We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

Judge Rules AZ Gov. Katie Hobbs Illegally Skirted Appointment Process

 June 8, 2024

A recent judicial ruling has spotlighted the ongoing conflict between Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and the state's Republican-controlled Senate over the appointment of state agency leaders.

In a pivotal decision, a Maricopa County judge determined that Governor Hobbs unlawfully appointed 13 state agency heads, circumventing required Senate confirmation, as Axios reports.

The controversy began when Hobbs, facing a state senate that scrutinized her nominations intensively, chose to install "executive deputy directors" rather than pursue the standard appointment process.

This move came shortly after the Senate, under the leadership of President Warren Petersen, heightened the vetting process for nominees.

Senate Increases Vetting Amidst Nomination Controversies

The Republican-led Senate formed a special vetting committee that subsequently rejected three of Hobbs' choices, signaling a tightening grip on the confirmation process.

Among the rejected was Joan Serviss, initially a nominee for the Arizona Department of Housing, later appointed by Hobbs in a different role within the same agency.

Responding to these rejections, Hobbs withdrew all 13 of her cabinet nominees from Senate consideration, appointing them as directors in an alternative capacity.

This action aimed to fill leadership vacancies without undergoing the traditional Senate confirmation, an essential stipulation under state law.

Judicial Review Brings Legal Challenges for Hobbs

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney reviewed the legality of these appointments and concluded that they effectively served as de facto agency directors, a breach of legal protocol.

According to Judge Blaney, state law requires that such high-level positions not remain unfilled and must be formally confirmed by the Senate.

While the judge did not mandate immediate Senate confirmation for these appointments, he announced plans for a future hearing to explore potential resolutions. This judicial decision introduces a significant roadblock for Hobbs, potentially reshaping the leadership dynamics within key state agencies.

Political Repercussions and Reactions

The ruling has ignited a new round of political clashes between Hobbs and the Senate. The chamber's GOP spokesperson, Kim Quintero, expressed hope that the decision would encourage the governor to engage with the standard vetting process, aiming for a restoration of normalcy in the appointment procedure.

Petersen accused Hobbs of overstepping her authority, emphasizing the legislature's role as a check against such executive overreach. He stressed that no individual is above the law, including the governor.

Conversely, Hobbs' office voiced disagreement with the court's findings. Christian Slater, a spokesperson for the governor, stated that the ruling would be appealed. He emphasized that the administration would continue to function effectively while the legal process unfolds.

Implications for State Governance

The court's decision impacts several crucial state functions, including agencies responsible for unemployment, housing assistance, and Medicaid. These agencies play pivotal roles in the well-being of Arizona's citizens, and any disruption in their leadership could affect service delivery.

This situation raises important questions about the balance of power within the state and the mechanisms through which agency leaders are appointed and confirmed. The ongoing legal and political battles are likely to influence future interactions between the governor's office and the Senate.

In conclusion, the ruling by Judge Scott Blaney marks a critical juncture in Arizona politics, highlighting the legal and political challenges of gubernatorial appointments. It underscores the necessity of adherence to procedural norms and raises the prospect of further confrontations in state governance.

The implications of this decision will surely reverberate through the state's political landscape, affecting both policy and public service.