Guests - Dennis Neill, Kim Adair, Jeff Rhodes, Jon Riches
Dennis Neill: A Murder Trial, the Media, and the Cost of Losing the Victim
Veteran business journalist, commentator and author Dennis Neill joined Kathleen Winn as a dramatic murder case was moving toward a possible mistrial. The defendant, a mother accused of killing her three children, was not disputing that the children died by her actions. The central dispute involved her mental state, the role of postpartum depression and medication, and whether prosecutors could prove the level of intent required for first-degree murder.
Winn said reports indicated the jury was deadlocked 11-to-1, with 11 jurors apparently favoring the defendant. Just as the judge appeared ready to move toward a mistrial, the defense sought time to approach an appellate court in an attempt to replace the holdout juror. Winn noted that questions surrounding that juror had arisen earlier, raising another question about why the defense had not sought the change sooner.
Neill said the prosecution may have taken a substantial risk by pursuing a first-degree, premeditated murder charge rather than a lesser offense. He also questioned why the defense had not relied more straightforwardly on an insanity defense. Whatever the procedural outcome, however, both Winn and Neill kept returning to a fact they believed was being lost in the public reaction: three children were dead.
Winn acknowledged evidence presented by the defense about the mother’s condition. Her medications had reportedly been problematic. She appeared to have sought help. There were mitigating factors that deserved consideration, and Winn said the defense attorneys had done their job by presenting them. But mitigation, she argued, should not erase the victims.
“At the end of the day, she murdered her children,” Winn said. “That is not in question.”
Neill was equally troubled by the unusually strong public sympathy surrounding the defendant. He questioned whether the demonstrations and organized support outside the courthouse were entirely spontaneous, particularly when supporters were appearing with their own children. To him, the scale and organization of the reaction raised questions about how the campaign had developed.
Winn’s concern was that a genuine mental-health issue could become a vehicle for normalizing conduct that should never be normalized. Postpartum depression is real, she said, and women suffering from it need meaningful help. But enormous numbers of women have experienced postpartum depression without killing their children.
The conversation returned repeatedly to the three children and whether their voices had effectively disappeared from the discussion. The father, the mental-health system, the medications and the legal strategy all deserved scrutiny, but none of them could change what happened to the children.
Neill compared the public response with notorious cases from previous decades in which mothers killed their children and found nothing resembling the organized sympathy visible in this case. Winn argued that the country should be capable of holding two thoughts at once: a mother may have been desperately ill and failed by people around her, and three innocent children were nevertheless killed.
That distinction, they argued, matters well beyond one courtroom.
Dennis Neill: What Happened to Maria Bartiromo at Fox?
The conversation then moved to the subject that originally brought Neill on: Maria Bartiromo’s reported split with Fox after more than a decade at the network.
Winn described Bartiromo as one of Fox Business’ most important personalities and said her departure surprised viewers who had followed her Sunday programming and business coverage. Neill, who worked in business television himself, approached the controversy as both a former colleague and someone familiar with the internal pressures of network journalism.
According to the reports they discussed, Bartiromo’s problems with Fox involved a message from a producer concerning coverage related to alleged Chinese interference. Neill said one version of events held that Bartiromo shared a screenshot or internal communication outside the network, potentially with someone connected to the White House.
He acknowledged the argument that Fox had an obligation to protect internal communications. A network could reasonably object to proprietary material being sent outside the company, particularly if another news organization could use it to embarrass Fox or portray its coverage as politically slanted.
But Neill believed the reaction went too far.
“Sometimes as a reporter, you give information to get more back information,” he said. A journalist may tell a source what she has learned precisely because she wants the source to produce additional evidence, documentation or confirmation. In Neill’s view, communicating with White House sources is not inherently improper journalism.
“Reporters do that,” he said.
He compared the situation to national reporters maintaining behind-the-scenes contact with government officials during other major stories. The mere fact that Bartiromo communicated with people inside the Trump administration, he argued, did not demonstrate that she had surrendered her journalistic independence.
Winn agreed that awareness and advocacy are different things. A reporter telling the White House that a story is being minimized is not necessarily telling the White House what position to take. The real question is whether Bartiromo was seeking information, attempting to expose something she believed was newsworthy or improperly functioning as an advocate.
Neill made clear where he stood.
“I am defending Maria because I like her and respect her a lot,” he said. “I think, though, this is such an overreaction.”
Fox’s Legal Scars and the Fear of Election Stories
Neill believes one factor may explain the network’s sensitivity: Fox is still haunted by the enormous settlement it paid over election-related allegations.
“Fox is haunted by that $787 million settlement paid for the election fraud allegations,” Neill said. His theory is that lawyers and executives consequently became hypersensitive to anything involving contested election claims and began shutting down coverage aggressively to prevent another legal disaster.
The problem, he argued, is that institutional fear can become editorial blindness.
Neill asked why claims involving China and election interference should become essentially untouchable simply because they intersect with a politically explosive subject. If a sitting president makes allegations involving a hostile foreign power, journalists have an obligation to investigate and assess the evidence, not pretend the allegation was never made.
Winn tied that concern to her regular discussions about the Chinese Communist Party. She said Winn Tucson addresses China through its “China Watch Wednesday” conversations with representatives of the New Federal State of China, which opposes the CCP.
Her argument was that China’s relationships with Iran, global finance, American institutions and political systems deserve scrutiny regardless of how uncomfortable the subject may become for a news organization.
“If it is, then we need more Maria, not less,” Winn said.
She warned that Fox risks destroying the very thing that made it relevant if it begins imitating CNN, CNBC or other establishment outlets rather than covering stories its audience believes those organizations neglect.
Can a Television Personality Be Controlled?
Neill offered another explanation rooted in his own experience with the late Roger Ailes, the founder of Fox News.
Ailes once told him, Neill recalled, that before someone receives a television program, management wants to know whether that person can be controlled. The point was not necessarily crude censorship. Networks are enormous businesses with advertisers, lawyers, executives, corporate relationships and reputational risks. A personality who becomes powerful enough to resist those pressures becomes harder for management to handle.
Neill speculated that Bartiromo may simply have reached that point.
If executives told her not to pursue a China-related story and she responded that she intended to pursue it anyway, the dispute would no longer be simply about one story. It would become a test of who ultimately controlled the program.
Winn compared Bartiromo with Tucker Carlson. Neither, she said, built an audience by behaving like a compliant corporate employee.
“Maria is not a sheep,” Winn said. “She’s got her own integrity, her own point of view.”
Neill stressed that his theory was speculation rather than inside information. But he said it fit a broader truth about television: the moment management decides a personality cannot be controlled can become the moment that personality becomes expendable, no matter how successful the program has been.
Bartiromo’s Role in Building Fox Business
Neill also argued that Bartiromo’s contribution to Fox Business should not be minimized.
He remembered her decision to leave CNBC, where she had become one of the most recognizable faces in financial television, and join a Fox Business operation that was then a distant competitor. Neill compared it to leaving the Yankees for the minor leagues.
Bartiromo helped change that equation.
According to Neill, her morning program eventually competed successfully against CNBC’s Squawk Box, one of the most important programs in business television. He credited her with helping transform Fox Business from an afterthought into a serious ratings competitor.
“Maria helped lead, helped do all of that,” he said.
Neill remembered Bartiromo once cautioning him about becoming a commentator because journalists were supposed to remain objective. Later in her own career, he observed, she became increasingly willing to express opinions and challenge conventional narratives.
That evolution is part of a larger transformation in American media. Winn, who began her own career in local television journalism, said audiences increasingly recognize that every news organization makes editorial choices. Decisions about which stories to cover, which stories to ignore, which guests to book and which questions to ask shape a narrative even before an anchor offers an explicit opinion.
The answer, she argued, is not to pretend those choices do not exist. It is to be honest about them and allow competing perspectives to be heard.
The Conservative Media Cannot Become the Media It Was Built to Challenge
Winn said the larger danger is that conservative media institutions can become so afraid of controversy that they begin replicating the institutions they were created to challenge.
She pointed to the aftermath of the 2020 election as an example. Winn recalled Fox calling Arizona for Joe Biden shortly after polls closed and said many Arizona Republicans still believe legitimate questions about that election were never adequately aired.
Neill said the mainstream broadcast networks largely avoided Trump’s more recent claims involving possible Chinese interference. If Fox also refuses to examine them, he argued, an enormous segment of the country will conclude that there is effectively no major television outlet willing to investigate certain questions.
“We got something really wrong in the media, don’t we?” Neill asked.
Winn said yes.
The issue, for both of them, was larger than Bartiromo. It was whether journalists and networks still have enough independence to pursue politically dangerous stories, whether conservative outlets will remain distinctive, and whether viewers will continue trusting institutions that appear to decide in advance which subjects are permissible.
Kim Adair: The Arizona Bowl’s Mission Goes Far Beyond Football
The tone shifted from national media battles to something distinctly Southern Arizona when Kim Adair, executive director of the Arizona Bowl, joined Winn to preview the 2026 kickoff luncheon.
The luncheon is scheduled for October 1 at the Westin La Paloma and will honor two prominent University of Arizona figures: men’s basketball coach Tommy Lloyd and Wildcats quarterback Noah Fifita.
Adair said the event is about more than athletic accomplishment. Both honorees were selected because of what they have contributed to the University of Arizona and to the larger Southern Arizona community.
“They’re doing amazing things not only for the University of Arizona but also for charities and our community locally,” Adair said.
The Arizona Bowl’s charitable mission remains unusual in college football. Winn emphasized that the Snoop Dogg Arizona Bowl presented by Gin & Juice by Dre and Snoop donates 100 percent of its net proceeds to charitable organizations. The program has expanded beyond Tucson to serve communities throughout Southern Arizona.
Adair said that expansion was intentional.
“We know that the communities all in Southern Arizona could use a little extra help with their charitable grants,” she said.
For Winn, that generosity reflects something important about Tucson itself. Southern Arizona may not have the concentrated wealth of Scottsdale or Paradise Valley, she said, but residents repeatedly demonstrate an extraordinary willingness to support local organizations, schools and causes.
“That is the heart of Tucson,” Winn said.
Tommy Lloyd to Receive the Dick Tomey Arizona Strong Award
Lloyd will receive the Dick Tomey Arizona Strong Award, named for the beloved former University of Arizona football coach.
Adair explained that the award recognizes people who have made meaningful contributions to Arizona through athletics. Recipients can be coaches, players, executives, business leaders or others whose impact extends beyond wins and losses.
Members of the Tomey family remain involved, and Rich Tomey is expected to present the award.
Lloyd’s selection, Adair said, almost explains itself. He has kept Arizona basketball among the nation’s elite programs, built competitive teams despite constant roster changes and continued choosing Tucson despite opportunities that might have taken him elsewhere.
“He’s an incredible ambassador,” Adair said.
Winn, an enthusiastic Arizona basketball fan, said Lloyd’s ability to reconstruct competitive teams year after year is one of his most impressive qualities. In an era of player movement and constant change, he has maintained Arizona’s place on the national stage.
His recent Final Four appearance only strengthened that case.
Winn said the opportunity simply to hear Lloyd during the luncheon’s fireside conversation makes the event worth attending.
Noah Fifita: Honoring a Current Wildcat for Giving Back
Fifita’s recognition breaks new ground for the Arizona Bowl.
Adair said he is the first current player the organization has honored in this way. She described him as “a little bit of a unicorn in this space,” both because of his commitment to the university and because of his charitable work.
College athletics has become dramatically more transactional. Players can transfer, pursue new financial opportunities and move among programs with far greater ease than in previous generations. Against that background, Adair said Fifita’s decision to remain committed to Arizona stands out.
But his award is not simply about loyalty to the football program.
“Really, he’s being recognized for his charitable contributions in Southern Arizona through his charities,” Adair said.
Winn praised the maturity involved in using an athletic platform for service while still a student and an active player. She has concerns about the increasing monetization of college sports, but said Fifita demonstrates the best of what a prominent college athlete can do with the influence that comes with success.
“When we see that kind of not only skill on the field, but then using the platform that they’ve built to be generous, that is the best that we have to offer,” Winn said.
A Luncheon That Feeds the Arizona Bowl’s Charitable Work
The kickoff luncheon is expected to draw roughly 1,000 people. Individual seats and tables are available, with Winn noting that the event has become one of those Tucson gatherings where people seem to reconnect with everyone they know.
The proceeds support the Arizona Bowl’s charitable mission. That includes assistance for nonprofit organizations throughout Southern Arizona and support for educators.
Winn highlighted the program’s recognition of teachers, including awards that give educators money they can spend directly in their classrooms. She described that as one of the most rewarding parts of the organization’s work because the money goes directly to people trying to improve the education of local children.
Adair emphasized that the success of the Arizona Bowl comes from a much larger team. She is the executive director, but she credited the staff, volunteers and Blue Blazers who make the event possible.
“It is my privilege to do the work,” she said. “I love our mission. I love the game. I love everything about this.”
Snoop Dogg, a New Bowl Date and a Three-Hour Commercial for Tucson
The Arizona Bowl has also continued to grow as an entertainment event.
Snoop Dogg remains committed to the bowl, and Adair said organizers are preparing another year of surprises. A final game date had not yet been formally announced, although she said organizers were working around January 2 while coordinating with the University of Arizona men’s basketball schedule.
The goal is to place the game in a more competitive postseason window without creating a conflict for Tucson sports fans.
Adair described the bowl as much more than a football game.
“It’s a total festival,” she said. “Whether you like football or not, you will completely enjoy yourself at the game.”
Snoop Dogg’s unpredictability has become part of the atmosphere. Winn recalled him directing a band, handing out chains to the winning team and finding other ways to turn the game into something more than a conventional bowl.
The Arizona Bowl began in 2015 and is now moving into its second decade. Adair said one of its greatest values to the region is the national exposure it provides.
“It basically gives us a national three-hour commercial every year highlighting the best of Tucson and Southern Arizona,” she said.
For Winn, that combination—sports, tourism, charity and community pride—is what makes the bowl worth championing.
An Arizona Ballot Voters Cannot Afford to Ignore
After the Arizona Bowl discussion, Winn turned back to politics and warned that voters face a sprawling ballot filled with races, propositions, tax questions, school measures and judicial retention decisions.
Her goal, she said, is to make sure voters begin studying those questions before a ballot arrives in the mail.
There are statewide propositions, Pima County measures, City of Tucson questions, school-district measures and an Oro Valley issue. Judges create an additional challenge because information about judicial performance can be harder for ordinary voters to find.
“We want you to be an informed voter, and we want you to vote,” Winn said.
She said Pima County produced an unusually strong primary turnout and challenged voters to surprise the rest of Arizona again in the general election.
The reason for doing the homework early is simple: some voter-approved measures are extremely difficult for future legislatures or governors to undo. Once the electorate writes something into law or into the Arizona Constitution, future officeholders have only limited authority to alter it.
That makes every proposition consequential.
Proposition 421 and Tucson Electric Power
One Tucson measure discussed was Proposition 421, involving renewal of Tucson Electric Power’s franchise agreement.
Winn said the agreement affects TEP’s ability to access public rights-of-way and maintain infrastructure. Without the franchise structure, she said, the utility could face additional permitting requirements when it needs to repair equipment, potentially raising costs and slowing work after outages.
For once, Winn joked, she may be on the same side as Tucson’s mayor and council.
She said keeping electrical service reliable is particularly important in a region where storms, extreme weather and growing power demand can place pressure on the grid. She plans to bring a Tucson Electric Power representative on to explain the proposal in detail and allow listeners to ask questions.
The question she wants voters to ask is the same one she applies throughout the ballot: What happens if this passes, what happens if it fails, and what does either choice cost taxpayers?
Reid Park Zoo and the One-Tenth-Cent Sales Tax
Another Tucson question asks voters about continuing the one-tenth-cent sales tax that supports Reid Park Zoo.
Winn said she likes the zoo but wants voters to understand exactly what continuation or rejection of the tax would mean. Would the zoo lose programming? Would operations need to change? Would another funding source replace the tax?
Those are the details she believes need to be answered before voters simply check yes or no.
The same principle applies to measures involving Vail schools, Northwest Fire District and other local entities. A ballot can turn into an intimidating wall of propositions, but each one ultimately represents a decision about taxes, spending, government authority or public services.
Proposition 425: Winn Calls It the Most Dangerous Local Question
Of all the local measures, Winn repeatedly singled out Pima County Proposition 425.
She described it as an effort to permanently increase the county’s expenditure limitation and give county government access to substantially more money each year. She said the immediate figure being discussed was roughly $70 million, but warned that the amount available for spending could increase over time.
For fiscal conservatives, she said, the problem is not simply one year’s spending increase. It is giving future boards of supervisors expanded authority long after today’s officeholders are gone.
“That’s our money,” Winn said. “It’s not their money.”
She argued that Pima County already taxes residents heavily and that increasing the spending limit would encourage the county to continue habits voters should be forcing it to reconsider.
That question would soon become central to her conversation with Jeff Rhodes.
Pima Community College and a $250 Million Bond
Winn also raised Pima Community College’s request for a roughly $250 million bond.
She praised the college and noted that enrollment was reportedly increasing, but said that supporting the institution does not relieve voters of the responsibility to scrutinize a quarter-billion-dollar borrowing request.
What will be built? Why is it needed? How will the bonds be sold? What will taxpayers ultimately pay?
Winn said the measure deserves a full discussion rather than an automatic yes or no. Bonds are debt, even when the institution seeking them performs valuable work.
The same scrutiny, she argued, should be applied to every school and local-government measure appearing on the ballot.
Winn Condemns the Use of “8647” in Local Democratic Messaging
Winn then addressed a local Democratic event that she said used “8647” as an access code. She interpreted the phrase as a reference to eliminating President Trump and condemned its use in the strongest terms.
Her concern was heightened by the recent history of political violence and the approaching date marking one year since Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Winn argued that political hatred cannot be allowed to erase the distinction between opposing a politician and endorsing violence against one.
“We have never advocated for the murder or the death of any candidates,” she said.
Whatever political disagreements exist over Trump, ICE, detention centers, immigration or any other subject, Winn argued, language that can reasonably be interpreted as celebrating political assassination crosses a line.
She returned to the subject later with Jeff Rhodes, saying conservatives would rightly be condemned if they used comparable language about a Democratic officeholder.
“If you don’t really like someone, it’s not okay to murder them,” Winn said. “We’ve made murder and crime normal. Unfortunately, we shouldn’t get used to that.”
Jeff Rhodes: Pima County District 5 Has a Crime Problem
Jeff Rhodes is challenging for the Pima County Board of Supervisors District 5 seat, and he said the message he hears most often at doors is not ideological.
It is crime.
“The number one complaint I’m hearing about is the crime going rampant,” Rhodes said.
Property taxes come close behind. Rhodes tied those concerns directly to Proposition 425, arguing that county leaders are seeking additional spending authority because they have spent beyond what taxpayers should accept.
“They’ve been overspending for years,” Rhodes said. “This is their way of trying to continue that.”
For Rhodes, the race is an opportunity to convince voters who do not normally vote Republican that local elections should not be treated as proxies for national political battles.
A voter may have strong opinions about abortion, the Supreme Court, immigration or presidential politics. Those positions are legitimate. But a county supervisor cannot rewrite federal abortion law or control the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rhodes said local officials too often use national controversies precisely because they would rather talk about those subjects than be judged on the problems they can actually fix.
“Voting for federal reasons in a local election doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Rhodes said.
Rhodes: Stop the Grandstanding and Govern Pima County
Rhodes used the debate over federal immigration detention centers as an example.
Pima County officials can object to a federal policy. They can pass a resolution announcing that objection. They can hold press conferences. But, Rhodes argued, they do not control the federal detention system.
“They can pass a resolution, which means nothing more than, ‘We object, but we can’t do anything about it,’” he said. “It’s just political grandstanding.”
He wants supervisors focusing instead on issues squarely within the county’s sphere: spending, taxes, public safety, roads, services, homelessness and cooperation with law enforcement.
“We need to get people in the office, like myself, who are going to concentrate on local issues and do what’s best for the people of Pima County,” Rhodes said.
That is also his pitch to Democrats and independents in District 5. He is not asking them to change their views on every national controversy. He is asking them to decide whether the local government they currently have is producing acceptable results.
A Rare Two-Year Opportunity in District 5
District 5 is also unusual because voters are choosing someone to complete a seat that became vacant rather than electing a supervisor to a normal four-year term.
Andres Cano was appointed after Adelita Grijalva vacated the position to run for Congress. Because the appointment lasts only until the next general election, Cano now has to stand before voters.
The winner will then have to run again in 2028 for a full term.
Winn framed that as a low-risk opportunity for voters to try a different direction.
It could also change the internal mechanics of the Board of Supervisors. Republican Supervisor Steve Christy currently operates in a 4-to-1 minority. Winn said one of the practical consequences is that ideas can die without meaningful debate.
Rhodes argued that a second dissenting voice would force more issues into public view.
Instead of a proposal simply disappearing under a four-vote majority, a second supervisor could force a vote and make other members publicly explain why they oppose it.
“They actually have to vote on it,” Rhodes said. “We can present the common-sense argument, and they have to vote against it.”
For Winn, that alone would change the board’s culture by creating discussion where she believes too much is currently rubber-stamped.
Seven High-Profile Crimes, One Supervisor District
Rhodes made one of his strongest arguments when he began listing serious crimes that had recently attracted attention in Tucson.
According to Rhodes, the major high-profile incidents he had been tracking over roughly the previous six weeks had all occurred within District 5.
He referenced the incident at Venture-N, the woman who was beaten in an apartment parking lot and died, a police recruit who was shot and killed, a fatal stabbing near Speedway and Euclid, and a downtown shooting involving nine people.
He also described an incident near Speedway and Interstate 10 that he said never became a major news story. A man told Rhodes that customers inside a Denny’s were effectively trapped while a homeless man outside threw rocks through windows. Rhodes said the same individual had allegedly threatened employees with a steak knife the previous week.
That event, he noted, may not have generated significant coverage because no one died.
The larger pattern is what concerns him.
“That’s a crime problem,” Rhodes said. “That’s not a party problem. It’s not a partisan problem.”
Winn said that if the cluster is as concentrated as Rhodes described, the public has every right to ask what the current District 5 supervisor has said or done about it.
Rhodes said he had heard little from his opponent.
Rhodes Calls for More Police and More Prosecution
Rhodes’ first recommendation is straightforward: Tucson needs more police officers.
“The city’s got to step up,” he said. “They’ve got to rehire the police officers that they’re short.”
If that requires higher compensation to recruit and retain officers, he supports paying it.
“If that means they’ve got to give them raises, give them raises,” Rhodes said. “Stop the defund-the-police movement. Pay the people that do the job.”
Winn noted that as a county supervisor, Rhodes would not control the City of Tucson police budget. He acknowledged that limitation. His argument is that a supervisor can still use the office to pressure city leaders, work with county law enforcement and demand stronger action from prosecutors.
Rhodes specifically called for pressure on prosecutors to pursue cases aggressively enough to create consequences for repeat offenders.
Winn said this should not be controversial. Murder is not Republican or Democratic. Prosecuting violent criminals should not depend on party registration.
“Are we prosecuting crimes?” she asked.
That, she said, is the question residents care about.
Homelessness, Drugs and Parks Families No Longer Trust
Rhodes also linked public safety to the visible deterioration of public spaces.
Tucson has tremendous assets, he said: warm winters, tourism, the University of Arizona and a climate that should make the region attractive to visitors and residents.
But people see something else when they drive through parts of the city.
“You see all the homeless, you see the drugs, you see the vandalism,” Rhodes said. “Who’s going to want to come see that?”
He said the problem extends into parks, where parents worry about children encountering discarded needles.
“You can’t take your kids to the park to play on the playground because they might step on a needle or might pick one up,” Rhodes said.
To him, that represents government failing at one of its most elementary responsibilities: maintaining public spaces that ordinary families can safely use.
Winn connected the same concern to University of Arizona events. Thousands of people may come into central Tucson for football and other major gatherings. The city should not have to create islands of security only when a major event is occurring. Residents deserve a safe city every day.
“I think we can make Tucson a safe city again,” Rhodes said.
Crime, Affordability and Why People Leave
Rhodes also raised reports that Tucson had lost roughly 21,000 residents.
He connected population loss to three pressures: public safety, employment and affordability. Every resident who leaves also takes economic activity and tax revenue with them, worsening the pressure on a city already struggling to pay for services.
“We have to get these things under control or Tucson’s going to be a ghost town,” Rhodes said.
He does not believe that outcome is inevitable. Tucson remains, in his view, a genuinely great place with enormous potential.
But potential is not policy.
A city that wants families, businesses and tourists must create conditions in which they want to stay.
Rhodes Says Political Cronyism Is Blocking Change
Rhodes said another problem is the close relationship between political institutions controlled by the same party.
“When you’re talking about the Democrat Party here in Tucson, all of our government in Tucson is run by the Democrat Party,” he said.
In his view, that creates a system in which city and county officials protect one another rather than challenge failures.
“We need to stop the political cronyism and bring common-sense leadership back into Tucson,” Rhodes said.
He emphasized that he has never previously been a politician and said he enters the race without a network of political insiders to reward.
“I don’t have political cronies,” he said. “I’m here to represent the people of Pima County.”
Winn said the race gives Republicans, independents and dissatisfied Democrats a rare opportunity to alter the balance of the Board of Supervisors immediately rather than waiting until 2028.
Rhodes said his campaign will rely heavily on door-to-door outreach, signs, social media and direct conversations with voters.
His central pitch remains the same: judge a local candidate on whether local government is working.
“Think about what’s going on in your community and what’s going to fix what’s going on in your community,” Rhodes said.
Jon Riches: Can Arizona Pass a Law That Citizens Are Not Allowed to Enforce?
Jon Riches of the Goldwater Institute joined Winn after appearing before the Arizona Supreme Court in a case involving Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson.
At issue is a mandatory “Inclusive Communities” training program and an Arizona law prohibiting state employers from forcing employees to undergo certain forms of discriminatory training.
Riches said the Legislature wrote the law clearly. State employees cannot be forced into training that assigns blame or moral superiority based on race, ethnicity or sex.
Anderson, a philosophy professor at ASU, received notice that he had to participate in the university’s training. According to Riches, portions of the program included precisely the kinds of concepts the statute prohibited.
Goldwater sued on Anderson’s behalf, arguing that ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents were violating state law and asking a court to stop them.
The case survived an initial attempt to dismiss it.
Then the Arizona Court of Appeals created a much larger problem.
The Court of Appeals and the Search for “Magic Words”
Riches said the Court of Appeals concluded that Anderson could not bring the lawsuit because the statute did not explicitly state that an individual employee had the right to sue.
To Riches, that reasoning conflicts with roughly 50 years of Arizona case law.
The question before the state Supreme Court is therefore larger than DEI: When a statute clearly says government may not do something and clearly protects a class of people from that government action, can one of those people go to court when the government violates the law even if the statute does not contain particular “magic words” creating a private cause of action?
Riches believes the answer should be yes.
If the answer is no, he argued, state government can violate a law while the very person protected by that law is left without a meaningful remedy.
He expects a Supreme Court decision could take roughly four to six months and said he is hopeful the justices will reverse the appellate ruling.
“The DEI Wave Has Crested”
Winn asked whether the political and cultural momentum behind DEI has begun to collapse.
Riches believes it has.
“I think the DEI wave has crested and is now receding very quickly,” he said.
The fundamental contradiction, he argued, is that institutions claim to support diversity while frequently rejecting diversity of thought. An employee with the wrong viewpoint may discover that ideological diversity is the one variety the institution has little interest in including.
Winn joked that in Anderson’s case, the principles advertised by DEI did not appear to apply to the professor challenging DEI.
Riches drew another distinction around the word “equity.”
“Everybody agrees in equal opportunity,” he said, but not everyone agrees with a system in which government deliberately pushes one person down or another person up to engineer equal outcomes.
“We agree in equal opportunity, not equality of outcomes,” Riches said.
If the Supreme Court rules for Anderson, the case would likely return to the trial court. Goldwater could then begin developing a factual record through discovery and depositions, asking how the ASU training was created, who funded it, who participated in developing it and why prohibited material was included.
That would finally allow the courts to decide the merits of whether the training itself violated Arizona law.
Proposition 142 and a Constitutional Response to DEI
Winn also connected the Anderson litigation to Proposition 142.
Riches said the ballot measure addresses many of the DEI practices that have generated controversy and would create stronger legal guardrails if approved.
Because a constitutional provision sits above an ordinary statute, Winn asked whether passage might also help overcome some of the problems created by the Court of Appeals.
Riches said it could provide additional constitutional claims, although it would not completely resolve the narrower question before the Supreme Court: whether Arizonans can sue to enforce ordinary state laws when the Legislature has not included explicit language authorizing a lawsuit.
That distinction matters because the appellate court’s reasoning could reach far beyond DEI.
The Case Could Affect Parents, Property Owners and Consumers
Riches warned that many Arizona statutes protect individuals without containing the explicit “magic words” demanded by the appellate decision.
Those laws can involve consumer protections, parental rights, property rights and other areas with no connection to DEI.
If the Court of Appeals opinion remains intact, citizens protected by those statutes could discover that government violated the law but they have no practical way to enforce it.
“That could be a really serious problem kind of downstream of just this DEI statute,” Riches said.
Winn said that is the aspect she finds most troubling.
A Legislature can spend months drafting, debating and passing a law. The governor can sign it. Citizens can reasonably assume the government must obey it. But if the courts conclude that the people protected by that law cannot ask a judge to enforce it, the statute may become little more than a symbolic declaration.
Riches framed the issue through separation of powers.
“The Legislature already said what the policy is,” he said. “It’s up to the courts to enforce it and provide a remedy.”
A Law With No Remedy May Be No Law at All
Winn highlighted one of Riches’ central arguments in the case.
“If the effect of the law is that it can’t be enforced, if the effect of the law is that Professor Anderson’s rights can be violated, but he can’t go receive meaningful protection for that violation in court, well, then it has no effect at all,” Riches said.
Winn said that is the crux of the dispute.
A Legislature should not pass meaningless laws. If lawmakers establish a policy and prohibit government conduct, citizens must have some realistic mechanism to force government to comply.
The Anderson dispute therefore has consequences for far more people than one professor at one university.
It is ultimately a question about whether the government itself is bound by the laws government passes.
The Goldwater Institute’s Broader Mission
Riches described Goldwater’s larger mission as the expansion of individual liberty and protection of constitutional rights.
Its work includes private-property rights, the right to earn a living, educational freedom and other areas in which government action can collide with individual liberty.
“At the end of the day, the Constitution means something,” Riches said. “It’s intended to protect all of us individually.”
When federal, state or local government violates those rights, Goldwater uses litigation to challenge the violation. Its policy division also develops legislation designed to expand freedom and strengthen protections before a lawsuit becomes necessary.
For Winn, that work frequently gives ordinary people an avenue they otherwise would not have.
Criminal Forfeiture, Civil Forfeiture and the Importance of Due Process
Winn closed the discussion by raising another Goldwater issue: asset forfeiture.
She drew a sharp distinction between criminal and civil forfeiture.
When someone has been convicted of a crime and assets are directly tied to criminal activity, Winn supports forfeiture. She cited her own work involving Backpage and the need to recover assets that could ultimately compensate victims.
The civil side is different.
When government seizes money or property without first proving criminal guilt, the burden of recovering that property can become extraordinarily difficult for an innocent owner. Winn said problems become even more serious when law-enforcement agencies are financially incentivized to seize assets.
She praised Goldwater for making that distinction rather than treating every form of forfeiture as identical.
The common thread between forfeiture and Anderson’s DEI case is access to a remedy. In both situations, an individual can find himself confronting the enormous power of government while struggling to find a realistic legal mechanism to challenge what government has done.
That is precisely where constitutional organizations, courts and enforceable laws matter most.
Seattle, New York and Winn’s Warning for Pima County
Winn closed by looking beyond Arizona to progressive cities she believes offer Pima County a warning.
She pointed to Seattle and said Mayor Katie Wilson had openly dismissed concerns that higher taxes could drive wealthy residents away, effectively telling those who wanted to leave that they were free to go. Winn cited polling indicating deep voter dissatisfaction, a low approval rating and widespread support for Wilson either resigning or being removed.
Seattle is also facing a projected budget shortfall, Winn said, while Washington business leaders have raised concerns about the state’s tax environment.
Her point was not that Tucson and Seattle are identical. It was that political ideas have predictable economic consequences.
Policies hostile to taxpayers, employers and investment can eventually shrink the tax base government depends upon to finance the very programs those policies were supposed to support.
“If that sounds familiar to you, it should be, because we’re in Pima County,” Winn said.
She made a similar argument about New York, pointing to Mamdani’s proposal for government-supported grocery stores. Winn warned that subsidized municipal competition could make it harder for privately operated grocers to survive and potentially create unintended consequences for food availability.
“You have to understand that these policies are being used across the country,” she said.
For Winn, the evidence is increasingly visible in blue cities that have experimented aggressively with higher spending, higher taxes, more government control and softer approaches to public disorder.
The District 5 Race as a Test of Whether Tucson Wants Something Different
Winn returned to Jeff Rhodes’ claim that a cluster of Tucson’s recent high-profile violent crimes occurred inside District 5.
Whether the subject is crime, spending, homelessness, taxation or political accountability, she argued, District 5 voters have a rare opportunity to alter the balance of county government before the rest of the Board of Supervisors faces voters again.
She sharply criticized Andres Cano’s appointment to the seat and his previous record in the Legislature, arguing that voters never chose him for the county office and should now judge whether his tenure has produced meaningful results.
Winn’s larger frustration is with a system in which vacancies can be filled by political insiders selected by the same political establishment already controlling the institution.
She wants voters to break that cycle.
Pima County’s numbers may favor Democrats in District 5, she acknowledged. But Republicans, independents and a portion of dissatisfied Democrats could still produce a different result if they participate.
That same principle applies to the entire ballot.
The most consequential decisions are not always made in Washington. They are made by county supervisors deciding how much local government spends, prosecutors deciding which cases to pursue, city officials deciding whether police are adequately staffed, college administrators deciding what employees must believe or repeat, and judges deciding whether citizens can enforce the laws written to protect them.
Those decisions eventually become the community people live in.
For Winn, the choice before Southern Arizona is whether to continue accepting the results it already has—or decide that local government can do better.