Who will replace Rep. Grijalva? Meet the heir apparent, centrist and next gen influence
Early voting begins June 18 in the only federal race this year in Arizona. An election to fill the seat of the late U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva is underway in Arizona's Congressional District 7.
The race in southern Arizona has produced competitive primaries on both the Republican and Democratic sides, but most of the attention has been focused on three of the five Democrats seeking their party's nod.
Running to continue the representative's legacy is his daughter, Adelita Grijalva. She's gotten big endorsements from national progressive organizations and Arizona political heavyweights, but her victory is far from guaranteed.
Positioning himself as more of a centrist is Daniel Hernandez, who is laser-focused on cost of living and is establishing himself as a pro-business Democrat.
Using TikTok to her advantage is Gen-Z candidate Deja Foxx. She believes the Democrats need new leaders and, at 25 years old, feels strongly that Democrats should be commanding attention in a political era that is dominated by social media.
They are not the only candidates for CD 7 voters, but they are the frontrunners in the reliably blue district.
This week on The Gaggle, a weekly politics podcast, host Mary Jo Pitzl is joined by Congressional reporter Laura Gersony. Together, they break down the pros and cons of all the candidates on the ballot and explore how the race is shaping up so far.
The best way to listen is to subscribe to The Gaggle on your favorite podcast app, but you can also stream the full episode below.
Note: The Gaggle is intended to be heard. But we also offer an AI transcript of the episode script. There may be slight deviations from the podcast audio.
Follow The Gaggle and all azcentral podcasts on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram.
Listen to The Gaggle : Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher
You can share your thoughts with us at 602-444-0804 or via email here.
Reach the producer Amanda Luberto at aluberto@gannett.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, @amandaluberto and on Bluesky @amandaluberto.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Who's running to replace Raúl Grijalva in Arizona's 7th District?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
28 minutes ago
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated. 'The federal government cannot simply ignore Congress and pull the plug on essential services that communities rely on,' Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said. 'Today's decision ensures we can keep doing the work that protects our residents — from tracking disease outbreaks to providing vaccinations and supporting vulnerable families.' Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations. The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued. The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely. The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Menefee said in a statement in April. The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes. The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, "Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback. Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers. Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit. Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step" of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled. Representatives for HHS, the CDC and the cities did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
30 minutes ago
Civil rights agency's acting chief to face questions on anti-DEI, transgender stances
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The acting chief of the country's top agency for enforcing worker rights will face questions at a Senate committee hearing Wednesday over her efforts to prioritize anti-diversity investigations while sidelining certain racial and gender discrimination cases and quashing protections for transgender workers. Andrea Lucas, who was first appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2020 and elevated to acting chief in January, is one of four Labor Department nominees to appear before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Her nomination to serve another five-year term as an EEOC commissioner requires Senate confirmation, though whether she stays on as chief will be up to President Donald Trump. Lucas, an outspoken critic of diversity, equity and inclusion practices and promoter of the idea that there are only two immutable sexes, has moved swiftly to enact Trump's civil rights agenda after he abruptly fired two of the EEOC's Democratic commissioners before the end of their five-year terms, an unprecedented move in the agency's 60-year history that has been challenged in a lawsuit. Lucas is prioritizing worker rights that conservatives argue have been ignored by the EEOC. That includes investigating company DEI practices, defending the rights of women to same-sex spaces and fighting anti-Christian bias in the workplace. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate committee holding the hearing, has championed many of those causes. He accused the EEOC under the Biden administration of 'injecting its far-left" agenda into the workplace, including by updating sexual harassment guidelines to warn against misgendering transgender workers and including abortion as a pregnancy-related condition under regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Democrats on the committee are likely to grill Lucas over criticism that she overstepped her authority by profoundly shifting the EEOC's direction to the whims of the president in the absence of a quorum, which commission has lacked since Trump fired the two commissioners. Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the committee, said she will oppose any EEOC nominations unless Trump reinstates the two fired Democratic commissioners, which she and more than 200 other Democratic senators and Congress members condemned in a letter to the president as an abuse of power. 'President Trump is weaponizing the independent EEOC to serve his personal political agenda, firing commissioners without cause and warping the mission of the EEOC beyond recognition,' Murray said in a statement ahead of the hearing. 'Commissioner Lucas is a right-wing extremist who has been in lockstep behind Trump's pro-discrimination agenda.' Lucas has made clear her views of the limitations of the EEOC's autonomy. In a recent memo to employers, Lucas declared that the 'EEOC is an executive branch agency, not an independent agency" that will "fully and robustly comply" with all executive orders. That includes two orders that Trump signed in January: one directing federal agencies to eliminate their own DEI activities and end any 'equity-related' grants or contracts, and the other imposing a certification provision on all companies and institutions with government contracts or grant dollars to demonstrate that they don't operate DEI programs. The EEOC's new approach alarmed more than 30 civil rights groups, which sent a letter to the Senate committee demanding that Lucas face a hearing. The groups argued that the EEOC was created by Congress under 1964 Civil Rights Act to be a bipartisan agency that would function independently from the executive branch. The EEOC, the only federal agency empowered to investigate employment discrimination in the private sector, received more than 88,000 charges of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2024. Its commissioners are appointed by the president to staggered terms, and no more than three can be from the same party. Much of the EEOC's authority is granted by Congress, including the obligation to investigate all complaints and enact regulations for implementing some laws. Under Lucas, the EEOC dropped seven of its own lawsuits on behalf of transgender or nonbinary workers. It also moved to drop a racial discrimination case on behalf of Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants after Trump ordered federal agencies to stop pursuing discrimination that falls under 'disparate impact liability,' which aims to identify practices that systematically exclude certain demographic groups. Instead, Lucas has turned the EEOC's attention to investigating company DEI practices. In her most high profile move, she sent letters to 20 law firms demanding information about diversity fellowships and other programs she claimed could be evidence of discriminatory practices. Lucas has also repeatedly encouraged workers nationwide to come forward with DEI complaints. She launched a hotline for whistleblowers and said workers should be encouraged to report bad DEI practices after a Supreme Court decision made it easier for white and other non-minority workers to bring reverse-discrimination lawsuits.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What does upholding Tennesee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors mean for similar bills in N.H.?
New Hampshire Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up If either becomes law, New Hampshire would be the first state in New England to enact such bans, joining 25 other states that have banned such care for youth, according to the that provides research to promote equality. Advertisement A Advertisement Erchull said the US Supreme Court ruling finds that a ban on medical care for minors is not sex-based discrimination, but rather a regulation of medical procedures based on age. He disagrees, and notes that legal avenues are still available to challenge HB 377 should it become law in New Hampshire. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights. 'It's legislation that very clearly impacts a family's ability, a parent's ability, to make important decisions with medical consultation about how to care for their children,' he said. 'And this is coming from the same exact people, the same exact legislators who tout National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director 'Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm,' he said. Some New Hampshire Republicans celebrated the US Supreme Court decision. 'I applaud Tennessee for protecting children from irreversible harm by banning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors,' said New Hampshire state Representative Sayra DeVito, a Danville Republican who is a co-sponsor of HB 377. 'Children deserve the chance to grow, mature, and fully understand themselves before making permanent decisions about their bodies,' DeVito said in a statement. 'There's no discrimination in protecting children. Tennessee is leading with courage and common sense.' Advertisement Representative Erica Layon, a Derry Republican, said she hoped the Supreme Court's decision would 'bring reason back to healthcare for young people.' 'I believe that history will view these surgeries as just as harmful as other conversion therapies practiced in the past upon gay, lesbian and bisexual youth,' she said. Democrats in New Hampshire, however, are criticizing the decision. House Minority Leader Alexis Simpson of Exeter said the decision cuts off parents' access to critical, evidence-based treatment for their children. 'These attacks aren't about protecting kids, they're actively putting lives at risk, with anti-trans laws tied to a New Hampshire families with transgender children had been anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Rosie Emrich sits for a portrait with her eight-year-old transgender child at their house in Hooksett, N.H., on April 17, 2025. Emrich said that her family is considering moving from New Hampshire to Massachusetts because of a series of bills that could limit her child's ability to access gender-affirming care. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe Rosie Emrich, who has a transgender child said the US Supreme Court's decision was 'heartbreaking.' 'I feel sort of gutted,' she said. 'I think maybe I let myself get a little too hopeful.' Emrich has been weighing whether For now, she said, she plans to focus her attention on urging New Hampshire's Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte to veto HB 377. 'It does definitely bring a lot bigger sense of urgency to the stuff going on here in New Hampshire and the push to try to have the governor hear the impacts of this,' she said. Advertisement Lawmakers from the House and Senate met this week for negotiations over which version of HB 377 should proceed. The House has agreed to the Senate's position on the bill, and lawmakers have until Thursday afternoon to sign off Ayotte has not said if she supports a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
