Arizona Democrats fear infighting will hurt them in midterms
Democratic frustrations are growing in Arizona amid a feud within the state party, triggering concerns about the ramifications for 2026 and beyond.
Only months into his tenure as Arizona Democratic Party chair, members of the party have voiced exasperation with Robert E. Branscomb II for various actions, including airing grievances with Democratic elected officials publicly, his handling of the party budget and fundraising, and for suspending another party official.
While Branscomb has urged Arizona Democrats to have patience and said his job has a steep learning curve, it's done little to quell discontent within the party: Dozens of Arizona Democratic Party state committee members have signed onto a petition calling for a special meeting to consider removing Branscomb.
Members are already bracing for a chaotic state committee meeting on Saturday, and some are concerned the party's fundraising and coordinated campaign could be impacted ahead of the 2026 elections if the dispute doesn't resolve itself soon.
'We run out of money, then what do we do?' said one state committee member, who — like others interviewed in this piece — requested anonymity to speak candidly.
'Who's going to run … the party if there's no money?'
Patience is wearing thin among Arizona Democrats since Branscomb was elected chair in January.
Months into his term, he roiled the party after accusing the state's two Democratic senators of intimidating him following his selection of a new executive director for the party, prompting both senators, in addition to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), state Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) and state Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) to issue a statement refuting Branscomb's letter to state committee members and saying Branscomb had lost their trust.
More recently, he suspended First Vice Chair Kim Khoury, with an investigation being launched 'into potential violations of the ADP Code of Conduct and governing procedures,' according to the Arizona Republic, which obtained a copy of the letter.
Democrats have also voiced concern over the state party's fundraising after its treasurer recently estimated that, at the current rate, the party would run out of money by the end of the year.
One longtime state committee person believed there would be money coming into the state for elections and congressional races, but they noted 'it's not going to be through the state party at this point as long as he's involved.'
In an interview with the Arizona Republic last month, the state party chair said Democrats needed to give him some time to get adjusted to the role and that they needed to have patience.
While he's acknowledged there are things he could have done differently as chair, he's suggested the circumstances he entered into when he took over as chair didn't place him in a strong position to lead the party.
The Hill contacted Branscomb on Thursday, and he indicated he was not immediately available for an interview. He did not respond to additional requests for comment.
While some members of the party are sympathetic to the fact helming a state party can be challenging, they also say Branscomb did himself no favors publishing his letter invoking the two senators.
'I wouldn't disagree with that,' the longtime state committee member said when asked about Branscomb's comments to the Arizona Republic, 'because I know it's a hard job, and I know there's a learning curve, and I know he's new to the job.'
'The problem is that email basically makes it almost impossible to recover from.'
State party feuding is not new, of course. Former Arizona GOP Chair Jeff DeWit left his position early last year following a leaked conversation between him and Kari Lake, in which DeWit sought to dissuade the former local news anchor from running for Arizona Senate.
In Nevada in 2023, Democrats ousted their chair, Judith Whitmer, whose election prompted a number of officials to exit the state party.
And while some members see intraparty conflict as unhelpful and an annoyance, they argue that their candidates, including all three Democratic statewide elected officials, will have the resources needed to be successful and competitive next year. Multiple avenues would be available to them, particularly county parties, to help with fundraising.
'I do think it will be more of a temporary annoyance than something that is actually going to have any sort of electoral impact,' one party insider said, noting that the conflict itself doesn't resolve around an ideological split.
But other Arizona Democrats — even those who voted for Branscomb in January — are concerned that the dragged-out rift could negatively impact the party's fundraising and organizational efforts.
'I don't think we'll have an effective coordinated campaign,' said Steven Jackson, the Legislative District 8 chair who has led circulation of the petition calling for the special meeting to consider removing Branscomb. Jackson supported Branscomb during the January chair election.
'I think it would affect the [Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee], which will affect legislative races. You know, we've got an attorney general who [won] by 250 votes last time, and a governor's race that's going to be tough,' Jackson added, referring to Mayes's race against Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) in 2022, which she won by 280 votes.
Despite members' frustrations with Branscomb, removing him as chair is still a tall task: Two-thirds of the entire state committee need to vote for his removal in order for it to move forward.
Some members question whether there's enough frustrated Democrats to meet that threshold.
'It's hard to gauge because it is a high threshold, right?' the first state committee member said. 'But the more he stays on, the more he loses trust and confidence.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
an hour ago
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids
The party that loves to claim to stand 'the rule of law' proved themselves liars yet again. In response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcing our nation's rules with raids in Southern California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass encouraged insurrection. 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' she said. 'These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this.' Advertisement With that incitement, the mob took to the streets, threw rocks at ICE agents and lit fires. Just as with the 'peaceful protests' of the George Floyd riots, officials were slow to respond — it took the LAPD two hours to mobilize. That's because the Democratic leadership of Los Angeles didn't want the assault to stop. Advertisement More than that: Democrats don't want our immigration laws to exist. They don't want our border to exist. It doesn't matter that this philosophy was soundly rejected in the last election. They will continue to act like these laws don't and shouldn't apply to them. From Newark to New York, Chicago to Los Angeles, Democrats are preaching anarchy, pretending like ICE agents don't have the right to arrest people who are here illegally. Advertisement For four years, President Biden broke the law. He introduced various amnesties and apps, with no permission from Congress, to usher in 10 million illegal immigrants. Now Democrats are shocked, shocked, that President Trump is reversing this unlawful decision. Remember that the next time Democrats lecture about ignoring judges and the Constitution. They only believe the laws they want to.
