobbs includes oversight provisions designed to reduce Fontes's discretionary funding — because what Kolodin has been documenting for months is that Fontes uses taxpayer money as a campaign tool. He received a Fontes mailer in his own office, paid for with constituents' tax dollars.
"We cannot give money to a partisan political actor like Adrian Fontes who is going to use the money to help one side over the other. He uses the money to campaign. He sends out mailers with taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Adrian Fontes has millions of dollars from the national radical democratic socialists who pour it in from all over the country."
Kolodin confirmed that budget negotiations are now active — after months of Hobbs refusing to seriously engage — and that leadership expects the legislature to be back in session in early June, with 72-hour readiness required before then.
Justin Heap's Second Victory: The Stay Denied
The Justin Heap situation in Maricopa County produced another legal victory last week. After the trial court ruled that Heap must be restored to his full authority as county recorder — including staff, budget, IT systems, and operational control — the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asked the court to stay enforcement of that ruling pending appeal.
The court denied the stay. Judge Scott Blaney rejected the board's argument that restoring election powers to the recorder this late in election season would burden election workers — finding, essentially, that restoring lawful authority provides clarity, not confusion.
Blaney also commented publicly on a filing by Supervisor Mark Stewart, who was the sole "no" vote on the board's appeal — noting that Stewart appeared to be the voice of reason on the board as it related to the Heap situation.
"The board could have been the most popular board of supervisors in Maricopa County history," Kolodin said. "All they had to say was: okay, the voters voted to give most of the election authority to the recorder — we're just going to let him do his job. Instead they decided to get into a pissing match with the recorder and try to strip away the authority the voters voted to give him."
He named Scott Jarrett — the board's elections director — as the bureaucrat who appears to be fighting for personal control over elections even in the face of a court order requiring otherwise.
"If a bureaucrat is fighting that hard for control over elections even in the face of a court order that says otherwise, then to me it seems like his motivations have to be questioned."
The Mobile Voting Unit: Hide-the-Ball
On Pima County's mobile voting unit — which Laurie Moore had reported at the previous board meeting lacks consistent observer presence — Kolodin elevated the immediate next priority: the recorder must disclose where the unit will be deployed.
"You have the right to have observers on that mobile voting center. We've been fighting for that right. And now the recorder is trying to make that very difficult by playing hide-the-ball with where those mobile voting centers are going to be deployed."
If the locations are not disclosed in time for observers to be arranged, the right to observe is hollow. And if the equipment fails — as it did the first time the unit was deployed, leaving workers collecting ballots in boxes outside a broken machine — even presence is insufficient.
He committed to raise this at the next board meeting. If the recorder does not provide the deployment schedule promptly, it becomes a litigation matter of its own.
On the 2020 Question — and Why It's the Wrong Question
Reporters repeatedly asked Kolodin about the 2020 election over the weekend. His response was consistent and deliberate.
"Arizona voters are looking for candidates who are focusing on what our state needs here and now. Arizona voters are tired of getting a history lesson every time they tune in to any show to follow politics."
His frame for his own candidacy was not the past but the future. He was a civics teacher. He has two children, ages four and two. He wants them to inherit what he inherited: a country where ballots decide who holds authority, where the Constitution protects rights, and where the pride of being an American is not an artifact of nostalgia.
"What happened in the past is only relevant to me insofar as it helps us figure out what's broken and needs fixing. I'm not running to litigate any historical grievance. I'm running to make elections free and fair and trusted for my kids."
The May 28th Fundraiser
The Pima County Republican Party is hosting Alex Kolodin at the Union House on Grant Road, Thursday, May 28th at 5:30 p.m. This is a fundraiser. Attendance requires a contribution.
Adrian Fontes is backed by national progressive dark money networks. Kolodin's campaign runs on grassroots support. Every dollar donated is spent more efficiently against that gap than any comparable investment in Arizona electoral politics.
Campaign: alexforaz.com
David Cancio: Cuba, the Gabriel Locke Series, Miami as a Mirror, and Young Men Coming Home to God
David Cancio — 35 years old, born in Florida, raised across Florida and North Carolina, graduate of NC State with a degree in Spanish language and literature, fluent in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, and Italian, now living near Palm Beach — came on as an entirely different kind of conversation. He and his father Humberto, a 47-year Miami attorney, have co-authored the Gabriel Locke series: seven books in the making, two out now, the rest coming.
The occasion for the invitation was Trump's recent comment about Cuba — describing it as a failed country and expressing interest in what he called a friendly takeover. Winn expected a geopolitical conversation about Cuba. What she got was something considerably more personal and ultimately more resonant.
Cuba, Communism, and the First Thing They Always Destroy
The Cancio family connection to Cuba runs approximately 300 years on his father's side. His mother's family is from Spain — arriving in Cuba three generations ago. His mother's side still has family on the island. His father's side has almost entirely left.
"It's a very rich nation in terms of its history and what it's done, and it's just a shame to see the ruin that it fell to with communism," Cancio said. "My interest is making sure that Americans here understand that communism is not this rose-colored glasses type of system."
The weekend's news — an Axios report that Cuba had acquired hundreds of military drones and was allegedly planning to strike the United States — generated brief alarm in South Florida. Cancio's read was immediate: Cuba does not have a fraction of what Iran had, and Iran's confrontation with the United States did not go well.
But the drone story was a vehicle to the deeper argument. The first thing Cuba's government did after Castro came to power was attack the Catholic Church — the strongest institutional center of faith and family in Cuban society. This, Cancio argued, is not coincidental. It is the invariant playbook of communist revolution.
"If your power or your rights come from God, then you will always have something higher to answer to. But if they come from the state, then the state is who you answer to. That is the first rule — always — of communism: completely get rid of any semblance of a higher power."
Miami in the 1980s as a Mirror of the United States Today
The Gabriel Locke series — the first book is Bound by Law, the second is Bound by Fate, five more in progress — follows a young Christian attorney in Miami in the 1980s. The character is modeled on Humberto Cancio's own caseload and career. Most of what appears in the books actually happened.
The creative argument David makes for the series' contemporary relevance is not merely nostalgic. Miami in the 1980s was a city experiencing, in concentrated form, what the United States is experiencing now: race riots, cocaine floods, immigration waves from people fleeing totalitarian regimes across Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. The fentanyl that is killing Americans now was the cocaine that was killing Miamians then. The immigration surge at the southern border was the boats coming to Florida. The corruption that pervades blue-city governance now was the corruption that characterized Miami's political class then.
"Miami became Florida, and Florida became the United States," Cancio said. "Everything you're seeing now are what you saw in Miami at that time."
Miami is better today. Significantly better — less corruption, less rampant drug culture, none of the COVID-era riots that erupted elsewhere, because Miami had already worked through its McDuffie Riot trauma and the police force had learned from it. What changed Miami was not a policy paper. It was lived experience driving institutional learning.
He and his father now run the Styrian Book Company together — a publishing house that makes the series possible and that has become the foundation of a professional collaboration as significant as the personal one.
The 19 Percent: Young Men Coming Back to Church
The second major thread of Cancio's conversation was the one that overtook everything else: the data showing that the fastest-growing segment returning to religious practice in the United States is young men — specifically Gen Z men, 18 to roughly 30, whose return to church is outpacing older generations.
The American Bible Society and the Barna Group have documented it. A 19 percent increase from 2024 to 2025. The trend line is significant enough to be studied.
Cancio has his own read on why, grounded in what he observes among his peer group and what he describes as his calling as "the ride-share converter."
"Men care much more about their legacies than they care about almost anything else. If you ask a man why he drives a nice car and lives in a nice house, it's almost always going to be: I need to show that I'm a good provider. At the end of the day, women are going to choose someone who's going to be a good provider."
The return to church, in his analysis, is driven by men seeking deeper purpose — and finding that purpose in an identity rooted in something more permanent than a job title or a market portfolio.
"You have an all-powerful God who made you specifically — because you're actually here — and He wants a relationship with you. And He wants to carry out things that are extremely masculine: being able to provide, living by values, aspiring to higher ideals."
The problem with women not following at the same pace, he argued, is structural: the culture actively discourages women from embracing the aspects of their femininity — partnership, family-building, the aspiration toward a faithful man rather than an accomplished one — that would naturally orient them toward what faith offers. Women are being told that dependence on a man is weakness. The result is women who are professionally accomplished and spiritually adrift.
"If you're a woman looking for someone with whom you can build a life, the problem is that a lot of women right now feel like they have to date down because they can't find guys who make all this money. But what value are you really providing outside of basically being a sugar mama if the only thing he doesn't check is income?"
The deeper argument was about foundation: couples who pray together before bed stay together at a 97 percent rate, by the data Cancio cited. There is no comparable statistic in human relational life. Not therapy. Not communication courses. Not shared financial goals. Prayer.
"If it's not filled by God, you're never going to find it."
The Book of Job and Why He Can Be Honest About It
Winn asked the question that had been building throughout the conversation: is this easy for you to hold onto? To maintain this kind of faith and conviction in a world that actively works against it?
Cancio was honest. He gets frustrated. He gets upset. He is human.
"My faith is not a consequence of the good things that have happened nor the bad things that have happened. My faith is a consequence of the loyalty to a God that I know took the time to make me, regardless of what the situation comes to."
His foundational reference is the Book of Job — which he described as the most important book of the Bible for a young man to read, because it tells the truth about what a faithful life actually looks like. You will go through times that appear to have no cause, no fault, no remedy. Job never rebuked God. Not once. He asked questions. He suffered genuinely. He never walked away.
"Sometimes I have to swallow my tongue. But the reality is — blessed be the name of the Lord, the Lord gives, the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord. I will never shy from that. And if your faith and your life are not rooted in that belief, you are going to fall over. You really will."
He described a tree rooted deep in good soil — flexible, durable, alive in the wind — and a tree in a pot floating on water, which topples from the first gust. The difference between people whose convictions hold under pressure and those whose values dissolve when things get hard, he argued, is exactly this: what is the root?
The Godfather, the Goddaughter, and What Actually Matters
Just before closing, Cancio mentioned that the day before the broadcast his goddaughter Myla had made her First Holy Communion. He had attended not only that but her baptism. He considers the role of godfather one of the most significant he has ever been given.
"There is no greater honor than to be appointed in the role of a godfather or godmother — because that is a role by appointment for the betterment of someone else's child. Aside from being a mother or a father, the greatest role ever is to be a spiritual leader for another life, especially one as young and fragile as an eight-year-old."
The Gabriel Locke series is available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Search "Gabriel Locke" or "Gabriel Locke by D.H. Cancio." Bound by Law is the first book; Bound by Fate is the second.
Instagram: D.H.Cancio — where links to all books and other projects can be found.
Winn Tucson airs Monday through Friday, 9 to 11 a.m., on KVOI 1030 The Voice.
Oversight Project election integrity lawsuit: follow updates at OversightProject.org
Alex Kolodin for Secretary of State: alexforaz.com | Fundraiser: May 28th, 5:30 p.m., Union House on Grant Road, Tucson
David Cancio and the Gabriel Locke series: search Amazon or Barnes & Noble for "Gabriel Locke." Instagram: @D.H.Cancio
Primary voter registration deadline: June 21. Early ballots: June 23. Primary: July 21.