Guests - Mark Lewis, Betsy Smith, Elijah Norton
Ballots Are Moving, and Voters Need to Know Where Theirs Is
Kathleen Winn opened with a practical warning as Arizona moved deeper into election season: if you are expecting a mail ballot, pay attention now rather than waiting until the last minute.
Winn said she had already received more than a dozen messages from listeners asking when their ballots would arrive. Her own ballot had not yet reached her East Side home, despite notifications that ballots were being sent.
Her advice was straightforward. Check your voter information online. If you are supposed to receive a mail ballot, you should have received communication from the county. If the ballot still has not arrived by Monday, contact the Recorder’s Office or Elections Department and start asking questions.
With that housekeeping out of the way, Winn turned to what voters are actually being asked to decide—and what those decisions mean for Arizona’s economy, housing, water and long-term prosperity.
Mark Lewis: Arizona Cannot Regulate Its Way to Affordability
Mark Lewis returned with a recurring argument that runs through nearly every major economic challenge facing Arizona: government cannot mandate affordability while simultaneously adding costs to everything people build, buy and use.
Lewis said policymakers should be looking for ways to reduce costs and regulation so that private markets can deliver less expensive water, power, gasoline and housing.
That process will not happen overnight.
“It’s a slow, multi-year process,” Lewis said.
But the direction matters.
Winn said she had recently met with builders who described the impact of increasingly expensive government requirements. One affordable-housing project, she said, was being required to include approximately 10 electric-vehicle charging stations at an estimated cost of roughly $50,000 each.
That adds around half a million dollars to a project before anyone moves in.
The irony was obvious to Winn: a project intended to create affordable housing was being made less affordable by mandates imposed in the name of government policy.
Lewis said that is precisely the problem.
“You can’t mandate affordability,” he said.
What government can do is reduce the regulatory costs that prevent different kinds of housing from being built at price points working families can afford.
Lewis also argued that homeownership still matters because it remains one of the primary ways working people build equity.
Packing families indefinitely into apartments may satisfy a government housing metric, but it does not necessarily create the kind of long-term financial security previous generations were able to achieve through homeownership.
EV Chargers, Fire Sprinklers and the Cost of Good Intentions
Lewis broadened the argument beyond EV infrastructure.
He criticized mandates for fire sprinklers, charging stations, additional parking and other requirements that may sound individually reasonable but cumulatively drive up construction costs.
His position was not that no one should ever have those amenities. It was that customers and builders should be able to decide whether they are worth paying for.
“If you don’t want electric charging stations and you don’t want fire sprinklers, you should have the right to opt out of that program,” Lewis said.
He recalled a battle from his development career involving a fire district near Casa Grande. When officials attempted to mandate residential sprinkler systems in homes he was building, Lewis said he created a separate fire district, restricted the sprinkler requirement for smaller homes and appointed himself chief.
“And then I named myself the chief of the fire district and gave myself a gold badge,” he joked.
The story was amusing, but his point was serious.
When regulators add costs without understanding the market consequences, somebody eventually has to challenge them.
Winn called that “marketplace thinking” rather than “government-place thinking.”
Data Centers Should Bring Power to the Grid, Not Drain It
The conversation moved naturally to data centers, one of the biggest development fights in Pima County.
Lewis said modern data centers and industrial developments can be designed to reduce their demands on traditional infrastructure.
He argued that major facilities should be capable of producing their own electricity and potentially generate more power than they consume.
Lewis said he supports the idea that large data centers should generate roughly 105 to 110 percent of their own power, making them contributors to the electric grid rather than simply enormous new customers.
The same principle can apply to water.
Lewis said he had spoken with people connected to a Marana data-center proposal who told him the project would use municipal water largely for ordinary human needs such as bathrooms, while relying on its own systems for industrial operations.
He believes manufacturing companies should also have greater freedom to develop on-site energy and water systems.
Instead of treating every major industrial project as an automatic threat to resources, Lewis wants Arizona asking whether private innovation can solve the problem.
Lewis Says Pima County’s Data-Center Moratorium Violates State Law
Winn and Lewis sharply criticized Pima County’s decision to impose a temporary moratorium on data-center development.
Winn noted that the Goldwater Institute had challenged the county’s authority to impose the freeze.
Lewis said he had direct knowledge of Arizona’s moratorium law because he helped work on the statute in the 1990s during Mark Killian’s tenure as speaker.
His description of the law was clear: local governments cannot simply halt lawful development because officials want time to figure out what regulations they might prefer.
“You can’t place a moratorium on any development until you’ve done the research and the studies and you have the data to back it up,” Lewis said.
In his view, Pima County failed that test.
“They’re breaking the law,” he said.
Lewis warned that such actions can expose taxpayers to litigation.
That frustrates Winn because the officials making the decision do not personally bear the cost if government loses in court.
Taxpayers do.
She argued that government leaders should be particularly careful about legal limits when they are entrusted with public money.
Proposition 141: A Mandate Against Mandates
Lewis and Winn then moved to Proposition 141, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment addressing taxes or fees based on vehicle miles traveled.
Lewis described it in one phrase:
“It’s a mandate to stop mandates.”
The basic principle, as he explained it, is that state and local governments should not be able to impose mileage-based taxes, travel monitoring or similar restrictions without the consent of voters.
Lewis connected it to other efforts intended to restrain photo radar and local taxation.
His concern is that governments already have numerous ways to impose taxes and fees. New technologies could create even more mechanisms for monitoring behavior and generating revenue.
If governments want to take that step, Lewis argued, they should first obtain permission from the people being governed.
He also used the discussion to make a broader point about political careers.
“The only mandate I like is mandated for limited terms of service,” Lewis said.
He argued that public office was never supposed to become a permanent occupation.
Citizens were supposed to serve, return home and allow others to participate.
Winn Backs the Statewide Legislative Referrals
Winn reviewed a series of statewide propositions she said Pima County Republicans are supporting, including measures addressing vehicle-mile taxes, DEI and affirmative-action policies, election rules, grocery taxes, drug cartels, girls’ sports, photo radar and classroom funding.
Lewis generally supported the group while expressing reservations about portions of election policy involving voting by mail.
He strongly endorsed proof of citizenship for voting but noted that Arizona’s previous efforts have faced federal legal challenges.
The larger theme, however, remained consistent.
Lewis believes state propositions are increasingly necessary because local and state officials have pushed government into areas where it does not belong.
He compared socialism to a mousetrap.
“You never figure out why the cheese is free until it’s too late,” Lewis said.
His warning was that every government-provided benefit ultimately has a cost, even when politicians initially present it as free.
Proposition 425 and Pima County’s Request for More Spending Authority
Winn then turned to Proposition 425, one of her most frequent local targets.
She described it as an attempt by Pima County to alter existing expenditure limitations and gain access to significantly more spending authority.
The figure discussed was approximately $630 million.
Winn’s objection is rooted in trust.
Why give a government more spending authority, she asked, when the same government is already making decisions she considers legally questionable and financially irresponsible?
Lewis said his own history with Pima County government goes back decades.
He recalled taking the county to court over a building permit for Quail Creek and eventually winning.
He described the county government as deeply bureaucratic and resistant to business.
For both Winn and Lewis, Proposition 425 therefore becomes something larger than an accounting question.
It is a referendum on whether voters believe existing county leadership has earned greater financial freedom.
Winn’s answer was emphatically no.
Lewis: Data Centers Are Infrastructure for the Next Generation
Lewis argued that hostility toward data centers also ignores what those facilities actually represent.
Artificial intelligence, computing and digital knowledge require physical infrastructure.
Children already grow up using devices that can connect them instantly to extraordinary amounts of information.
That intelligence lives somewhere.
“Why wouldn’t you want to have all the knowledge in the world at your fingertips in a data center down in Pima County?” Lewis asked.
He believes Southern Arizona should compete to become part of that infrastructure rather than regulate it away.
Data centers, advanced manufacturing and research institutions can all reinforce one another.
For Lewis, the University of Arizona should be leading that effort.
Arizona’s Water Fight Could Define Pima County’s Future
Water became the most consequential part of Lewis’ discussion.
Lewis said Gov. Katie Hobbs and other Lower Basin governors had agreed to a potential reduction involving 723,000 acre-feet of water, which he characterized as roughly 70 percent of Arizona’s renewable Colorado River supply.
He said Arizona lawmakers had not accepted that framework and emphasized that the Legislature has an important role in approving major water decisions.
Lewis portrayed that legislative authority as a crucial protection.
In his view, the proposed reduction would hit Tucson and Phoenix particularly hard.
Pima County relies heavily on Central Arizona Project water.
If that renewable supply is sharply reduced, communities would increasingly rely on groundwater reserves.
Lewis said Arizona wisely stored enormous quantities underground over the previous two decades.
“We put 4 million acre-feet of water underground for a non-rainy day,” he said.
He estimated that reserve could represent roughly 10 years of supply under certain conditions.
But having reserves does not mean Arizona should casually burn through them.
“What happens after 10 years?” Winn asked.
That is exactly the question Lewis believes state leaders should be answering now.
Lewis Proposes Federal Debt Relief to Fund New Water Infrastructure
Lewis offered a specific alternative.
He said the Central Arizona Project and Arizona users still owe the federal government approximately $1 billion related to construction of the canal system.
If the federal government dramatically reduces the amount of water Arizona can receive through that infrastructure, Lewis believes Arizona should not continue paying the entire original debt.
His proposal would seek approximately $700 million in federal debt relief.
Arizona could then redirect that money toward desalination, conservation and new water infrastructure.
Lewis said President Trump should treat Arizona’s water problem as an emergency and accelerate federal approvals for projects that otherwise could take a decade or longer.
The goal would be infrastructure rather than new taxes.
“It’s not complicated,” Lewis said.
He argued that Arizona needs to stop treating water scarcity as something that can be managed indefinitely through restrictions and instead increase supply.
Water, Power and Housing Are the Same Economic Problem
Lewis emphasized that water policy cannot be separated from affordability.
Housing requires water.
Industry requires water.
Power generation frequently requires water.
New businesses examine water security before investing billions of dollars in a region.
If Arizona cannot promise dependable long-term supplies, development slows.
Prices rise.
Businesses go elsewhere.
Lewis said the three economic issues voters repeatedly raise with him are housing, gasoline and water.
They are not isolated problems.
They are interconnected costs of living.
Winn argued that voters should evaluate gubernatorial candidates in that context rather than through personalities or television advertising.
She strongly backed Andy Biggs and criticized Hobbs’ handling of water negotiations.
Lewis likewise praised Biggs’ record on taxes and regulation.
Biggs, Tax Policy and Arizona’s Growth Model
Lewis pointed to Biggs’ tenure as Arizona Senate president and credited him with helping advance the state’s 2.5 percent flat income-tax rate.
Lewis argued that low taxation helped Arizona attract investment and high-tech manufacturing.
He cited Raytheon and its large defense contracts as an example of why Tucson must remain capable of supporting major industrial employers.
Those employers need energy.
They need water.
They need housing for workers.
And they need predictable regulations.
Winn warned that companies already located in Arizona should never be taken for granted.
Raytheon may be in Tucson today.
That does not mean it is obligated to remain forever if the business environment deteriorates.
Lewis Wants Arizona Universities Focused on the Future
Lewis challenged the University of Arizona to become more directly involved in solving the state’s economic and technological problems.
He suggested research into advanced data centers, energy efficiency, desalination and even data centers in space.
His frustration is that universities have enormous research capacity but too often focus on projects that do not directly improve affordability or infrastructure.
He wants the Arizona Board of Regents to push institutions toward research that strengthens Arizona’s competitive advantage.
Why not make Tucson the world leader in efficient data-center communication?
Why not develop better desalination technology?
Why not invent electric-vehicle systems that can charge from ordinary outlets rather than requiring extremely expensive infrastructure?
Lewis sees those as the kinds of questions public universities should be trying to answer.
Capitalism, Innovation and the People Who Actually Create Jobs
The conversation became philosophical when Lewis defended wealthy entrepreneurs and investors.
“A poor person shoveling dirt never gave me a job to build houses,” he said. “It was a rich guy.”
Lewis does not resent successful entrepreneurs.
He wants them creating businesses because their investments produce jobs for everybody else.
“No socialist ever gave me a job,” he said. “It was only a capitalist.”
Winn agreed, drawing on her own years working in real estate and development.
She said economic success should not be treated as a moral failure.
Profit encourages people to build, invest and take risks.
That creates opportunities for workers, suppliers and entire communities.
For Winn, prosperity remains part of the American dream.
Lewis Gives Arizona Government a C-Minus
Asked to grade Arizona’s current ability to support free-market innovation, Lewis gave it a C-minus.
His biggest complaint is lack of accountability at the municipal and county level.
Cities can raise taxes, impose regulations and deliver poor services, he argued, without facing the kind of meaningful performance audit businesses routinely face.
Lewis wants a stronger audit and process-improvement function capable of examining local governments and recommending ways to deliver services more efficiently.
He pointed to an audit from Biggs’ earlier state-government career that Lewis said uncovered approximately $100 million inside the Central Arizona Project organization that elected board members had not fully understood was available.
That is the kind of scrutiny he wants applied more broadly.
“Political subdivisions need to be held to the same standards as state agencies,” Lewis said.
He believes every major local government should face routine examinations focused not only on whether money was legally spent but whether taxpayers actually received value.
Winn paired that argument with her support for Biggs and Sina Kerr, praising Biggs’ government experience and Kerr’s agricultural background.
Arizona, she argued, needs leaders who understand both policy and the industries affected by it.
Mike Ditka’s Death Brings Politics to a Temporary Halt
The political conversation paused after news broke that legendary Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka had died at 86.
For Winn, the story was deeply personal.
She grew up around Chicago sports, watching games with her father and absorbing the culture of the Bears, Cubs, Blackhawks and Bulls.
Her mother had bowled at Ditka Lanes.
Years later, Winn met Ditka while working with the NFL and helping organize Super Bowl breakfasts around the country.
She remembered him as approachable, funny and generous.
The timing also carried emotional weight because Winn had recently lost her mother.
The death of an icon connected to childhood memories brought those years rushing back.
Winn shared one of her favorite Ditka lessons: success requires attitude, character and enthusiasm.
Attitude determines how a person responds.
Character answers what a person stands for.
Enthusiasm determines whether the person will fully commit.
And Winn connected Ditka’s philosophy directly to politics.
“If you settle for defeat, you’re going to be defeated,” she said, paraphrasing the lesson she learned from him. “If you settle for mediocrity, you’re going to be mediocre.”
For Pima County conservatives who feel permanently outnumbered, Winn saw a message worth remembering.
Play to win anyway.
Betsy Smith: Mike Ditka Was Chicago
Betsy Brantner-Smith of the National Police Association joined Winn and immediately turned the segment into a shared Chicago remembrance.
Smith had actually met Ditka while serving in law enforcement.
Ditka opened a restaurant called Ditka Dogs in Naperville, where Smith worked as a police officer. She helped run security for the opening and got the opportunity to meet the legendary player and coach.
Smith remembered him as imposing physically but warm personally.
She also remembered his lifelong support for law enforcement.
“He was funny and he was warm and he loved America,” Smith said. “And I can say this personally: he really supported law enforcement.”
Ditka had been a star player before becoming a legendary coach, earning multiple Pro Bowl selections and playing for the Bears, Eagles and Cowboys.
Chicago fans, Smith joked, were willing to forgive the Cowboys part.
His career made him one of the rare figures to experience championship success as a player, assistant and head coach.
But for Winn and Smith, his significance went far beyond statistics.
He belonged to the city.
Ditka, Walter Payton and Loyalty Beyond Football
Smith highlighted Ditka’s relationship with Walter Payton.
Payton was not merely a superstar running back. Smith remembered him as a gentleman and philanthropist whose relationship with Ditka continued away from football.
When Payton died, Ditka was devastated.
Smith said Ditka continued supporting charitable efforts associated with Payton’s family afterward.
That loyalty mattered to both women.
They saw it as evidence of a kind of leadership that does not disappear when the cameras turn off.
Winn likewise remembered Ditka’s kindness during her own brief personal encounter.
He listened when she told him about growing up around Ditka Lanes and treated the story as though it mattered.
For someone with an enormous public profile, that ability to make ordinary people feel noticed left an impression.
Ditka the Restaurateur
Smith also reminded listeners that Ditka’s Chicago identity extended into business.
He operated restaurants and built a successful brand around his name.
Smith described his restaurants as classy without being pretentious and recalled the coach’s enthusiasm for steak.
For Chicago expatriates like Smith and Winn, places bearing Ditka’s name became another connection to home.
It was part football nostalgia, part local culture and part personality.
“This truly is the end of an era,” Smith said.
Brian’s Song, Gale Sayers and a Different Era of Sports
The remembrance expanded into one of the most famous stories in Bears history: Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers.
Piccolo died at just 26 after battling an aggressive form of cancer.
His friendship with Sayers, a Black teammate, became the basis of Brian’s Song, a film that became a cultural touchstone far beyond Chicago.
Smith pointed out that the story arrived during a period of enormous racial tension in America.
The friendship between Piccolo and Sayers offered a different message.
Football had put two men from different backgrounds beside each other as teammates, roommates and friends.
Smith and Winn both remembered the film vividly.
They also discussed the Bears players who rallied around Piccolo during his illness and participated in his funeral.
For them, those memories reflected an era when professional sports frequently became intertwined with family life, civic identity and character formation.
Sundays Meant Church, Family and Football
Smith summed up the culture in one sentence.
“Sundays were for church, family dinner and football.”
Winn immediately agreed.
Both grew up in families where fathers took sports seriously and daughters learned the players, numbers and statistics because football was part of family time.
Smith joked that one reason children absorbed those details was simple: they did not have Instagram or smartphones.
Families actually sat together.
They talked.
They watched games.
They paid attention.
That sounds nostalgic, but both women believe something meaningful has been lost as family attention has become increasingly fragmented.
Dick Butkus and the Chicago Bears Identity
The conversation moved naturally from Ditka to Dick Butkus.
Winn remembered having a Butkus doll as one of her childhood treasures.
Butkus represented Chicago in much the same way Ditka did: tough, intensely competitive and unapologetically connected to Illinois football culture.
Smith recalled Butkus’ University of Illinois history and the pride surrounding generations of Bears players.
Chicago football fans have suffered through plenty of losing seasons.
That may be part of why the great ones become so deeply beloved.
The 1985 Bears were not simply successful.
They were a phenomenon.
The Super Bowl Shuffle, William “The Refrigerator” Perry, Walter Payton and Ditka became national cultural figures.
For a generation of Chicagoans, Smith said, the Bears truly felt like America’s team.
Smith Says Chicago’s Crime Problems Could Eventually Push the Bears Away
Nostalgia eventually collided with modern politics.
Smith said debate continues over where the Bears will build their future stadium, with options including Arlington Heights and even a move across the state line into Indiana.
She said she would prefer Indiana.
Her reasoning was political and practical.
She believes crime and governance in Chicago have made the city less attractive and less safe.
A stadium outside the city, particularly in a more conservative state, could be easier and safer for fans to reach.
That argument reflected one of Smith’s recurring themes: local policies eventually have consequences that cannot be hidden behind civic pride.
A beloved institution can love a city and still decide the city no longer works for it.
Noah Fifita Represents the Kind of Leadership Sports Still Needs
Smith and Winn closed their sports discussion by shifting from Chicago history to the University of Arizona.
Smith praised quarterback Noah Fifita, not primarily for his athletic ability but for his character.
She highlighted his involvement in the community and the way he carries himself away from football.
“Leadership on the field matters,” Winn said, “but leadership off the field matters more.”
Smith believes Fifita represents something worth celebrating in an era when professional and college sports can often become dominated by egos and controversy.
Arizona, she said, should be proud not only of what he does in uniform but of the kind of man he is becoming.
Elijah Norton: Business Experience Matters When the Job Is Managing $34 Billion
The final major conversation returned to money.
Elijah Norton, Republican candidate for Arizona state treasurer, argued that the treasurer’s race should be treated like a serious job interview.
The office manages approximately $34 billion.
That means business history matters.
Financial judgment matters.
Character matters.
And competence matters.
Norton drew a sharp contrast between his own business record and that of his opponent, Nick Mansour.
Norton said he built his company from nothing into an organization generating roughly half a billion dollars in annual revenue with millions of customers.
He then leveled a series of allegations against Mansour’s business history, including claims involving a prior medical-device company and the Arizona College of Nursing.
Because those were campaign allegations presented by Norton, they remain his characterization of the underlying events.
But Norton argued they should be scrutinized because someone seeking control over billions in public assets deserves more examination, not less.
Norton Attacks Mansour’s Record in the Medical-Device Business
Norton said Mansour had held a senior revenue role in a company that sold CPAP and sleep-apnea equipment.
According to Norton, the business later faced federal enforcement and paid an $11.4 million settlement connected to Medicare-related conduct.
Norton alleged the problems centered on sales practices and payments connected to referrals.
His argument was not that merely working at a company with legal problems automatically disqualifies someone.
It was that senior leadership experience should be evaluated when the candidate is now asking voters for responsibility over state investments.
“This is a job that requires someone that you can trust,” Norton said.
Norton Calls the Arizona College of Nursing Record Another Warning Sign
Norton also attacked Mansour’s leadership at the Arizona College of Nursing, a for-profit institution.
He alleged that students accumulated significant debt while completion rates lagged and that the institution faced state regulatory scrutiny.
Norton cited a completion rate of approximately 69 percent during Mansour’s leadership and contrasted that with a higher industry benchmark.
He also discussed elevated student-loan default rates under later leadership and said the state placed the school on probation in 2022.
Norton characterized the record as evidence of failed management.
Again, the assertions were made by a political opponent and were not independently adjudicated during the discussion.
But Norton’s argument was consistent: voters should examine the record of anyone seeking control over Arizona’s treasury.
Norton Says Attacks on His Own 19-Year-Old Self Leave Out the Most Important Fact
Norton said Mansour had attacked him over a company he worked for when he was 19.
But Norton told a very different story about that episode.
He said the owner of the company was engaged in wrongdoing and that Norton helped report him to authorities.
“I brought this person to justice,” Norton said.
He described himself as effectively a young whistleblower.
Winn liked that framing.
Norton said the owner ultimately went to prison and argued that attacking him for having worked there omits the fact that he was a teenager who helped authorities expose the wrongdoing.
Rather than being embarrassed by it, Norton said he is proud of what he did.
He also joked that the experience may have improved his ability to identify questionable business behavior later in life.
Norton Wants a Historical Audit of Arizona Government Spending
Winn then asked Norton what the state treasurer can do about fraud, waste and abuse.
Norton was careful about the legal boundaries of the office.
“The treasurer does not have the authority to conduct an audit,” he said.
But laws can change.
Norton said he has spoken with lawmakers from both parties and believes there is public support for a more comprehensive historical examination of state finances.
He proposed an audit structure involving the treasurer, Auditor General and Legislature.
The findings should then be published for citizens to review.
If misconduct is discovered, Norton said, responsible officials should be held accountable.
He cited the Santa Cruz County treasurer scandal as an example of why existing oversight cannot simply be assumed to work.
According to Norton, approximately $30 million was stolen over roughly two decades before the problem was discovered.
The lesson is that audits have to do more than check boxes.
They have to find problems.
Education Spending Should Be Traced Into the Classroom
Norton tied the audit proposal directly to education.
Democrats frequently argue that Arizona schools need more funding.
Norton believes the first question should be where the current money is going.
He said conversations with education officials and school-board members repeatedly lead him to the same concern: too much money remains in administration and fails to reach teachers and classrooms.
“Let’s find out where that money is going,” Norton said.
Only then can policymakers determine whether the real problem is insufficient funding, poor allocation or both.
For Norton, accountability should precede another demand for taxpayers to write a larger check.
The Local Government Investment Pool Could Earn More Without Taking More Risk
Norton then explained one of the less visible but important functions of the state treasurer.
Arizona operates a Local Government Investment Pool containing approximately $7 billion.
Cities, counties and towns can choose to invest public funds through the state treasurer.
Norton said that if elected, he would actively encourage more local governments to participate regardless of whether their elected officials are Republicans or Democrats.
Money management, he argued, should not be partisan.
He also believes the current returns can be improved.
The pools were earning roughly 3.7 percent under the figures he discussed.
Norton believes better cash-flow management and stronger vendor negotiations could add approximately one-quarter to one-half of a percentage point without materially increasing risk.
He estimated that the improvement could generate roughly $100 million annually.
That is the kind of reform Norton wants to make the center of the treasurer’s office: boring, technical improvements that produce real money for taxpayers.
Norton: Money Is Not Red or Blue. It Is Green.
That idea became one of Norton’s clearest themes.
“Money’s not red or blue,” he said. “It’s green.”
He wants the treasurer’s office insulated from ideological experimentation.
Investment policy should be based on risk, liquidity, returns and the obligations attached to each fund.
Not partisan fashion.
That principle became particularly important when the conversation turned to the Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund.
Norton Opposes Moving Arizona’s Education Trust Fund to 80 Percent Stocks
Norton said the Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund holds approximately $11 billion.
Revenue from the sale of state trust land is deposited into the fund, invested and distributed for designated beneficiaries, including education.
Under the asset allocation Norton described, approximately 60 percent is currently invested in equities and 40 percent in bonds or similar fixed-income assets.
He said Mansour wants to move that allocation to approximately 80 percent equities and 20 percent bonds.
Norton strongly opposes the idea.
“That’s risky,” he said. “That’s so risky.”
His concern is amplified by current market valuations.
If equities are near historically elevated valuation levels, moving significantly more public money into stocks could expose education funds to a major downturn precisely when those resources are needed.
Norton said eight of Arizona’s 15 county treasurers had signed a letter criticizing the proposal and endorsed him.
He also disputed comparisons with states such as Texas and Utah, arguing that their investment structures are materially different.
Texas, he said, has a much lower stock allocation in the comparable structure and uses other asset classes.
Arizona also has mandatory distribution requirements that change the risk calculation.
For Norton, copying one piece of another state’s portfolio without copying the entire structure is financially irresponsible.
“Safety Before Liquidity and Liquidity Before Yield”
Norton returned to the traditional philosophy of the Treasurer’s Office.
“Safety before liquidity and liquidity before yield.”
That order matters.
The money is not venture capital.
It belongs to the public.
“I want to keep it safe,” Norton said.
Arizona’s Treasury has successfully survived multiple market shocks, including the dot-com collapse and the 2008 financial crisis.
Norton sees no reason to radically transform a structure that has repeatedly protected taxpayers through volatile markets.
“We should not be taking a sledgehammer to something that has been working well,” he said.
His criticism of Mansour’s proposed allocation was therefore not merely that it might produce a bad year.
It was that public money should never be managed with a private-equity mentality that prioritizes maximum upside over preservation.
Prop 123, Education Funding and the Long-Term Distribution Problem
Norton also discussed Proposition 123 and the distribution rate from the Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund.
The previous structure distributed approximately 6.9 percent.
Norton believes that level is difficult to sustain indefinitely.
If the fund earns around 9 percent while inflation runs around 2 percent, distributing 6.9 percent leaves very little real growth after inflation.
Over time, that can erode purchasing power.
Norton would ultimately prefer a distribution rate closer to 5 percent.
But he does not want to cut education funding to get there.
That means Arizona needs another way to enlarge the principal.
His answer is state land.
Norton Wants Arizona to Sell More Developable State Land
Arizona still holds approximately 9 million acres of state land, Norton said.
He does not advocate selling all of it.
He specifically excluded scenic, recreational and environmentally valuable areas from his argument.
Instead, he wants the state to identify portions already adjacent to developed communities and commercial areas.
Norton estimated roughly 1.2 million acres fit that general description.
If strategically sold, that land could generate substantial proceeds for the trust fund.
A larger fund could support education while allowing Arizona to gradually lower its annual distribution rate to a more sustainable level.
The objective would be balance.
Sell appropriate land.
Put the money into the trust.
Grow the principal.
Reduce the percentage being withdrawn.
Avoid cutting education.
Norton Calls the Current State-Land Process Bureaucratic and Archaic
Norton criticized the way Arizona currently prices and disposes of state land.
He described the system as overly bureaucratic and sometimes counterproductive.
As an example, he referred to an industrial project where the value of adjacent state-owned property increased dramatically after a company had already invested in surrounding development.
That may maximize the theoretical appraised value of a parcel, but Norton believes it can also discourage businesses from expanding.
A government that wants investment cannot constantly change the economics after a company commits capital.
For Norton, state land should be treated as an asset that can help Arizona grow, not simply as property government holds indefinitely.
Mike Ditka’s Lesson Fits the Election: Play to Win
The day moved through an unusual range of subjects.
Housing regulation.
Water.
Data centers.
State propositions.
Chicago football.
Government audits.
Education funding.
State investment policy.
But Winn’s tribute to Mike Ditka offered an unexpected thread connecting all of them.
Attitude matters.
Character matters.
Enthusiasm matters.
And if you are going to play, play to win.
For conservatives in Pima County, Winn believes that lesson is particularly relevant.
A political minority can decide in advance that defeat is inevitable.
A family can decide homeownership is no longer possible.
A state can accept water shortages, rising costs and bureaucratic stagnation as permanent.
Or people can challenge the assumptions creating those outcomes.
Lewis wants Arizona to stop trying to mandate affordability and start removing the barriers that make everything more expensive.
Smith wants a culture that remembers leadership, loyalty and character.
Norton wants the state to treat taxpayer money as something entrusted to government rather than owned by it.
Different subjects.
The same underlying demand.
Expect better—and then do the work required to get it.