Legislative schedule - week starting 4/26/2026

A (possible) break in the budget freeze at the Capitol this week, but don't hold your breath.

As of now, silly season continues at the Capitol.

Note: HHR refers to a hearing room in the House building; SHR refers to one in the Senate building.

Note2: Generally, I'll only specify bills that look to spread propaganda.  Other bills may be more conventionally b, ad (think: corrupt or other misuses of public monies and/or authority).  My recommendation is that if an agenda covers an area of interest to you, read the entire agenda.

Note3: Each chamber's respective Rules Committee meets on Monday, the House's in HHR4, generally at 1 p.m. and the Senate's in Senate Caucus Room 1, generally also at 1 p.m.  Both committees serve as rubber stamps for bills leadership wants to be advanced and gatekeepers for measures that leadership wants stopped.

Note4: Meeting start times may be listed, but are flexible.  Before journeying to the Capitol or viewing the meeting online, verify the start time.

Note5: Watch for strikers, or strike everything amendments.  Those involve inserting language that replaces the entirety of a bill.  Those can be introduced at any time and can make a previously harmless bill become a very bad one. 

On Monday, 4/27 

-

Senate Rules is scheduled to meet this week [1 p.m., Senate Caucus Room 1].  There are two bills on its agenda, however, the most interesting item on the agenda isn't a bill.

2. Request for permission from the Committee on Rules for the late introduction of bills relating to the budget

Hmmm... 

I don't yet know if this is for real or just for show.

My guess (and it's only that) is that they'll get a budget done by the middle of June - legislative Rs are scheduled to go to D.C. (on the taxpayer dime!) on June 15th - 17th.  While there, they'll be praising Cheeto and receiving their marching orders.

Senate Health and Human Service meets at 11 a.m. is SHR2.  On the agenda: no bills and one executive nomination - Dr. Lynette Livesay for the state's Board of Psychologist Examiners.

On Tuesday, 4/28, Wednesday, 4/29, and Thursday, 4/30 - nada scheduled (for now, anyway.)

Election challenges are (mostly) resolved but some are still ongoing

I do have one question (though I believe I already know the answer).

First, the challenges:

From the Arizona Secretary of State (AZSOS) (emphasis added by me) -

The "biggest" name to withdraw from a race after the candidate's nominating petitions were challenged was Eric Descheenie, former state legislator, who withdrew from the CD2 Democratic primary.

That sets up a general election contest of Jonathan Nez (now unopposed in the Democratic primary) and incumbent Eli Crane (unopposed in the Republican primary).

On a totally unrelated note, Arizona's "Sore Loser" law seems to preclude a candidate whose petitions were challenged from jumping races and running as a write-in candidate in another race. 

From ARS 16-312 -

F. Except as provided in section 16-343, subsection E, a candidate may not file pursuant to this section if any of the following applies:

1. For a candidate in the general election, the candidate ran in the immediately preceding primary election and failed to be nominated to the office sought in the current election.

2. For a candidate in the general election, the candidate filed a nomination petition for the immediately preceding primary election for the office sought and failed to provide a sufficient number of valid petition signatures as prescribed by section 16-322.

3. For a candidate in the primary election, the candidate filed a nomination petition for the current primary election for the office sought and failed to provide a sufficient number of valid petition signatures as prescribed by section 16-322, withdrew from the primary election after a challenge was filed or was removed from or otherwise determined by court order to be ineligible for the primary election ballot.

4. For a candidate in the general election, the candidate filed a nomination petition for nomination other than by primary election for the office sought and failed to provide a sufficient number of valid petition signatures as prescribed by section 16-341.

G. A person who files a nomination paper pursuant to this section for the office of president of the United States shall designate in writing to the secretary of state at the time of filing the name of the candidate's vice presidential running mate, the names of presidential electors who will represent that candidate and a statement signed by the vice presidential running mate and designated presidential electors that indicates their consent to be designated.  A nomination paper for each presidential elector designated shall be filed with the candidate's nomination paper. The number of presidential electors shall equal the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

My question is this: Does this section of Arizona law apply to candidates for Congress?

I ask because someone was a Green Party candidate in CD1 whose petitions were challenged and withdrew from the race is now running as a write-in candidate in CD3.

From the AZ SOS (again, emphasis added by me)

I'm guessing that the "Sore Loser" law doesn't apply to candidates for federal office, but as I'm not an attorney, I don't really know.

Short Attention Span Musing: odds and ends edition

...One prediction: Congressman Paul Gosar (R-CD9) not only doesn't run for reelection in 2028, my guess is that he won't make it to 2028 as a member of Congress.

He spoke at a Turning Point USA fundraiser in Phoenix this past week, and he looked distinctly unwell.

This picture is from a video posted to Bluesky. I think the video may be on the website of Fox10 Phoenix, but I won't link to Faux News or any of its affiliates, so I advise readers who wish to view it to look it up themselves.

Assuming readers locate the video, they should ignore the words and focus on the physical and verbal tics (ignoring the words is easy - he's a nutjob.  He opened his speech by equating Cheeto to a god.)

Some folks online speculated that he has Parkinson's and others speculated that he might have been intoxicated.  I don't think he was intoxicated.  As for Parkinson's, I'm not a doctor (and wouldn't trust one who diagnosed someone based only on a video) and won't speculate.

If my prediction proves to be accurate and he doesn't run for reelection in 2028, once he's no longer a member of Congress or even a candidate, his title of "biggest bigot in Arizona politics" will go to someone else.  I'm leaning toward Congressman Eli Crane, but there other contenders for that title (this being AZ, there are *many* other contenders for that particular title.)

The district will almost certainly go to another Republican - the district is overwhelmingly Republican.

Voter registration numbers from the Arizona Secretary of State -

...In the fall elections, at least one Biggs will probably win (no, not Andy Biggs in his quest to defeat incumbent Governor Katie Hobbs).  Mylie Biggs, Andy Biggs' daughter, is running for the State Senate seat in LD14.  As she's unopposed in the primary and while she faces a Democratic opponent in the general, that district is also overwhelmingly R, so she'll almost certainly win the seat.

...Tyler Farmsworth, who may or may not be related current state senator David Farnsworth or former legislator Eddie Farnsworth (I couldn't find any definitive links indicating a close relationship...and "Farnsworth" is a common last name if that part of Maricopa County) is running for a State Representative seat in that same LD14.

While there's a contest in the primary (three candidates for two seats), the district is still overwhelmingly R, and the R primary winners there will almost certainly win in the general.

...In the "RFK Jr. must be so happy" department: Measles hasn't gone away.

From Arizona Department of Health Services -

Actually, the information on the state page is somewhat out of date.  It was last updated on 4/14/2026 and shows Maricopa County as having five cases.  On 4/17, the Arizona Medical Association broke news of a sixth case here.

Get vaccinated.

Legislative schedule - week starting 4/19/2026

Hurry up and wait season grinds on as Governor Hobbs and legislative leadership negotiate a state budget behind closed doors.

Note: HHR refers to a hearing room in the House building; SHR refers to one in the Senate building.

Note2: Generally, I'll only specify bills that look to spread propaganda.  Other bills may be more conventionally b, ad (think: corrupt or other misuses of public monies and/or authority).  My recommendation is that if an agenda covers an area of interest to you, read the entire agenda.

Note3: Each chamber's respective Rules Committee meets on Monday, the House's in HHR4, generally at 1 p.m. and the Senate's in Senate Caucus Room 1, generally also at 1 p.m.  Both committees serve as rubber stamps for bills leadership wants to be advanced and gatekeepers for measures that leadership wants stopped.

Note4: Meeting start times may be listed, but are flexible.  Before journeying to the Capitol or viewing the meeting online, verify the start time.

Note5: Watch for strikers, or strike everything amendments.  Those involve inserting language that replaces the entirety of a bill.  Those can be introduced at any time and can make a previously harmless bill become a very bad one. 

On Monday, 4/20 

-

Senate Rules is scheduled to meet this week [1 p.m., Senate Caucus Room 1].  There are five bills on its agenda.

Senate Director Nominations meets at 11:30 a.m. in SHR109.  On the agenda: no bills, one director candidate to grill consider:

Ruvjit "Ruby" Dhillion-Williams for the Arizona Department of Housing.

On Tuesday, 4/21, Wednesday, 4/22, and Thursday, 4/23 - Nada on the schedule (for now, anyway).

Turnout matters

As we've seen from some recent elections, one international and one local, elections can turn out in ways that benefit the governed.

No matter that Cheeto and his enablers/sycophants want people to believe otherwise.

Even though one election was international and a right wing party won (though not as right wing as the strongman who lost the election) and one was local with some pro-clean energy people winning a majority on a local board, they share one thing in common - both had incredibly high voter turnouts.

From BBC (emphasis added by me) - 

Orbán era swept away by Péter Magyar's Hungary election landslide

Viktor Orbán's 16 years in power is over and a system condemned as an "electoral autocracy" lies in tatters, defeated by a 45-year-old former party insider who convinced a majority of Hungarians to bring it to an end.

"We did it," Péter Magyar told a crowd of cheering supporters beside the River Danube, overlooking Budapest's magnificent parliament on the other side. "Together we overthrew the Hungarian regime."

[snip]

[snip]

"Never before in the history of democratic Hungary have so many people voted - and no single party has ever received such a strong mandate," he [Magyar] said on Sunday night, after a record 79.5% of the electorate turned out to vote.

That's the international one.  The local one:

From KJZZ, written by Wayne Schutsky , dated 4/9/2026 (emphasis added by me) -

Clean energy slate claims victory over Turning Poin  t in Arizona SRP election

Turning Point USA’s political arm spent months pouring money and resources into a little-known utility election in Arizona, an effort that contributed to massive increase in voter turnout but ultimately failed to stave off a challenge from a slate of clean-energy candidates.

Salt River Project held elections on Tuesday for the boards and councils that set policy and make other decisions on behalf of its water and power utilities.

For years, those elections have flown under the radar due to a number of factors, including its unique electoral system that only allows landowners within SRP territory to cast votes. And, for most positions, those votes are allocated based on a landowner’s total acreage, giving large property owners more influence and leaving most homeowners with a fraction of a vote.

By comparison, the voter turnouts for the U.S. presidential elections in 2020 and 2024 were among the highest for a U.S. Presidential election (66% in 2020 and 64% in 2024), they were significantly lower than the other turnouts.

From Pew Research Center, dated 6/26/2026 -

[snip]

In short, people are best served by voting.  Not only that, they should urge their friends, neighbors, and family members to do so, too.

Democracy is NOT a "fire it up and forget it" operation.  When voters take the lazy way and sit out democracy in general and elections in particular, we end up with lousy human beings running things.

It's an election year. Candidate challenges are inevitable

One challenge has already been decided by a court (dismissed), and six candidates have withdrawn.  Per the AZSOS, 18 cases are pending (caveat: some of those cases may yet be consolidated and at least one involves a candidate who has withdrawn as the result of another case)

From the Arizona Secretary of State -

So far, the "biggest" name to withdraw is Christopher Ajluni, the No Labels candidate in CD1.  I expect that to change as the challenge process grinds on.

Schweikert bashes Biggs, and the Maricopa County Republicans remind people

Including me, because I generally avoid paying attention to the internal R machinations.

From Arizona's Family, written by staff and Dennis Welch -

Phoenix-area GOP reignites controversy in Republican governor’s race

A controversy that Republican gubernatorial candidate Rep. Andy Biggs hoped would fade has returned to the headlines after his own party stepped in.

About a month ago, Biggs found himself the target of a political attack. His Republican opponent in the governor’s race, Rep. David Schweikert, accused him of palling around with racists and anti-Semites. Biggs denied it and moved on.

But it was his own Republican Party that brought it back.

Also from Arizona's Family -

I don't claim to know how this all will play out, but two things seem obvious -

1. Observers should get out their popcorn, as this promises to be entertaining.

2. They should get out their seatbelts, too, as 2026 promises to be a bumpy ride.

This all does beg one question -

What is Schweikert thinking?  

Accusing Biggs of being a white supremacist won't exactly change the minds of the voters in an R primary, aka the people he needs to reach.  It seems to help Biggs more than it does Schweikert.

Legislative schedule - week starting 4/12/2026

Silly season drags on while everyone waits for a budget.

Schedules can, and frequently do, change at any moment when the legislature is in session.  So pay attention.

Note: HHR refers to a hearing room in the House building; SHR refers to one in the Senate building.

Note2: Generally, I'll only specify bills that look to spread propaganda.  Other bills may be more conventionally b, ad (think: corrupt or other misuses of public monies and/or authority).  My recommendation is that if an agenda covers an area of interest to you, read the entire agenda.

Note3: Each chamber's respective Rules Committee meets on Monday, the House's in HHR4, generally at 1 p.m. and the Senate's in Senate Caucus Room 1, generally also at 1 p.m.  Both committees serve as rubber stamps for bills leadership wants to be advanced and gatekeepers for measures that leadership wants stopped.

Note4: Meeting start times may be listed, but are flexible.  Before journeying to the Capitol or viewing the meeting online, verify the start time.

Note5: Watch for strikers, or strike everything amendments.  Those involve inserting language that replaces the entirety of a bill.  Those can be introduced at any time and can make a previously harmless bill become a very bad one. 

On Monday, 4/13 

-

Only Senate Rules is scheduled to meet this week (so far) [1 p.m., Senate Caucus Room 1).  There are four bills on its agenda.

 On Tuesday 4/14, Wednesday 4/15, and Thursday 4/16 -

Nada.

Online sigs v. in person sigs

This list was pulled from a .pdf that's available on the website of the Arizona Secretary of State.

Caveats:

"Arizona Independent Party" is now "No Labels".

I added the percentage (%) column.

Legislative races were not examined.  I'll wait until all challenges are dispositioned (one already has been)

Prediction: My guess is that while online nominating sigs are almost unchallengeable (at least according to Arizona Agenda), the Democratic candidates who lead their primary opponents in paper sigs will have a leg up in those primaries.  Assuming those sigs are legitimate, that means that doors were knocked and voters talked to (I make no such prediction in the primary contests for other parties.  With them, I'm usually wrong. ☺)

Apparently, for some people, a seat in the state legislature is a steppingstone

There are a large number of current and former state legislators who are candidates for offices that aren't in the lege.  To whit:

(at the state level)

Joe Chaplik (R) (former legislator) is running in CD1.

Amish Shah (D) (former) is running in CD1.

Eric Descheenie (D) (former) is running in CD2.

John Fillmore (?) (former) running in CD4.  He was an R in the lege, but is running in the No Labels primary.

Andy Biggs (R) (former) is running for Governor.

David Schweikert (R) (former) is running for Governor.

Katie Hobbs (D) (former) is running for reelection as Governor.

Alexander Kolodin (R) (current) is running for Secretary of State.

Warren Petersen (R) (current) is running for Attorney General.

Tom Horne (R) (former) is running for reelection as Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Kimberly Yee (R) (former) is running for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Ralph Heap (R) (current) is running for Corporation Commission.

David Marshall, Sr. (R) (current) is running for Corporation Commission.

(at the Maricopa County level)

Jeff Dial (R) (former) is running for reelection as Clerk of Superior Court.

Lupe Chavira Contreras (D) (current) is running for Justice of the Peace (JP) in the Agua Fria Justice Precinct.

Ken Cheuvront (D) (former) is running for reelection as Justice of the Peace (JP) in the Encanto Justice Precinct.

Michele Reagan (R) (former) is running for reelection as Justice of the Peace (JP) in the McDowell Mountain Justice Precinct.

JD Mesnard (R) (current) is running for Justice of the Peace (JP) in the San Marcos Justice Precinct.

Rebecca Rios (R) (former) is running for reelection as Justice of the Peace (JP) in the South Mountain Justice Precinct.

Judy Schweibert (D) (former) has filed an SOI to run for the At-Large slot on the Maricopa County Community College Board.  As this is a non-partisan race, it's not on the county's list of races subject to a primary election.

(on the Pima County level)

Andres Cano (D) (former) is running for a two-year term on the Board of Supervisors District 5.

Victoria Steele (D) (former) is running for reelection as Justice of the Peace (JP) in the Precinct 1 Justice Precinct.

I couldn't find an official list of candidates for Pinal County.

Nor did I examine the smaller counties, school board races, or municipalities.

I cannot speculate about what this means, but 22 current or former members of the lege are running for offices other than legislative ones in 2026 and expect that number to increase in 2028 (when county supervisor spots, county-wide offices, and the rest of the JP slots are up for election.)

Lastly, I do have one piece of advice for legislator making a first time run at a JP spot - it's a real job.

This is not a partisan thing, as some Democrats have turned out to be lousy JPs while some Rs have been decent ones, however, with a new one, there's always the fear that they'll bring their legislative work ethic with them (i.e. - work four days per week, work a little over three months per year, take lots of vacations, etc.)

Yes, 2028 has started

And I know that the 2026 primaries haven't yet taken place, but so what?  2028 will be upon us quickly.

Plus, Cheeto may (OK, almost certainly will) try to get rid of democracy.

But until he does, and succeeds in those efforts, posts like this will continue.

From Maricopa County Elections -

It's (very) early, and more statements of interest (SOI) will be filed.  Right now, most are from incumbents expecting to run to retain their current seats.

Legislative schedule - week starting 4/5/2026

Well, we've officially entered "Silly Season"; the period between the end of committee consideration of bills (except by the Appropriations committees of the respective chambers...for a couple of weeks, anyway) and the introduction of the budget bills.

And that could be days...or months...away.

Right now, no standing committees are on the schedule, though that may change during the week.

Also right now, there are no COW, Third Read, or Final Read calendars of bills to receive floor consideration on Monday (that may change though I don't expect it to do so).

Schedules can, and frequently do, change at any moment when the legislature is in session.  So pay attention.

Note: HHR refers to a hearing room in the House building; SHR refers to one in the Senate building.

Note2: Generally, I'll only specify bills that look to spread propaganda.  Other bills may be more conventionally b, ad (think: corrupt or other misuses of public monies and/or authority).  My recommendation is that if an agenda covers an area of interest to you, read the entire agenda.

Note3: Each chamber's respective Rules Committee meets on Monday, the House's in HHR4, generally at 1 p.m. and the Senate's in Senate Caucus Room 1, generally also at 1 p.m.  Both committees serve as rubber stamps for bills leadership wants to be advanced and gatekeepers for measures that leadership wants stopped.

Note4: Meeting start times may be listed, but are flexible.  Before journeying to the Capitol or viewing the meeting online, verify the start time.

Note5: Watch for strikers, or strike everything amendments.  Those involve inserting language that replaces the entirety of a bill.  Those can be introduced at any time and can make a previously harmless bill become a very bad one. 

On Monday, 4/6 

-

Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on the Department of Child Safety meets at 9 a.m. in SHR2.  On the agenda: no bills, three presentations.

On Tuesday, 4/7, Wednesday, 4/8, and Thursday 4/9 - 

Nada

Nominating signatures are in! Ballots are almost set.

I say "almost" because there will be (inevitably) legal challenges to some candidacies and some candidate withdrawals.

Legal challenges and withdrawals are here.

TJ L'Heureux, writing for Arizona Agenda, has a solid primer on challenges here.

I will add something about challenges -challenges usually (but not always) come from primary opponents, but not from a candidate directly..  Usually, a proxy is used.  One challenge is from Steve Slaton, a 2024 candidate in LD7.  He's filed one against Rep. Walt Blackman.

L'Heureux writes about possible hard feelings between the two stemming from Slaton's loss in 2024.

However, Slaton and State Sen. Wendy Rogers are staunch allies, and Rogers and Blackman don't like each other.  As such, while there are almost certainly some hard feelings, Slaton almost as certainly is acting as a surrogate for Rogers.

A few definitions/caveats about the following list:

Under "Party", the abbreviation indicates the party of the candidate that is listed on the website of the Arizona Secretary of State - "Rep" = Republican, "Dem" = Democrat; "Grn" = Green; "NL" = No Labels, though some folks may have signed petitions for candidates of the Arizona Independent Party; and "Lbt" = Libertarian.

Risa Lombardo is listed as a Green Party candidate, though she's a Green the same way I'm a Yankees fan (I'm not).

The listing order in each grouping of candidates (statewide and Congressional) was decided by the AZSOS. 

Also, I didn't include legislative races in the list; there were just too many candidates.

A few observations:

In a surprise that isn't really much of surprise, Gina Swoboda, a former chair of the Arizona Republican Party, turned in enough sigs to be on the ballot and mount a primary challenge to Alexander Kolodin, currently a state legislator.  It was a bit of a surprise because she jumped into that race in early February (I think).

Nick Mansour has a primary opponent in the R primary for AZ Treasurer in the person of Katherine Haley.  For the longest time, he was alone in race and it looked like he would buy the nomination unopposed.

In the "I truly expected this primary to be bigger" category is R primary in CD5.  The only two Rs in that race are Daniel Keenan and Mark Lamb.  Cheeto has endorsed Lamb, and that may have scared off some other potential candidates (it scared Jay Feely into the CD1 race, which in turn scared Swoboda into the AZSOS race); however, openings in "safe" Congressional seats are rare and usually attract more candidates, Cheeto notwithstanding.

In the "back for more?" category is Republican Daniel Francis Butierez, Sr. in CD7.  In 2025, he lost/was thoroughly trounced  by Adelita Grijalva.

List:

Rep. John Gillette (R - Multitasker): Committee Chair and Conspiracy Theorist

Note: Gillette is the chair of  House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections

From AZFamily, written by Alexis Dominguez -

Arizona lawmaker’s remarks on ASU COVID-19 link spark outrage

A legislative hearing on foreign funding and national security took a controversial turn when a lawmaker questioned whether Arizona State University may have indirectly funded COVID-19.

During a House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee hearing, Republican Rep. John Gillette asked, “Just saying, did we fund a portion of COVID through ASU?”

[snip]

Gillette did not provide evidence linking ASU to the creation or funding of COVID-19 and neither did the witness who spoke about bioweapons, China and research.

Gillette is someone with a checkered (read: hate filled) history.

From News from the States, written by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy, dated 1/21/2026 -

Republican who called Muslims ‘f***ing savages’ wants an advocacy group declared a terrorist outfit

A Republican state lawmaker who had faced criticism for calling Muslims “f***ing savages” and making a series of other Islamophobic comments pushed forward his legislation urging Congress to designate the country’s largest Muslim advocacy group a terrorist organization. 

The measure from Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, will have no practical effect. But if it passes, it would be a statement of the legislature’s beliefs. House Concurrent Memorial 2002 urges the president and Congress to designate the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, as a terrorist organization and pass a bill in Congress that seeks to do the same. 

More on HCM2002 is here, from KJZZ.

HCM2002's status is here.  Short version: Passed in the House and sent to the Senate for approval.

Gillette represents LD30, which covers western Maricopa County and most of western Arizona -

NaphCare barred from correctional healthcare in NY; Wanna bet that nothing changes in AZ?

From Central Current (originally posted on Bluesky by Letitia James) -

New York AG’s office bars former Onondaga County jail medical provider from NY jails

The Onondaga County jail’s former medical care provider will — for now — not be allowed to operate in New York because it violated multiple state laws while providing care to incarcerated people at the county jail. 

The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James and NaphCare, the correctional healthcare organization, agreed to a settlement that banned NaphCare from the state for at least five years, James said Friday in a statement. NaphCare will also pay an $875,000 fine to the state. 

James’ office found NaphCare misrepresented its role in providing services to the county, committing repeated fraud and violating correctional health care standards, James said. 

The Alabama-based company oversaw health care at the jail from 2020 to 2022, when at least four people died at the Onondaga County jail. That includes the death of an infant girl who was born at the jail.

“Our investigation found that NaphCare illegally practiced medicine in New York and failed to adequately protect individuals in custody who relied on their care. These failures put vulnerable individuals at serious risk and had devastating consequences,” said James in a statement. 

Why would this matter in AZ?

Because they're the healthcare provider/contractor in AZ's prisons.

From the Arizona Department of Corrections -

They've formed a corporation in AZ.  From the Arizona Corporation Commission -

When looking up MD, PA, and Osteopath licenses, I found that no one listed as an officer or director on the CorpComm paperwork has one in AZ.

However, I did find one interesting item on the website of the Arizona Medical Board - 

While NaphCare's lawyers may have told them that may be enough for them to get out of a "practicing medicine without a license" complaint in Arizona, it may not be enough to obviate a judge's order.

From Arizona Capitol Times, written by Kiera Riley, dated 2/20/2026 (emphasis added by me)-

Federal judge orders takeover of Arizona prison health care system

After nearly a decade and a half of litigation, a federal judge has cleared the way for a court-ordered takeover of medical and mental health care at the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, citing chronic, persistent constitutional violations.

The order will effectively take the health care system out of the state’s hands and place it under the care of a third party to address and alleviate insufficient staffing and health care delivery. 

“Plainly, only the imposition of the extraordinary can bring an end to this litigation and the reasons it was brought,” Judge Roslyn Silver wrote. “An end to unconstitutional preventable suicides. An end to unconstitutional preventable deaths. An end to unconstitutional failures to treat those in severe pain. The Motion for a Receiver will be granted.”

[snip]

The department asked the court for more patience, claiming a receivership would be premature less than two years after the injunction, two years into the contract with NaphCare and under the purview of current director Ryan Thornell. 

From the order itself (courtesy Prison Law Office) (emphasis added by me) -