Guests - Kim Yeater, Jay Tolkoff, Sally Ann Gonzales
Watch on YouTube
Election Integrity, Government Accountability and the Stakes of the November Election
With fewer than three weeks remaining before the November election, Arizona voters are confronting questions that extend far beyond individual candidates. Election security, government transparency, property taxes, public spending and the future affordability of Southern Arizona are all part of a growing debate over who holds political power—and how that power should be exercised.
Kathleen Winn, chair of the Pima County Republican Party, believes the approaching election represents a particularly important test of public accountability.
After years of involvement in political campaigns, Winn argues that voters must pay attention not only to what happens in Arizona but also to developments elsewhere in the country. Election procedures, legal challenges and political strategies that emerge in one state can influence debates in another.
That concern brought California election-integrity activist Kim Yeater into a discussion of voting procedures, citizen oversight and allegations of irregularities in California elections.
Closer to home, Republican businessman Jay Tolkoff and Democratic State Senator Sally Ann Gonzales joined forces to challenge Pima County Proposition 425, a ballot measure that would permanently expand the county's constitutional expenditure limit.
Their political affiliations differ, but they share a central concern: government must remain accountable to the people whose authority and money sustain it.
Kim Yeater: From Raising a Family to Fighting for Election Transparency
Kim Yeater never expected to become a political activist.
A mother of four and grandmother, she spent much of her life raising children, supporting their athletic activities and participating in her church.
Politics was not her primary interest.
That changed during the 2020 presidential election.
Yeater, a national peak-performance master coach and host of Take Your Power Back, now organizes activists through Take Our California Back, Take Our Elections Back and the Take Our Border Back movement.
Her organizing efforts have reached all 58 California counties.
But she traces the beginning of her political involvement to a single experience at a polling location.
The 2020 Voting Experience That Changed Her Life
Yeater recalled arriving to vote with her husband and watching an election worker tell the couple immediately ahead of them that they had already voted.
The couple appeared confused.
According to Yeater, they had not cast their ballots.
Rather than continue challenging the information, they left.
"Confused people do not make decisions," Yeater said.
Then the same thing happened to her.
Election workers reportedly told Yeater and her husband that their votes had already been recorded.
She insisted they had not voted and offered identification, asking election workers to check again.
The answer did not change.
Yeater said she eventually requested the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot.
Although she was allowed to proceed, the experience left her questioning whether her vote would be counted.
She concluded that something was seriously wrong with the process.
The incident was Yeater's personal account. It did not, by itself, establish that votes had been stolen or that election workers deliberately targeted Republican voters.
Nevertheless, the experience fundamentally changed how she viewed elections.
"I am not into politics. I am into truth," Yeater said.
What began as a personal concern became a determination to understand the election system and encourage other citizens to participate in its oversight.
Mike Lindell's Moment of Truth Summit Became a Turning Point
Yeater subsequently attended Mike Lindell's Moment of Truth Summit, where election-related allegations and voting-machine concerns received extensive attention.
She had been working in radio, first with KCAA and later with Salem.
At the gathering, she encountered election activists including Tina Peters and Clint Curtis and watched Selection Code, a film promoting allegations about voting-system manipulation.
Yeater said the experience convinced her that election vulnerabilities were much more extensive than she had previously understood.
But she also felt overwhelmed.
What could one person accomplish against a system she believed was so large?
That changed when Lindell challenged members of the media to report the material being presented.
Yeater stood and identified herself as a Salem Radio personality.
She promised to bring the claims and interviews to her audience.
She followed through.
Yeater said the decision eventually contributed to her departure from Salem approximately a year and a half later, although she subsequently reestablished her relationship with the network.
She knew she would face criticism for promoting disputed election allegations.
But she believed remaining silent would have been worse.
Building Teams Became More Important Than Working Alone
Yeater quickly recognized that one person could not investigate election procedures throughout California.
She needed people with technical, legal, organizational and political experience.
Her approach became assembling teams capable of examining different parts of the system.
She described herself as someone particularly skilled at bringing people together and amplifying their work.
"If it's going to be, it's going to be up to me," she said, describing the attitude that pushed her into organizing.
That did not mean she believed she possessed all the expertise required.
Instead, she sought out people who claimed specialized knowledge of election technology, voter-registration records, ballot handling and election law.
Her organizing efforts expanded from election oversight into immigration and border-related activism.
Eventually, the campaigns came together under a larger effort to mobilize Californians.
Yeater said she wants voters to understand that their participation does not end when they cast a ballot.
Citizens can attend meetings, observe election operations, examine public records, communicate with elected officials and encourage stronger transparency measures.
For Winn, that approach mirrored her own experience in Arizona.
Concern is not enough, she argued.
Citizens must learn the system well enough to challenge decisions through lawful procedures and present evidence when they believe something has gone wrong.
Clint Curtis and the Controversy Over Electronic Voting Systems
One of the central figures in Yeater's election-integrity work is Clint Curtis.
Curtis has publicly made allegations about his past involvement in developing software capable of manipulating electronic vote totals.
Yeater described him as a former programmer who later became an attorney and congressional whistleblower.
She claimed that Curtis had developed code demonstrating how electronic voting systems could be manipulated and that similar methods were subsequently used in other countries.
She further alleged that vulnerabilities of this kind remain relevant to American elections.
Those are disputed allegations, not established findings that particular contemporary elections were manipulated.
Nevertheless, Yeater considers Curtis an important source of technical expertise.
She identified him as a key figure in efforts to introduce greater transparency into Shasta County's election operations.
Shasta County Becomes a Testing Ground for Citizen Observation
Yeater described Shasta County as an important center of the election-transparency movement.
According to her account, Curtis joined the county's election administration after the 2024 election and began developing procedures intended to make ballot processing more accessible to public observation.
She emphasized that the changes were designed to operate within California law.
The objective was not to create an unauthorized parallel election system.
It was to use the authority available to local election officials to make existing procedures easier to inspect.
One proposed improvement involved creating a designated observation area where citizens could watch election operations.
Another involved cameras positioned above ballot tabulators.
Yeater said cameras could record ballots as they entered counting equipment, allowing observers to compare physical ballot records with electronic results.
The proposed system would avoid displaying voters' names while preserving information needed for an audit.
Cameras Over Tabulators Could Support Independent Audits
Yeater believes video documentation offers an inexpensive way to strengthen public confidence.
If each ballot is recorded as it enters a tabulator, observers can potentially compare the recorded sequence against the reported totals.
The footage could also help identify discrepancies requiring further investigation.
For Yeater, the benefit is that citizens would not need to accept every election result solely on the authority of the officials administering it.
They would have an additional record available for examination.
She said the process could allow near-real-time review and provide another layer of accountability.
Winn was particularly interested in the idea.
Arizona has expanded its use of election observers, and she believes transparent procedures can help reduce suspicion.
But Yeater's proposal raises practical questions involving ballot secrecy, voter privacy, equipment access, evidence preservation and the reliability of video-based comparisons.
Those details would need to be addressed before a similar system could be implemented elsewhere.
Other Counties Expressed Interest in the Shasta Model
Yeater said she organized meetings and events to introduce Shasta County's approach to candidates and activists from other parts of California.
Her efforts included gubernatorial and statewide candidates, Republicans, independents and some conservative Democrats.
She also worked with agricultural communities in San Joaquin County.
The organizing theme connected election integrity with economic concerns affecting farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
Yeater called the effort a movement from the ballot box to the breadbasket.
Her argument was that election accountability affects every other policy decision.
Agricultural regulations, water policy, taxation, public safety and property rights are all shaped by the people elected to office.
If citizens do not trust the process that produces those officials, confidence in government itself deteriorates.
Yeater said several counties expressed interest in adopting similar transparency practices, although election schedules and administrative requirements complicated immediate implementation.
Yeater Alleges Irregularities in Shasta County Ballot Processing
Yeater described a review of ballot-processing video that she said uncovered suspicious characteristics.
According to her account, election workers and citizen observers noticed differences in ballot paper, ink and markings.
Some ballots reportedly felt different from others.
Other markings appeared to observers to have been produced mechanically.
Yeater also questioned whether certain ballots contained expected security features, including watermarks.
She said members of her team examined the recordings and collected information they believed warranted investigation.
These observations were presented as allegations from the activist group. They did not establish that counterfeit ballots had been counted.
Paper, Ink and Ballot Authentication
Yeater argued that election security should begin with the physical ballot.
A ballot is an instrument through which a citizen exercises political power.
In her view, it should receive protection comparable to other sensitive government documents.
Winn agreed and suggested that ballots should incorporate security features designed to make unauthorized reproduction more difficult.
She compared the concept with the protections used for currency.
The goal, she argued, should be a system in which election officials can distinguish legitimate ballots from counterfeit documents without undermining voter privacy.
Yeater emphasized that accurately counting ballots is not enough if the ballots entering the count are not authentic.
Her proposal therefore combined stronger physical security features with public observation and post-election audits.
Allegations Involving the 2024 Shasta County Election
Yeater also discussed records from Shasta County's 2024 election.
She claimed activists had identified a discrepancy between the number of people recorded as voting and the number of physical ballots available for review.
She raised the possibility that ballots had been counted more than once or that ballot records were incomplete.
She also claimed that older ballot materials remained in storage, including paper associated with the 2018 election.
Those assertions were not independently substantiated in the discussion.
But Yeater argued that apparent discrepancies should trigger a transparent investigation rather than be dismissed.
The Destruction of Election Materials Raises Additional Questions
One of Yeater's strongest criticisms concerned the destruction of stored election materials.
She described trucks arriving to remove ballots and other documents after the applicable retention period had reportedly expired.
She argued that some materials should have been preserved because activists had raised concerns about the underlying elections.
The distinction matters.
Routine destruction after a lawful retention period is different from unlawfully destroying evidence subject to a preservation requirement.
Yeater maintained that the circumstances warranted further investigation.
She said the process had been recorded and that members of her team were documenting what happened.
For Winn, the episode reinforced the importance of preserving records whenever credible disputes remain unresolved.
Claims of Federal Investigative Interest
Yeater said her organizing team contacted federal officials and worked to bring its concerns to the highest levels of government.
She claimed President Trump had been briefed on information provided by activists.
She also said personnel associated with the FBI, Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security had visited Shasta County.
According to Yeater, investigators received information that was being examined.
She did not describe a completed federal investigation establishing the election-fraud allegations.
Instead, she characterized the situation as an ongoing process.
Winn welcomed the reported federal attention.
She believes election officials and political leaders should not resist legitimate scrutiny when questions arise about public records or ballot processing.
Yeater likewise argued that the appropriate response is to use legal channels, preserve evidence and continue demanding answers.
California's Voter Rolls Become Another Source of Dispute
The discussion expanded beyond Shasta County to California's voter-registration records.
Yeater cited the Election Integrity Project California and Judicial Watch as organizations involved in litigation over voter-roll maintenance.
She referred to past legal efforts involving Los Angeles County and the removal of outdated or ineligible registrations.
Yeater alleged that some registrations were subsequently restored without sufficient review.
Winn questioned whether that process could undermine earlier efforts to clean the records.
The larger issue was the difficulty of maintaining accurate voter rolls while respecting the rights of eligible voters.
Election administrators must remove registrations when legally required.
But they must also protect voters from erroneous removals.
Mail Arriving for Former Residents
Yeater offered an example from her own household.
She said ballots or election materials continued arriving for her adult children even though they no longer lived in California.
That experience led her to question how quickly registration databases are updated when residents move.
She said her family intended to investigate whether any ballots associated with those old registrations had been returned or counted.
Receiving election mail addressed to a former resident does not itself establish unlawful voting.
But Yeater argued that election offices should have reliable procedures for updating addresses, processing returned mail and identifying registrations that require review.
Undeliverable Ballots and Allegations of Misuse
Yeater described another concern involving undeliverable mail ballots.
When election mail cannot be delivered because the recipient has moved or the address is incorrect, it may be returned to election officials.
Yeater alleged that such ballots can create opportunities for fraudulent voting if they are not properly secured.
She cited claims involving Los Angeles election operations and suggested that undeliverable ballots may have been used to cast votes for other people.
Those allegations were not supported by independently verified evidence in the discussion.
Nevertheless, Yeater argued that election officials should maintain clear records of ballots returned as undeliverable and ensure that no unauthorized person can use them.
Riverside County and the Alleged Ballot Discrepancy
Yeater also cited an alleged discrepancy involving approximately 45,000 ballots in Riverside County.
She associated the dispute with Sheriff Chad Bianco and legal conflict over access to election materials.
According to Yeater, officials resisted efforts to investigate the ballots.
The numerical allegation was not independently verified during the discussion, and the existence of a discrepancy would not automatically establish fraudulent votes.
Winn nevertheless considered the claims serious enough to warrant examination.
For both women, the broader concern was whether law-enforcement agencies and election officials can investigate alleged irregularities without becoming trapped in political or jurisdictional disputes.
Spencer Pratt, Social Media and Citizen-Led Political Campaigns
Yeater also discussed Spencer Pratt's political activity in Los Angeles.
She praised his use of social media to attract attention and mobilize supporters.
For Yeater, Pratt demonstrated that an individual with a smartphone can challenge established political institutions and reach an audience far beyond traditional media.
"What Spencer Pratt did was absolutely magnetic," she said.
She argued that citizens should use technology to communicate their concerns rather than allow social-media platforms to dictate what they see and believe.
Her larger point was organizational.
A political movement does not necessarily need enormous financial resources to begin.
It needs a clear message, effective communication and people willing to participate.
Online Popularity Is Not the Same as an Election Result
Yeater argued that the public attention surrounding Pratt raised questions about the outcome of the election she discussed.
She connected those concerns to her allegations about undeliverable ballots and voter-registration records.
However, social-media popularity alone cannot demonstrate that an election result is incorrect.
Online audiences do not necessarily reflect the eligible electorate, and public enthusiasm does not establish how ballots were cast.
Yeater nevertheless believes political movements should examine discrepancies and use lawful investigative channels when they believe evidence warrants scrutiny.
Calls for Federal Access to California Election Records
Yeater reported that federal officials had recently demanded election-related information from California authorities and imposed a short deadline for a response.
She said the request concerned voter rolls and potentially the eligibility of people listed in those records.
She characterized the development as evidence that federal authorities were becoming more aggressive in overseeing election-related questions.
The precise legal scope and status of the reported demand were not established in the discussion.
Yeater said she expected additional developments and encouraged supporters to continue following the process.
Arizona's Election Disputes Remain Part of Winn's Larger Concern
Winn connected Yeater's California experiences to disputes that followed Arizona's 2020 and 2022 elections.
She recalled the narrow margin in the 2022 attorney general race between Kris Mayes and Abe Hamadeh.
The race was decided by approximately 280 votes following the recount.
Winn cited that margin as evidence that even relatively small administrative errors can become consequential in close elections.
She also discussed controversies involving ballot printing, tabulation equipment and voting-center operations.
Some of those controversies produced litigation and years of political debate.
Winn believes they demonstrate the importance of transparent administration.
The Difference Between Suspicion and Proof
Winn acknowledged that election challenges require evidence capable of surviving legal scrutiny.
"You can't go, well, it's a gut feeling," she said.
"You then have to prove it legally in a court."
That distinction is essential.
Suspicion, unusual circumstances or public dissatisfaction may justify questions.
They do not establish that an election was stolen.
Winn said the experience of pursuing election-related disputes forced her to develop a much deeper understanding of law, evidence and administrative procedures.
For her, the lesson was that activists need more than political passion.
They need technical competence and documentation.
Mobile Voting Locations and Election Observers
Winn also discussed Arizona's mobile voting operations, including locations serving remote communities and members of the Tohono O'odham Nation.
She said Republican officials fought to secure access for election observers at mobile voting locations.
According to Winn, that effort resulted in additional opportunities for observation.
She viewed the outcome as an important step toward transparency.
Remote voting locations can serve voters who otherwise face substantial transportation barriers.
At the same time, Winn argued that oversight procedures should be consistent and accessible wherever voting occurs.
Her focus was on the rules governing election operations, not on denying eligible residents the opportunity to participate.
Ballot Printing and Runbeck Election Services
Winn raised another concern involving Runbeck Election Services and the distribution of ballots in Arizona.
She referred to reports that approximately 3,600 ballots had been mailed ahead of the expected schedule.
She questioned how the situation occurred and what procedures were used to identify and correct the error.
The discussion did not establish that the ballots were fraudulent or that improper votes resulted.
Winn nevertheless argued that election vendors should be subject to rigorous quality control.
When election margins can be measured in hundreds of votes, she believes even relatively small administrative mistakes deserve immediate attention.
Yeater Says Election Integrity Requires a National Coalition
Yeater rejected the idea that her work can succeed through partisan organizing alone.
She said her California efforts include Republicans, independents and conservative Democrats.
Some of those Democrats, she argued, share concerns about government transparency, political corruption and excessive institutional power.
Her organization has brought together activists from different professional backgrounds, including people with expertise in election administration, mathematics, technology and public communication.
She mentioned Doug Frank, Ruth Weiss and other election-integrity activists as participants in broader networks.
Their conclusions and allegations remain subjects of controversy, but Yeater considers the collaboration important.
Bringing National Attention to Local Disputes
Yeater described recruiting additional journalists and advocates to investigate developments in Shasta County.
She identified White House correspondent Corinne Cliford and another participant named Arnie as people who became involved in communicating the county's situation to larger audiences.
According to Yeater, their efforts helped maintain attention on local election procedures.
She believes activists in smaller communities often struggle because national organizations do not recognize the significance of their concerns.
Building relationships with journalists, attorneys and government officials can change that.
But she also emphasized the importance of local citizens remaining involved.
No national official can replace the ongoing work of residents attending meetings and reviewing local decisions.
Faith, Family and the Motivation to Continue
Yeater repeatedly described her political work through the lens of Christian faith.
She believes the struggle over elections and government accountability has a spiritual dimension.
That conviction helps her continue when progress seems slow.
"Our hope is not in what's here right now. Our hope is in heaven," she said.
She argued that faith should not become an excuse for disengagement.
Instead, it should provide the courage to participate without allowing political conflict to consume every part of life.
Winn agreed.
She described the importance of remaining willing to serve even when the outcome is uncertain.
Yeater encouraged concerned citizens to begin with one practical action.
Learn a procedure.
Attend a meeting.
Make a phone call.
Help organize volunteers.
Each step, she said, can contribute to a larger effort.
Information about her activities is available through TakeOurCaliforniaBack.com and TakeYourPowerBackShow.com.
Proposition 425: A Permanent Change to Pima County's Spending Authority
The second major issue confronting Southern Arizona voters is Proposition 425.
The measure would change the historical expenditure base used to calculate Pima County's constitutional spending limit.
Its supporters argue that the adjustment is necessary to accommodate changing county responsibilities, population growth and the cost of providing public services.
Opponents argue that the requested increase is far larger than necessary and would permanently weaken an important safeguard against excessive spending.
Kathleen Winn made her position clear.
"I think that this issue ... it's not political. This is not a political issue. This is a financial issue."
The opposition campaign has attracted people who disagree on many other political questions.
Republican businessman Jay Tolkoff and Democratic State Senator Sally Ann Gonzales serve as co-chairs of No on Proposition 425, alongside former state Senator Luis Gonzales.
Their collaboration illustrates the central argument against the measure: financial accountability should matter regardless of party affiliation.
Jay Tolkoff: The $70 Million Figure Conceals a Much Larger Increase
Jay Tolkoff has been examining Proposition 425 since the spring.
He argues that the ballot language does not clearly communicate the size of the proposed change.
The measure would increase the county's 1979-80 expenditure base by approximately $70 million.
On the surface, the figure may seem modest relative to the size of contemporary county budgets.
But the Arizona constitutional formula adjusts that historical base using population and inflation factors.
According to the calculations discussed by Tolkoff and Winn, the adjustment could expand Pima County's annual expenditure authority by approximately $610 million beginning in fiscal year 2027-28.
The existing expenditure limit was described as approximately $817 million.
Under the proposed adjustment, that figure could rise to approximately $1.43 billion.
That represents an increase of roughly 75 percent.
The Difference Between Spending Authority and a Tax Increase
Proposition 425 would not directly impose a new property tax.
It would raise the legal ceiling on certain county expenditures.
That distinction is important because the expanded authority would not automatically require county officials to spend the full amount.
Nor would it automatically create an equivalent tax increase.
Tolkoff acknowledges the distinction.
But he argues that granting more spending authority creates opportunities for future officials to expand programs and pursue additional revenue.
The county would still need lawful revenue sources to finance actual expenditures.
For opponents, that is precisely the concern.
Once the additional authority exists, future boards could use it without asking voters to approve another increase in the constitutional base.
The Increase Would Not Automatically Expire
Tolkoff's most significant objection is the permanent nature of the change.
The increased base would continue to be used in future expenditure-limit calculations.
It would not automatically sunset after a particular project is completed or after a fixed number of years.
Future supervisors would inherit the expanded authority.
So would officials elected decades from now.
For Tolkoff, the issue is not simply whether the current board intends to spend responsibly.
It is whether voters should permanently surrender a constitutional restraint that has existed for approximately 46 years.
Sally Ann Gonzales: The Measure Could Hurt the People Government Claims to Help
Democratic State Senator Sally Ann Gonzales approaches Proposition 425 from a different political perspective.
She represents communities where many residents struggle with housing costs, household expenses and limited incomes.
Gonzales said her office regularly receives calls from seniors who need assistance understanding their property taxes.
Some mistakenly believe property-tax obligations disappear automatically after reaching a particular age.
Her staff must explain that homeowners generally remain responsible for property taxes, although qualifying seniors and veterans may have access to specific forms of relief.
Gonzales fears that higher future taxes could place additional pressure on the residents least able to absorb them.
Seniors on Fixed Incomes Face Particular Risks
Gonzales described senior citizens who are already struggling with household finances.
For someone living on a fixed income, a recurring increase in housing costs can be particularly difficult.
Property taxes are only one expense.
Residents must also pay for utilities, transportation, insurance, healthcare and everyday necessities.
Gonzales argued that county leaders should consider those pressures before expanding their authority to spend.
The fact that a proposition does not directly impose a tax does not eliminate questions about how future spending will be financed.
She believes voters deserve a clear explanation of that connection.
Young Families Are Struggling to Buy Their First Homes
Gonzales also works with an organization that develops housing for low- and moderate-income residents.
She said the organization maintains a long waiting list of families trying to purchase homes.
Those families often struggle to accumulate down payments and qualify for financing.
Higher rents reduce their ability to save.
Higher mortgage rates can make qualifying for a loan more difficult.
And rising ownership costs can place homes out of reach even when families have stable employment.
Gonzales worries that Proposition 425 could contribute to additional financial pressure if future county spending produces higher taxes.
The concern extends beyond current homeowners.
Renters may also be affected when property owners pass some of their higher operating expenses into rental prices.
The Seventh Generation Must Be Considered
Gonzales introduced a principle rooted in Native American traditions.
Decisions should be evaluated according to their consequences for future generations.
She referred specifically to the seventh generation.
A permanent increase in government spending authority, she argued, could affect people who have not yet been born.
That makes the measure fundamentally different from a short-term appropriation.
Current voters are being asked to make a decision that future taxpayers may have difficulty reversing.
Gonzales believes that responsibility requires greater restraint and clarity.
"How it's going to affect a lot of, especially seniors in my district, as well as the very young families," she said, was her central concern.
She later emphasized that the consequences could extend to "children that aren't even born yet."
Gonzales Says a Specific Project Would Be Easier to Support
Gonzales did not argue that county government should never receive additional funding.
Her objection was to granting a large, permanent increase without clearly defined projects or restrictions.
She said her position might be different if officials identified a specific need, presented an appropriate budget and explained how the money would be spent.
"If they had asked for a specific amount for a specific project, I wouldn't be here," Gonzales said.
She added that she might well support such a proposal.
The problem, in her view, is that Proposition 425 does not impose the project-specific limitations she would prefer.
Once the base is adjusted, future supervisors would have greater latitude to establish spending priorities.
Gonzales believes voters should retain the opportunity to examine major financial requests individually.
A Bipartisan Objection to an Open-Ended Commitment
Tolkoff agreed that the county should explain its needs more precisely.
His opposition is not based on the idea that government can operate forever using the same services and technology available in 1980.
Government responsibilities have changed.
Technology has changed.
Population patterns have changed.
And the cost of providing services has changed.
Tolkoff acknowledged those realities.
But he questioned whether they justify increasing the expenditure limit by approximately 75 percent.
"If they came and asked for 10%, I'd be okay with it," he said.
What troubles him is the scale of the request.
He characterized it as far beyond what the county has demonstrated it needs.
Proposition 425 Would Change a Constitutional Protection Adopted Around 1980
Arizona's expenditure-limitation framework dates to constitutional reforms intended to restrain government spending.
The underlying principle was that increases in government expenditures should remain tied to a defined formula rather than expand without meaningful limits.
Tolkoff said the protection was created to prevent runaway spending and the resulting pressure for higher taxes.
He believes Proposition 425 would substantially weaken that restraint.
Winn emphasized that the spending limit is not an obscure technicality.
It is a constitutional safeguard.
Changing it permanently deserves more scrutiny than an ordinary annual budget adjustment.
Why the Historical Base Matters
The 1979-80 base provides the starting point for calculating a county's constitutional expenditure limit.
Adjustments for population and inflation allow the ceiling to change over time.
Proposition 425 would alter that starting point.
Because the formula operates on the adjusted base, the consequences extend beyond the $70 million figure appearing in the ballot description.
For voters unfamiliar with government finance, the distinction can be difficult to understand.
Tolkoff believes that difficulty has allowed proponents to present the measure as a relatively small adjustment.
Winn argued that voters should focus on the resulting expenditure limit rather than only the historical base amount.
Smaller Counties Are Requesting Smaller Adjustments
Tolkoff compared Pima County's proposal with requests from Santa Cruz and Yuma counties.
He said Santa Cruz County was seeking an adjustment of approximately $1.5 million.
Yuma County's request was approximately $6.2 million.
Pima County's requested adjustment is approximately $70 million.
The counties differ substantially in population, responsibilities and financial needs, so the figures are not directly comparable without additional context.
Nevertheless, Tolkoff argued that the comparison highlights the extraordinary size of Pima County's proposal.
He also cited Maricopa County's historical experience.
According to his account, Maricopa received an approximately 11 percent adjustment in 1998 and continued operating within its expenditure limit for many years afterward.
For Tolkoff, that example raises a question.
If Arizona's largest county could operate after a much smaller adjustment, why does Pima County need an increase approaching 75 percent?
The County's Surplus Raises Questions About Its Spending Priorities
One of the most contentious issues was Pima County's available general-fund balance.
Winn and Tolkoff discussed approximately $18 million that county officials were considering allocating.
They argued that the money should prompt a broader discussion about whether the county is already collecting more revenue than necessary.
Tolkoff acknowledged that some public employees may deserve additional compensation.
Frontline workers can face demanding responsibilities without receiving salaries comparable to their counterparts elsewhere.
But he questioned substantial compensation increases for senior administrators.
He believes county leaders should distinguish between necessary employee support and spending that primarily benefits already well-compensated officials.
Why Not Return Some Money to Taxpayers?
Gonzales suggested that county officials consider returning some available money to residents.
"If they have extra money, they should be finding ways to return some of these tax dollars to our taxpayers," she said.
She acknowledged that distributing $18 million across the county might not produce enormous individual payments.
But she considered the principle important.
If residents are struggling and government has additional money available, tax relief should at least be part of the discussion.
Winn agreed.
She suggested that county leaders could also consider targeted programs to help seniors or first-time homebuyers.
Those proposals would still require careful financial planning, but Winn argued that they would address the affordability problems local officials frequently cite as priorities.
Tolkoff Questions the Rush to Spend Available Funds
Tolkoff argued that government officials often view unspent money as an opportunity to expand expenditures rather than reconsider taxation.
He said the existence of available funds should trigger questions about current needs and long-term obligations.
Are essential services adequately funded?
Are reserves appropriate?
Are infrastructure projects being completed?
Could some money be used to reduce future tax pressure?
For Tolkoff, the central concern is whether elected officials treat public revenue as money belonging to taxpayers or as resources government is entitled to spend.
Property Taxes, Rent and the Cost of Living in Pima County
Winn and Tolkoff criticized recent county property-tax increases.
They argued that residents are already paying too much relative to the services they receive.
Tolkoff described comparing tax bills across Arizona and questioned why some expensive properties in other communities could have lower property-tax bills than more modest homes in Pima County.
He said the structure of property taxation can produce significant differences among counties and taxing jurisdictions.
Winn emphasized that voters should examine their full property-tax bills.
The total may include obligations imposed by school districts, municipalities, special districts and other governmental bodies.
Nevertheless, county supervisors remain responsible for the rates and expenditures within their authority.
Higher Property Costs Can Affect Renters
Gonzales and Tolkoff emphasized that renters are not insulated from property taxes.
Landlords must cover operating expenses, including property taxes, insurance and maintenance.
When those costs increase, some portion may eventually be reflected in rent.
That does not mean every tax increase produces an identical rent increase.
Market conditions, lease agreements and other expenses also matter.
But the guests argued that policymakers should recognize the connection.
A renter hoping to save for a down payment may find the task more difficult when monthly housing costs continue rising.
For Gonzales, that is particularly troubling.
The families who most need an opportunity to build financial security may find themselves falling further behind.
First-Time Homeownership Is Moving Later in Life
Gonzales said many young adults now struggle to buy their first homes until much later than previous generations.
People who might once have purchased homes in their twenties or thirties are increasingly waiting until their forties.
Winn recalled purchasing her first home at 26.
The property was near Orange Grove and Ina, off Thornydale, in what later became part of Marana.
Mortgage interest rates were exceptionally high at the time.
She remembered rates around 17 percent, with the builder helping buy the rate down to approximately 13 percent.
She and her family obtained a 15-year mortgage.
Despite those difficult financing conditions, she was able to purchase a home and establish a lasting investment in the community.
Winn contrasted that experience with today's younger families, many of whom face home prices that make ownership difficult regardless of interest rates.
Gonzales agreed that housing policy should give families a path toward stability rather than increase barriers.
Rex Scott's Defense of Proposition 425 Draws Criticism
Pima County Supervisor Rex Scott has publicly defended the proposed expenditure-limit adjustment.
Winn and Tolkoff discussed an opinion article in which Scott argued that the county needs greater flexibility to plan for future services and expenses.
Tolkoff said he personally gets along with Scott but strongly disagrees with his position on Proposition 425.
"In fairness to Rex, I like Rex," Tolkoff said.
His objection is not personal.
It concerns the scope of the authority the county is requesting.
Government Costs Have Changed Since 1980
Tolkoff acknowledged that Scott has a legitimate point about changing government operations.
In 1980, residents did not expect to access extensive government records, services and information through public websites.
Today, county departments need information-technology personnel, software, security systems and equipment that did not exist decades ago.
Those systems cost money.
Additional population and more complex service requirements can also increase operating expenses.
Tolkoff does not dispute that government must adapt.
He disputes the size of the adjustment.
He argued that the county's request goes far beyond the amount necessary to accommodate modern technology and reasonable growth.
Tolkoff Challenges the County's Financial Forecasts
Tolkoff said his engineering and financial background led him to examine the calculations supporting Proposition 425.
He questioned the economic assumptions used to justify the increase.
In his view, the projections were excessively optimistic.
He compared the situation with previous regional transportation promises, arguing that officials had sometimes forecast more favorable conditions than ultimately materialized.
Winn cited the Regional Transportation Authority as an example of large public projects that have faced delays and revised schedules.
Both said long-term forecasts deserve skepticism when they are used to justify permanent increases in government authority.
Public Hearings and Ballot Language Become Part of the Dispute
Gonzales, one of Arizona's longest-serving legislators, said her experience with ballot measures has made her especially concerned about how complicated proposals are presented to voters.
She has participated in legislative disputes over ballot descriptions, legal language and explanatory materials.
Those debates matter because a relatively small number of words can determine how voters understand a measure.
She argued that voters should not be expected to interpret complicated constitutional finance formulas without clear explanations.
The Problem With the Phrase "No New Taxes"
Supporters of Proposition 425 emphasize that the measure does not directly impose a tax increase.
That is an important legal distinction.
But Gonzales worries that voters may interpret the message to mean the measure cannot contribute to higher taxes in the future.
She believes the long-term financial consequences deserve a more complete explanation.
"Yes, the proposition itself will not raise taxes, but the effects of it will," Gonzales said.
Her statement reflected her expectation that expanded spending authority would eventually create pressure for additional revenue.
That outcome is not automatic, but she considers it a serious risk.
Long Ballots Make Clear Information More Important
Gonzales also expressed concern about the length and complexity of the November ballot.
Younger voters and older residents may have difficulty working through multiple propositions involving unfamiliar legal and financial concepts.
She believes misleading or incomplete campaign messages can make the problem worse.
The responsibility of public officials, she argued, should be to explain consequences plainly.
Voters should understand not only what a measure changes immediately but also what authority it grants government in the future.
Tolkoff Questions Whether the Public Was Adequately Informed
Tolkoff also criticized the public outreach preceding the measure's placement on the ballot.
He questioned whether public hearings received sufficient attention and whether residents had meaningful opportunities to understand the proposal.
He acknowledged that notices may have been issued.
But he argued that legal compliance alone does not necessarily amount to effective public engagement.
A permanent constitutional adjustment deserves substantial public discussion.
Winn agreed that voters should not learn about a major financial proposal only after the campaign begins.
The Opposition Coalition Extends Beyond Republican Politics
One of the strongest arguments presented by Proposition 425's opponents was the diversity of the coalition.
Winn, a Republican Party leader, was joined by a Democratic state senator and a businessman with a long history of involvement in Tucson civic issues.
Former Democratic Senator Luis Gonzales also serves as a co-chair.
The Tucson Business Council was identified among organizations opposing the measure.
Tolkoff said the coalition developed organically after months of public discussion.
For him, that demonstrates that fiscal oversight is not inherently a partisan issue.
Gonzales Says Her Constituents Come Before Party Labels
Gonzales made clear that her opposition comes from concern for the people she represents.
Many residents of Legislative District 20 live on limited incomes.
Others are trying to establish financial stability.
She said those constituents need government services, but they also need relief from rising household expenses.
Gonzales believes Proposition 425 places too much emphasis on the government's desire for spending flexibility and too little emphasis on taxpayers' ability to afford the consequences.
Her position does not require agreement with Republican views on immigration, national politics or other issues.
It reflects a narrower judgment about the proposed financial authority.
Luis Gonzales Calls for Clear Plans and End Dates
Winn quoted former state Senator Luis Gonzales, who supports the opposition campaign.
"As a former legislator, I know a blank check when I see one," he said in the statement Winn shared.
His argument was that specific county needs should be presented to voters with defined plans and appropriate expiration dates.
Proposition 425, he argued, does not follow that model.
Instead, it permanently changes the financial framework available to future county officials.
For the opposition coalition, that lack of an automatic end date is a central objection.
County Spending Should Focus on Essential Services, Opponents Argue
Winn identified public safety, infrastructure and legally required services as responsibilities that deserve priority.
She believes county government should demonstrate success in those areas before seeking dramatically greater spending authority.
Crime remains a concern.
Road conditions continue frustrating drivers.
Large infrastructure projects have taken years to complete.
And residents continue asking whether government programs produce results proportional to their costs.
Public Safety Should Receive Measurable Support
Winn argued that additional public-safety funding should translate into measurable improvements.
More effective law enforcement, better emergency response and safer communities are legitimate public goals.
But she wants officials to explain exactly what new spending would accomplish.
If a proposal is intended to fund additional personnel, she believes the county should identify the positions and expected outcomes.
If the goal is reducing crime, officials should explain how success will be measured.
Tolkoff agreed that broad promises are not enough.
Taxpayers deserve a clear connection between expenditures and results.
Gonzales Emphasizes Services for People Experiencing Homelessness
Gonzales identified another important responsibility: helping people experiencing homelessness.
She believes effective services can help vulnerable residents return to stable living conditions.
That may require housing assistance, healthcare, behavioral-health resources and other forms of support.
But she argued that additional spending authority is not the same as a specific plan to help those residents.
Programs should be clearly defined.
Their costs should be transparent.
And their outcomes should be evaluated.
Gonzales said she would be more receptive to a measure that identified concrete improvements in public safety, healthcare or services for vulnerable residents.
Her objection was to an open-ended increase without those commitments.
The Long Wait for Grant Road Improvements
Winn used Tucson's Grant Road project as an example of infrastructure delays that frustrate taxpayers.
She joked that she hoped to attend the ribbon cutting someday, even if someone had to wheel her there.
The humor reflected a serious complaint.
Large projects can take years to complete while taxpayers continue funding government operations.
Winn believes local officials should place greater emphasis on completing existing commitments before expanding into additional programs.
Tolkoff Questions the Board's Attitude Toward Smaller Expenditures
Tolkoff recalled attending a county meeting where a supervisor discussed a relatively small financial item in the context of a much larger expenditure.
According to Tolkoff, the supervisor questioned why the board was concerned about approximately $122,000 when it would later consider roughly $32 million in asphalt spending.
Tolkoff found the comparison troubling.
The fact that one expenditure is small relative to another does not make it insignificant.
"It's our money. It's not his money," Tolkoff said.
For him, that attitude illustrates why spending limits matter.
Government officials can become accustomed to managing very large budgets.
Amounts that would be enormous to an ordinary household may begin appearing trivial.
Tolkoff argued that responsible public finance requires attention to both large and small expenditures.
Spending Authority Should Not Depend on Political Connections
Tolkoff also questioned whether county spending consistently benefits the general public.
He criticized what he perceives as a tendency to direct resources toward favored organizations and projects.
He said people with close relationships to political leaders may have greater success obtaining government support than residents outside those networks.
Those were his political criticisms, not demonstrated findings of improper favoritism.
But he argued that the appearance of unequal access damages public confidence.
Government spending should be justified by public need and measurable benefit, not by political relationships.
A Future Board Could Use the Increased Authority Differently
Tolkoff and Gonzales repeatedly stressed that Proposition 425 would outlast the current Board of Supervisors.
Future members may have very different priorities.
A voter who supports today's leadership may strongly oppose a board elected a decade from now.
The larger expenditure limit would remain available under either circumstance.
For opponents, that makes the vote a structural decision rather than a referendum on the current supervisors' personalities.
Three Supervisors Can Control Ordinary Board Decisions
Pima County has five supervisors.
Ordinary board action can generally be approved by a majority of three, subject to any special legal requirements applicable to particular decisions.
Winn argued that expanding financial authority under those circumstances creates substantial risks.
A relatively small group of elected officials could establish priorities with long-lasting financial consequences.
Tolkoff agreed that the constitutional limit provides a constraint beyond the normal political process.
Eliminating or substantially expanding that constraint changes how much spending a future board can authorize under applicable law.
The Board's Political Composition Can Change
Winn noted that the present board has a four-to-one Democratic majority.
Republican Supervisor Steve Christie frequently dissents from decisions supported by the other members.
But future elections could produce a different balance.
Tolkoff argued that voters should not assume the current political majority will always control county government.
A permanent expansion of authority is not limited to the priorities of the people currently requesting it.
Proposed Bonds and Possible Future Taxes Add to the Concern
Tolkoff said county leaders are also considering significant future bond financing.
He referred to discussions involving approximately $500 million in possible bond proposals.
That would represent a separate financial decision from Proposition 425.
Nevertheless, opponents argue that taxpayers need to examine the county's overall financial strategy.
The expenditure-limit adjustment, possible bond obligations and future tax decisions could interact in ways that affect household costs.
The Possibility of a County Sales Tax
Winn also raised the possibility that a future board could pursue a county sales tax under circumstances permitted by Arizona law.
She argued that different political leadership could make such an option more realistic.
For lower-income households, sales taxes can be particularly burdensome because consumers spend a larger share of their incomes on everyday necessities.
Gonzales acknowledged that concern.
She said public finance decisions should be evaluated for their effects on people with the least financial flexibility.
The discussion did not establish that Proposition 425 would itself authorize a new sales tax.
Any such proposal would remain subject to applicable legal requirements.
But the possibility reinforced the guests' broader objection to expanding spending capacity without a specific financial plan.
COVID-Era Funding and Immigration Expenditures Enter the Debate
Winn criticized local government's reliance on temporary funding during the COVID-19 pandemic.
She argued that one-time federal money allowed public agencies to expand programs and staffing.
When those temporary resources disappeared, some governments were left with ongoing expenses.
That creates difficult decisions.
Programs may be politically popular.
Employees may have been hired.
Residents may have become accustomed to services.
But the original funding source may no longer exist.
Winn believes the temptation is to replace temporary revenue with additional permanent taxation.
One-Time Money Should Not Create Permanent Obligations Without a Plan
Tolkoff agreed that governments should distinguish between recurring and nonrecurring revenue.
One-time funds can be appropriate for capital improvements, emergency assistance and temporary needs.
They become more difficult to manage when used to create programs requiring annual support.
Without a sustainable financing plan, those obligations may eventually fall on local taxpayers.
The guests argued that this problem should be examined before county officials seek more expenditure authority.
Winn Also Questions Migrant-Related Spending
Winn referred to local spending associated with immigration and assistance for migrants.
She criticized programs that she believes expanded during periods of increased federal funding.
Her argument was that officials should explain what public resources were used, how the money was spent and whether long-term commitments remain.
Those concerns formed part of her larger criticism of county budgeting.
She believes officials must demonstrate that temporary programs and associated staffing are financially sustainable.
Data Centers and Other County Decisions Raise Questions About Trust
Winn also criticized Pima County's temporary moratorium on data-center development.
She referred to objections raised by the Goldwater Institute and argued that the moratorium conflicted with state law.
The legal status of such a measure depends on the applicable statutory framework and any court rulings.
But Winn believes the dispute illustrates a broader problem.
When elected officials take actions that produce legal challenges, the potential costs can ultimately affect taxpayers.
She argued that officials asking for more financial authority should first demonstrate respect for existing legal constraints.
Economic Development Requires Predictable Rules
Winn said Arizona needs to attract employers that provide well-paying jobs.
Young people cannot build prosperous futures without opportunities for stable employment.
But companies considering investment want predictable regulations, reliable infrastructure and manageable costs.
Winn worries that rising taxes and uncertain development rules may discourage businesses from locating or expanding in Southern Arizona.
That concern reinforced her argument that fiscal policy should focus on growth and affordability rather than simply increasing government spending.
Supervisor Steve Christie Calls for a Different Approach
Winn discussed an opinion article by Supervisor Steve Christie questioning Proposition 425.
Christie asked whether Pima County residents are better off because of the current board's spending priorities.
Are roads improving?
Is public safety getting better?
Are families finding housing more affordable?
Are government programs delivering measurable value?
Winn viewed those questions as a useful framework for evaluating the measure.
Why Not Collect Less Rather Than Spend More?
Christie also suggested that county officials could consider lowering property taxes rather than seeking to spend additional available revenue.
Winn and Tolkoff agreed that the idea deserves consideration.
If a government regularly collects more than its expenditure limit allows it to spend, that can raise questions about the appropriate level of taxation.
It does not automatically prove overtaxation, since reserves, restricted revenues and other financial obligations also matter.
But opponents argue that tax relief should be discussed alongside spending increases.
For Gonzales, the issue comes back to affordability.
Any opportunity to reduce pressure on struggling households deserves serious examination.
Local Political Differences Should Not Prevent Cooperation
The alliance between Tolkoff and Gonzales offered one of the clearest contrasts with the partisan conflicts dominating national politics.
They disagree on many issues.
Their priorities are not identical.
Their political backgrounds are different.
But both believe Proposition 425 lacks sufficient limits.
Winn praised their willingness to work together.
She described the coalition as evidence that elected officials and community leaders can identify common ground when they focus on a specific policy question.
Gonzales Has Spent Years Navigating Legislative Disagreements
As a longtime legislator, Gonzales has worked through complicated negotiations involving people with sharply different political views.
She said experience has taught her the importance of looking beyond slogans and examining the consequences of legislation.
That experience informed her opposition to Proposition 425.
The measure's technical language may seem straightforward to people accustomed to government finance.
For ordinary voters, however, the long-term consequences can be difficult to recognize.
Gonzales believes the responsibility to explain those consequences should come before partisan loyalty.
Winn Recalls Bipartisan Work on Child Sex Trafficking
Winn also recalled working on child sex-trafficking issues during her time associated with the Arizona Attorney General's Office.
She said protecting children from exploitation was an issue capable of bringing people together across party lines.
People could disagree on many other matters while still recognizing the need to address abuse and exploitation.
Winn believes fiscal accountability can create a similar opportunity for cooperation.
The participants may differ on how much government should spend or which programs deserve support.
But they can still agree that public money requires responsible management.
The Campaign Against Proposition 425 Gains Momentum
Tolkoff said he began raising concerns about the proposition in early April.
For months, he worked to draw attention to the expenditure-limit formula and the size of the requested adjustment.
The campaign gained momentum as the election approached and more voters began examining the measure.
He said business leaders and community members from different political backgrounds became involved.
The coalition's growth, he argued, reflects concern about both the permanent nature of the proposal and the potential financial consequences.
Property-Tax Bills Make the Issue Personal
Tolkoff believes recent property-tax bills have made voters more attentive to local government finance.
A constitutional spending formula can seem abstract.
A larger bill arriving in the mail is not.
Homeowners immediately understand the effect on their household budgets.
Renters may also become concerned when they consider how property ownership costs influence housing prices.
Gonzales said those consequences are particularly significant for families already struggling to save money.
The opposition campaign is therefore trying to connect a complicated ballot measure with the everyday experiences of Pima County residents.
Business Leaders See Risks for Regional Competitiveness
The guests said local business leaders are concerned about future taxes and the cost of operating in Pima County.
Employers considering expansion must evaluate property costs, regulatory requirements, infrastructure and labor expenses.
Tolkoff argued that additional government spending can eventually increase pressure on those costs if it is financed through higher taxes.
He believes greater financial discipline would help make the county more attractive to investment.
Winn agreed that economic growth is essential to the region's future.
More employers mean more opportunities for young families.
But those employers must believe the local government environment supports long-term investment.
The Central Disagreement Is About the Size of Government's Request
Tolkoff repeatedly clarified that he is not opposed to every increase in government spending.
He understands that population growth, technological change and new responsibilities require additional resources.
He also recognizes that some programs deserve more funding.
His objection is to the scale and permanence of Proposition 425.
An increase of 10 or 15 percent might be easier to justify with detailed evidence.
An increase approaching 75 percent, he argued, demands a far more compelling explanation.
A 75 Percent Raise Would Be Extraordinary Anywhere Else
Tolkoff compared the county's request with an employee asking for a raise.
An employer might approve a reasonable increase based on performance, changing responsibilities or economic conditions.
But a request for a 75 percent raise would require extraordinary justification.
Tolkoff believes the county is effectively making that kind of request to taxpayers.
He characterized the amount as excessive relative to the needs the county has identified.
"The methodology that they're using to come up with a justification for that increase is completely flawed," he said.
His assessment reflected his review of the projections and assumptions supporting the proposal.
Voters Can Support Government Services Without Supporting Unlimited Flexibility
Gonzales emphasized that opposing Proposition 425 does not mean opposing government services.
She supports programs that assist vulnerable residents.
She supports efforts to improve housing access.
She recognizes the importance of public safety and healthcare.
But she wants financial requests to identify those priorities clearly.
A defined project, a specific budget and an appropriate end date would give voters more information and a stronger basis for accountability.
Without those provisions, she believes the measure asks residents to place too much trust in future decisions they cannot predict.
The November Vote Will Shape More Than One Election Cycle
The debate over Proposition 425 is ultimately a debate over how much authority citizens should delegate to government.
Supporters believe Pima County needs additional flexibility to meet modern demands.
Opponents believe the requested adjustment is far larger than necessary and would weaken a longstanding constitutional safeguard.
Tolkoff sees the measure as a test of fiscal restraint.
Gonzales sees a threat to seniors, renters and young families who are already struggling to afford housing.
Winn sees another example of government asking for greater authority before demonstrating that existing resources have been managed effectively.
Their perspectives are different, but each returns to the same question.
How can voters ensure that officials remain accountable for the money they collect and spend?
Accountability Must Continue After Election Day
That question also connects the county spending debate with Yeater's concerns about elections.
Yeater wants citizens to observe election operations and investigate suspected irregularities through lawful channels.
Tolkoff wants taxpayers to understand the limits of government spending authority.
Gonzales wants future generations protected from decisions that could create lasting financial burdens.
Each approaches the issue from a different direction.
But all three emphasize the importance of an informed public.
The right to vote is meaningful only when citizens understand what they are deciding.
And the responsibility of public officials does not end when an election is certified.
It continues through transparent administration, responsible budgeting, respect for legal limits and the willingness to answer difficult questions.
For Pima County residents, Proposition 425 places those principles directly on the November ballot. The decision is not merely about how much government can spend next year. It concerns the financial authority that future boards will inherit, the services residents expect and the limits taxpayers want government to respect.