For more than a century, local elections in Arizona have been nonpartisan. Arizona law (A.R.S. § 9‑821.01) requires that municipal ballots for mayors and councilmembers show no political party affiliation.
The long-standing practice and the statute are based on the belief that local governments should focus on matters essential to the operation and management of community resources for the collective benefit of all residents. Nonpartisan elections encourage and empower voters to elect candidates based on their experience, community involvement, character, and their positions on matters of local concern. Nonpartisan elections insulate elected officials from partisan influences, freeing them to adopt policies and make informed decisions that benefit the entire community. Nonpartisan elections attract a more diverse range of candidates to run for office, and promote a culture of collaboration and civility on councils, boards, and commissions.
There have been efforts to bring an end to nonpartisan elections. In 2023, the Arizona Legislature passed SB 1011 that would have allowed partisan local elections in the state. The bill was vetoed by Governor Hobbs. So, for now, at least, our local elections remain officially nonpartisan. But recently in Fountain Hills, it certainly doesn’t feel that way.
Since 2022, when political action committee best known as ROT descended on Fountain Hills — intent on taking control of town government by conducting a dirty, deceitful campaign against candidates they labelled as “communists,” “radicals,” and “leftists” — our elections have been “nonpartisan” in name only.
In 2024, following another ugly campaign, ROT succeeded in gaining majority control over our Town Council. Since the election, the ROT majority — Gerry Friedel, Hannah Larrabee, Allen Skillicorn, Gayle Earle, and Rick Watts — have had control. Within weeks of the election, any hope that we may have had that our newly elected leaders would independently exercise their judgment and take actions designed to serve the best interest of the community were dashed.
Since January, the ROT majority has systematically embarked on a collective hyper-partisan effort to deprive residents of their right to hold them publicly accountable and transform Fountain Hills into a MAGA Republican enclave: where Fountain Hills Community Center staff can be bullied by the mayor to allow the Republican Club to adorn its holiday tree with a Trump ornament, despite the Center’s “no politics policy”; where consideration is being given to allowing private donors to erect a Charlie Kirk memorial on town property; and where our Town Council continues to make headlines by enacting meaningless resolutions intended only to illustrate the majority’s allegiance to Donald Trump’s divisive MAGA policies.
Under this Maga Republican administration, our Town Council meetings have devolved into bimonthly chaotic exercises in incivility where the gavel is repeatedly banged, the Rules of Procedure are ignored, insults and accusations are routinely exchanged, and executive sessions outnumber regular meetings.
The questions we, as voters, must address is whether there is any path that will take us back to a time where our elected officials sought collaboration — not capitulation.
One of the obstacles on the path away from partisanship is the expense now associated with campaigns for local office. Although the statute requires that elections be nonpartisan, partisan organizations, on the local, state, and national level are not prohibited from funding the campaigns of local candidates.
The 2022 Fountain Hills mayoral campaign stands as a stark example of how the involvement of a known partisan candidate impacts spending. In 2022, Joe Arpaio — supported by a national fundraising organization — solicited contributions from thousands of out of state donors and reportedly spent more than $160,000 in his unsuccessful bid for mayor. That same year, Ginny Dickey spent close to $40,000, close to double the amount spent on her last contested election in 2018. In 2024, with three candidates in the mayoral race, the combined cost of the campaigns exceeded $250,000: a quarter of a million dollars spent vying for the privilege of serving a two-year term as the mayor of this small town.
As the 2026 election looms, the three members of the Republican slate have been identified and it is anticipated that, as it has in the past, ROT will support them through attacks on their opponents. These candidates will also receive financial support from the local MAGA base. However, there are now other players, outside our boundaries, who are expected to inject themselves and their resources into the mix.
During the 2024 campaign the NicoPAC, known for providing support for far-right candidates, paid for signs promoting Gayle Earle, Rick Watts, and Matthew Corrigan. The NicoPac also paid for the giant black “Dishonest Dickey” signs that scarred our streets and parking lots for the weeks before the election. There is also a concern that Turning Point Action, the political arm of the late Charlie Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, will through its affiliated PAC direct its considerable resources to support Ben Larrabee’s candidacy. Ben Larrabee, and his wife, current councilmember Hannah Larrabee, are both employed by Turning Point Action.
Which leads to the following inevitable and disturbing questions: Why are these outside organizations meddling in our election? What do they have to gain? And, more importantly, what do we have to lose? More to come.
