Arizona Senate
All 30 seats on the ballot. 16 for a majority
Democrats20
Republicans10
Forecast seats, about 82% counted. Currently leading: D 20, R 10.
Arizona
3 races undecided, about 89% counted, 2 changed party. The state's House vote has moved D +13.1 since 2024. D +11.5 since 2022.
Arizona House
All 60 seats, two per district. 31 for a majority
Democrats37
Republicans23
Forecast seats, about 82% counted. Currently leading: D 37, R 23.
U.S. House from Arizona
Nine districts
Democrats5
Republicans4
Forecast seats, about 82% counted. Currently leading: D 5, R 4. Called: D 5, R 1.
Only congressional and governor races get race calls. State legislative and other statewide estimates use each county's progress in the governor's race as a stand-in for how much of that contest is counted, so treat them as provisional.
How the count runs here
Arizona reports early ballots first, so its count usually starts far more Democratic than it finishes. Election Day ballots follow that night, and late early ballots, dropped off on Election Day, over the next days.
In 2026, ballots counted after a place's first report ran about 21 points more Republican than that report, in the same places. An early Democratic lead here can shrink.
| Governor's race, by ballot type | Votes | Margin |
|---|---|---|
| Early ballots | 1,785,674 | D +17.8 |
| Early, A.R.S. 16-579 | 46,674 | R +2.1 |
| Election Day | 386,812 | R +8.3 |
| Late early ballots | 22,819 | R +4.0 |
Stats
Counties vs. 2024Counties vs. 2022The spreadContests vs. 2024Contests vs. 2022Senate vs. 2024Senate vs. 2022House vs. 2024House vs. 2022
Arizona counties vs. 2024
How far has each county moved since the 2024 president?
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% countedFar from the pattern
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red for Republicans. The darker squares are counties voting differently for House than for president. Above the black line, a county moved toward Democrats.
15 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +15.0.
1 far from the pattern
- Greenlee: 14 points toward Democrats of the pattern, 79% counted
Being far from the pattern is a reason to look, not a finding. Usual causes are a popular or weak candidate, an unopposed race last time, or a batch of ballots still to come.
Arizona counties vs. 2022
How far has each county moved since the 2022 House vote?
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red for Republicans. The darker squares are counties that changed sides. Above the black line, a county moved toward Democrats.
11 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +10.0.
How Arizona's counties moved
Did the state move together, or are some counties far from the rest?
Toward DemocratsToward RepublicansMiddle
Right of Even, in blue, moved toward Democrats, which is good for them. Left of it, in red, moved toward Republicans. Bars far from the main hump stand apart from the rest.
1 far from the pattern
- Santa Cruz: D +19.8 since 2022, 10 points from the middle
Being far from the pattern is a reason to look, not a finding. Usual causes are a popular or weak candidate, an unopposed race last time, or a batch of ballots still to come.
Every Arizona contest vs. 2024
How far has each race on the ballot moved since 2024?
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
39 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +14.4.
Every Arizona contest vs. 2022
How far has each race on the ballot moved since 2022?
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
37 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +11.7.
State Senate districts vs. 2024
How far has each state Senate district moved since 2024? Only districts with both parties on both ballots.
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% countedFar from the pattern
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
17 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +15.6.
2 far from the pattern
- District 14: 11 points toward Democrats of the pattern, 82% counted
- District 15: 8 points toward Democrats of the pattern, 87% counted
Being far from the pattern is a reason to look, not a finding. Usual causes are a popular or weak candidate, an unopposed race last time, or a batch of ballots still to come.
State Senate districts vs. 2022
How far has each state Senate district moved since 2022? Only districts with both parties on both ballots.
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
18 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +12.5.
State House districts vs. 2024
How far has each state House district moved since 2024? Only districts with both parties on both ballots.
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
14 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +13.1.
State House districts vs. 2022
How far has each state House district moved since 2022? Only districts with both parties on both ballots.
Democrat aheadRepublican aheadNo changeThe patternStill under 90% counted
Blue squares are good for Democrats and red squares for Republicans; the darker squares changed sides. Above the black line a race moved toward Democrats, even if it's still in a red square. Below it, toward Republicans.
7 moved toward Democrats, 0 toward Republicans. The middle shift is D +12.4.
Each race against past elections
| Race | Since 2024 | Since 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Governor | — | D +12.0 |
| Secretary of State | — | D +6.0 |
| Attorney General | — | D +10.3 |
| Treasurer | — | D +18.3 |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | — | D +6.1 |
| Corporation Commission | — | D +11.6 |
| District 1 | D +11.0 | D +8.1 |
| District 2 | D +7.7 | D +6.5 |
| District 4 | D +20.1 | D +15.3 |
| District 5 | D +18.2 | D +17.9 |
| District 6 | D +10.7 | D +9.6 |
| District 7 | D +16.4 | D +14.2 |
| District 8 | D +10.1 | — |
| District 9 | D +14.4 | — |
Statewide offices
Governor
Katie Hobbs / John Giles won
55.3%1,263,140
Andy Biggs / Sine Kerr
42.9%978,969
Risa Lombardo / Lisa Castillo
0.9%20,620
Secretary of State
Adrian Fontes >99% chance
54.5%1,235,041
Alexander Kolodin
44.0%995,677
Duwayne Collier
1.4%32,354
Attorney General
Kris Mayes >99% chance
55.1%1,244,702
Warren Petersen
44.8%1,012,176
Treasurer
Nick Mansour >99% chance
53.4%1,195,958
Elijah Norton
46.5%1,040,330
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Teresa Leyba Ruiz 98% chance
52.8%1,183,152
Kimberly Yee 1% chance
47.1%1,055,884
Mine Inspector
Brian Matlock 97% chance
52.4%1,157,533
Walter "Les" Presmyk 2% chance
47.5%1,051,181
Corporation Commission 2 seats
Clara Pratte >99% chance
27.0%1,122,467
Jonathon Hill 98% chance
26.0%1,079,457
Kevin Thompson 1% chance
23.5%976,939
Ralph Heap
22.0%915,005
Congress
District 1
Amish Shah won
52.4%169,687
Thomas "Jay" Feely IV
45.4%146,978
Monica Alponte
2.1%6,725
District 2
Eli Crane 93% chance
49.7%154,125
Jonathan Nez 7% chance
48.5%150,290
Curtis Goodwin
1.8%5,550
District 3
Yassamin Ansari won
86.4%108,264
Alan Aversa
6.1%7,624
David Redkey
5.3%6,698
District 4
Greg Stanton won
62.2%140,838
Zuhdi Jasser
35.4%80,074
Tisha Benoit
2.2%5,002
District 5
Mark Lamb 97% chance
51.2%146,563
Elizabeth Lee 3% chance
48.6%139,123
District 6
JoAnna Mendoza won
52.9%164,610
Juan Ciscomani
44.9%139,798
Jereme Lance Peters
1.2%3,813
District 7
Adelita Grijalva won
71.5%117,605
Daniel Francis Butierez Sr.
28.3%46,510
District 8
Abraham "Abe" Hamadeh 98% chance
51.4%136,501
Bernadette Greene-Placentia 2% chance
48.4%128,705
District 9
Paul Gosar won
58.0%146,910
Danielle "Dani" Sterbinsky
41.9%106,064
District map
Legislature, district by district
"Counted" here is an estimate, from each county's progress in the governor's race, because no one publishes a legislative district's expected vote. Names are who we expect to win, with their chance. Open a district for every candidate.
1
Senate
Finchem >99%
House
Bliss >99%
Nguyen >99%
90%counted
District 1: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Mark Finchem >99% chance
62.0%73,411
Christine Ellen Dargon
37.8%44,772
State House 2 seats
Selina Bliss >99% chance
38.8%68,977
Quang Huu Nguyen >99% chance
37.0%65,708
Sandy Zalecki
23.9%42,482
2
Senate
Gallitano >99%
House
Simacek >99%
Wilmeth >99%
82%counted
District 2: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Amelia Gallitano >99% chance
55.9%39,847
Shawnna Bolick
44.0%31,400
State House 2 seats
Stephanie Simacek >99% chance
41.3%40,294
Justin Wilmeth >99% chance
30.4%29,652
Paul Carver
28.0%27,382
3
Senate
Kavanagh >99%
House
Reim >99%
Khalaf >99%
82%counted
District 3: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
John Kavanagh >99% chance
60.5%73,696
Jeffrey Fortney
39.4%47,935
State House 2 seats
Cody Reim >99% chance
29.7%67,585
George Khalaf >99% chance
28.9%65,810
Julie Gable
21.4%48,627
Richard "Rick" Robert Spargo
19.4%44,076
John Skirbst
0.7%1,565
4
Senate
Lieberman 99%
House
Caputi 97%
Gresham 93%
82%counted
District 4: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Aaron Lieberman 99% chance
52.9%56,534
Carine Werner
47.0%50,261
State House 2 seats
Tammy Caputi 97% chance
26.6%53,643
Karen Gresham 93% chance
26.5%53,379
Matt Gress 8% chance
24.4%49,189
Pamela Carter
22.5%45,364
5
Senate
Marsh >99%
House
Liguori >99%
Márquez >99%
82%counted
District 5: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Christine Marsh >99% chance
84.2%55,121
Jason LaForest
15.1%9,904
State House 2 seats
Sarah Liguori >99% chance
50.5%49,222
Aaron Márquez >99% chance
47.9%46,682
6
Senate
Peshlakai >99%
House
Peshlakai >99%
Teller >99%
84%counted
District 6: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Jamescita Peshlakai >99% chance
73.2%53,114
Lloyd Johnson
26.6%19,274
State House 2 seats
Mae Peshlakai >99% chance
46.2%44,522
Ian Teller >99% chance
42.7%41,067
Brendan Trachsel
9.5%9,115
7
Senate
Rogers >99%
House
Blackman >99%
Cook >99%
85%counted
District 7: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Wendy Rogers >99% chance
59.8%53,871
Michiel "Mike" Montiel
40.1%36,084
State House 2 seats
Walter "Walt" Blackman >99% chance
34.6%50,728
David Cook Sr. >99% chance
33.2%48,664
Samuel "Sam" Martin
23.8%34,838
Richard Grayson
8.4%12,308
8
Senate
Kuby >99%
House
Connolly >99%
Garcia >99%
82%counted
District 8: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Lauren Kuby >99% chance
69.8%38,647
Bill Loughrige
30.1%16,693
State House 2 seats
Janeen Connolly >99% chance
40.5%35,148
Brian Garcia >99% chance
40.0%34,649
Donald Hawker
19.2%16,649
9
Senate
Sears >99%
House
Austin >99%
Martinez >99%
82%counted
District 9: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Kiana Maria Sears >99% chance
60.3%30,826
Bridget Fitzgibbons
39.7%20,287
State House 2 seats
Lorena Austin >99% chance
36.8%28,588
Jacob D. Martinez >99% chance
36.7%28,512
Bradley D. Bettencourt
26.1%20,257
10
Senate
Farnsworth >99%
House
Olson >99%
Rogers >99%
82%counted
District 10: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
David Christian Farnsworth >99% chance
52.6%41,217
Blair Moses
43.7%34,200
Nick Fierro
3.6%2,839
State House 2 seats
Justin Olson >99% chance
27.1%39,627
James Rogers >99% chance
26.5%38,778
Helen Hunter
22.9%33,502
Brian Calaway
21.7%31,689
David Scott
1.7%2,519
11
Senate
Miranda >99%
House
Santos >99%
Cavero >99%
82%counted
District 11: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Catherine Miranda >99% chance
80.6%38,070
Joshua Ayala
19.3%9,092
State House 2 seats
Oscar De Los Santos >99% chance
41.1%35,042
Junelle Cavero >99% chance
39.6%33,758
Joseph Charles Dailey
9.7%8,273
Cesar Aleman
9.5%8,106
12
Senate
Contreras >99%
House
Travers >99%
Montero >99%
82%counted
District 12: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Patricia "Patty" Contreras >99% chance
69.9%57,203
Anthony Jason Ramirez
29.3%23,999
State House 2 seats
Stacey Travers >99% chance
38.4%52,802
Armando Montero >99% chance
37.6%51,760
David Richardson
23.8%32,693
13
Senate
O'Brien >99%
House
Armstrong >99%
Weinberg 98%
82%counted
District 13: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Kristie O'Brien >99% chance
55.0%45,846
Julie Willoughby
45.0%37,521
State House 2 seats
Racquel "Rockee" Armstrong >99% chance
27.3%42,740
Jacob Weinberg 98% chance
27.0%42,299
Kevin Hartke 1% chance
23.7%37,058
Janet Weninger
22.0%34,374
14
Senate
Walsh 84%
House
Rose 95%
Farnsworth >99%
82%counted
District 14: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Stephanie Walsh 84% chance
51.4%41,683
Mylie Biggs 16% chance
48.5%39,333
State House 2 seats
Mary Rose 95% chance
34.7%40,368
Tyler Andrew Farnsworth >99% chance
33.1%38,468
Laurin Hendrix 5% chance
31.9%37,151
15
Senate
Hoffman >99%
House
Carter >99%
Way >99%
87%counted
District 15: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Jake Hoffman >99% chance
57.2%51,476
Jayme Accalia
42.7%38,400
State House 2 seats
Neal Carter >99% chance
50.0%50,711
Michael Way >99% chance
47.3%48,012
16
Senate
Aldrete 98%
House
Gusse >99%
Martinez >99%
91%counted
District 16: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Elaine Aldrete 98% chance
51.1%37,808
Thomas "T.J." Shope 1% chance
48.7%36,013
State House 2 seats
Julia Romero Gusse >99% chance
36.9%39,061
Teresa Martinez >99% chance
32.2%34,018
Chris Lopez
30.5%32,229
17
Senate
Soto >99%
House
Volk >99%
Lyon >99%
80%counted
District 17: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Edgar Soto >99% chance
54.5%60,186
Christopher King
45.4%50,090
State House 2 seats
Kevin Volk >99% chance
27.3%56,264
Hollace "Holly" Lyon >99% chance
27.1%56,035
John Winchester
23.3%48,052
Rachel "Jones" Keshel
22.3%45,932
18
Senate
Sundareshan >99%
House
Gutierrez >99%
Mathis >99%
79%counted
District 18: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Priya Sundareshan >99% chance
66.2%59,199
Douglas Everett
33.7%30,127
State House 2 seats
Nancy Gutierrez >99% chance
40.4%56,190
Chris Mathis >99% chance
37.9%52,750
Bob Dohse
21.4%29,820
19
Senate
Griffin >99%
House
Gowan >99%
Diaz >99%
82%counted
District 19: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Gail Griffin >99% chance
57.4%48,420
Bob Karp
42.5%35,857
State House 2 seats
David Gowan >99% chance
29.7%45,063
Lupe Diaz >99% chance
27.3%41,421
Jackie O'Donnell Anderson
22.1%33,482
Aiden Nicholette Swallow
20.9%31,727
20
Senate
Hernandez >99%
House
Gonzales >99%
Villegas >99%
79%counted
District 20: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Alma Hernandez >99% chance
95.6%38,588
State House 2 seats
Sally Ann Gonzales >99% chance
49.4%34,433
Betty Villegas >99% chance
48.5%33,814
21
Senate
Gabaldón >99%
House
Lopez >99%
Hernandez >99%
81%counted
District 21: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Rosanna Gabaldón >99% chance
68.8%37,703
Esteban Flores
31.0%17,013
State House 2 seats
Miranda Lopez >99% chance
40.1%32,880
Consuelo Hernandez >99% chance
38.5%31,644
Christopher Kibbey
21.0%17,202
22
Senate
Diaz >99%
House
Munoz >99%
Luna-Nájera >99%
82%counted
District 22: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Eva Diaz >99% chance
96.9%33,857
State House 2 seats
Betsy Munoz >99% chance
49.1%27,785
Elda Luna-Nájera >99% chance
48.2%27,233
23
Senate
Fernandez >99%
House
Sandoval >99%
Cortez >99%
74%counted
District 23: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Brian Fernandez >99% chance
62.2%28,624
Michelle Altherr
37.7%17,379
State House 2 seats
Mariana Sandoval >99% chance
31.3%25,689
Emilia Cortez >99% chance
31.3%25,632
Michele Peña
19.6%16,054
Gary Garcia Snyder
17.7%14,539
24
Senate
Ortiz >99%
House
Flores >99%
Arescurenaga >99%
82%counted
District 24: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Analise Ortiz >99% chance
73.9%23,937
Frank Steele
26.0%8,435
State House 2 seats
Alberto Flores >99% chance
42.1%21,321
Lisbeth Arescurenaga >99% chance
40.5%20,521
Delores McLaughlin
17.1%8,635
25
Senate
Dunn >99%
House
Carbone >99%
Kupper 95%
76%counted
District 25: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Timothy "Tim" Dunn >99% chance
55.6%41,025
Laura Huber
44.4%32,774
State House 2 seats
Michael Carbone >99% chance
35.2%37,057
Nickolas "Nick" Kupper 95% chance
32.9%34,613
Tiffany Byrne 4% chance
31.5%33,118
26
Senate
Bravo >99%
House
Aguilar >99%
Crews >99%
82%counted
District 26: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Flavio Bravo >99% chance
76.8%24,397
Jim Bishop
23.0%7,313
State House 2 seats
Cesar Aguilar >99% chance
39.5%22,987
Quantá Crews >99% chance
36.0%20,986
Frank Roberts
11.6%6,735
Jonathan McKenna
10.9%6,369
Hector Gomez
1.9%1,124
27
Senate
Clayton 96%
House
Howard >99%
Fink 85%
82%counted
District 27: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Kyle Clayton 96% chance
52.6%35,728
Kevin Payne 3% chance
47.3%32,115
State House 2 seats
Deborah Howard >99% chance
36.9%35,879
Lisa Fink 85% chance
31.5%30,669
Tony Rivero 14% chance
31.2%30,346
28
Senate
Carroll >99%
House
Livingston >99%
Pingerelli >99%
82%counted
District 28: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Frank Carroll >99% chance
57.8%62,306
Michael Braun
42.1%45,354
State House 2 seats
David Livingston >99% chance
28.9%58,718
Beverly Pingerelli >99% chance
28.7%58,274
Barbara Fike
21.5%43,659
Marc Graham
20.8%42,090
29
Senate
Shamp 96%
House
Scianna 74%
Montenegro >99%
82%counted
District 29: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Janae Shamp 96% chance
51.5%41,332
Eric Stafford 3% chance
48.4%38,837
State House 2 seats
Christine Marie Scianna 74% chance
33.8%38,765
Steve Montenegro >99% chance
33.4%38,309
James Taylor 25% chance
32.4%37,120
30
Senate
Biasiucci >99%
House
Gannuscio >99%
Rose >99%
85%counted
District 30: full page, with projections and counties
State Senate
Leo Biasiucci >99% chance
98.1%66,326
State House 2 seats
Mike Gannuscio >99% chance
42.0%52,841
David Rose >99% chance
40.2%50,610
Brian McMahan
17.6%22,203
Shift by district
How far each legislative district has moved since the same contest in 2024 or 2022. Comparisons are withheld when a major party was missing from either ballot or a party ran a different number of House candidates.
- District 1 D +7.6
- District 2 D +15.6
- District 3 No comparison
- District 4 D +9.6
- District 5 No comparison
- District 6 No comparison
- District 7 D +10.3
- District 8 D +18.5
- District 9 D +17.2
- District 10 D +13.7
- District 11 D +17.1
- District 12 No comparison
- District 13 D +16.2
- District 14 D +23.2
- District 15 D +18.8
- District 16 D +14.4
- District 17 D +11.2
- District 18 No comparison
- District 19 D +10.3
- District 20 No comparison
- District 21 No comparison
- District 22 No comparison
- District 23 D +16.8
- District 24 No comparison
- District 25 No comparison
- District 26 D +21.2
- District 27 No comparison
- District 28 No comparison
- District 29 D +15.6
- District 30 No comparison
- District 1 No comparison
- District 2 D +15.3
- District 3 No comparison
- District 4 D +11.4
- District 5 No comparison
- District 6 No comparison
- District 7 No comparison
- District 8 D +14.7
- District 9 No comparison
- District 10 D +13.2
- District 11 D +17.1
- District 12 D +7.5
- District 13 D +13.5
- District 14 No comparison
- District 15 No comparison
- District 16 D +12.9
- District 17 No comparison
- District 18 D +8.3
- District 19 No comparison
- District 20 No comparison
- District 21 D +12.0
- District 22 No comparison
- District 23 No comparison
- District 24 No comparison
- District 25 D +15.4
- District 26 D +20.4
- District 27 D +12.5
- District 28 No comparison
- District 29 No comparison
- District 30 D +5.7
- District 1 D +10.3
- District 2 D +15.5
- District 3 D +5.2
- District 4 D +4.9
- District 5 No comparison
- District 6 No comparison
- District 7 D +7.5
- District 8 D +14.2
- District 9 D +15.7
- District 10 No comparison
- District 11 D +11.0
- District 12 No comparison
- District 13 D +13.4
- District 14 No comparison
- District 15 D +15.0
- District 16 D +13.9
- District 17 D +11.6
- District 18 D +8.1
- District 19 No comparison
- District 20 No comparison
- District 21 D +9.7
- District 22 No comparison
- District 23 D +17.1
- District 24 No comparison
- District 25 No comparison
- District 26 No comparison
- District 27 D +15.6
- District 28 D +7.9
- District 29 D +14.8
- District 30 No comparison
- District 1 No comparison
- District 2 D +12.5
- District 3 No comparison
- District 4 No comparison
- District 5 No comparison
- District 6 No comparison
- District 7 No comparison
- District 8 No comparison
- District 9 No comparison
- District 10 No comparison
- District 11 No comparison
- District 12 No comparison
- District 13 No comparison
- District 14 D +14.1
- District 15 No comparison
- District 16 D +10.0
- District 17 D +12.5
- District 18 D +7.8
- District 19 No comparison
- District 20 No comparison
- District 21 No comparison
- District 22 No comparison
- District 23 No comparison
- District 24 No comparison
- District 25 No comparison
- District 26 No comparison
- District 27 D +12.4
- District 28 No comparison
- District 29 D +11.7
- District 30 No comparison
Ballot measures
Secretary of State: ballot measuresProp. 141 Taxation
Would add a section to the Arizona Constitution that bars taxes or fees based on vehicle miles traveled and bars laws or rules that monitor or limit vehicle miles traveled without consent. Certain interstate commercial vehicles and vehicles owned by the state or local governments are not covered.
- A yes vote
- Adds a constitutional ban on taxes or fees based on motor vehicle miles traveled, and on laws that monitor or limit miles traveled without consent.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current constitutional language on taxation.
Yes 51.0%
No 49.0%
Expected to finish ahead: Yes 83% chance
Prop. 142 Prohibition of Preferential Treatment and Discrimination
Would add detail to the Arizona Constitution's existing ban on preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity or other classes. It would specifically prohibit requiring support for race-based preferences or diversity statements as a condition of education, employment or contracts, spending public money on certain education positions, and certain disciplinary practices, with exceptions for health services, legal and other reasons.
- A yes vote
- Amends the constitution to add these specific prohibitions on preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current constitutional prohibition as it is.
Yes 40.2%
No 59.8%
Expected to finish ahead: No >99% chance
Prop. 144 Election Requirements
Would amend the Arizona Constitution to require all voters, including by-mail voters, to show government-issued ID in each election, and to give every voter the option of having their ballot tabulated at their voting location on election day. It would also bar foreign nationals from contributing to or spending on Arizona elections, set a new standard for judicial review of election laws, and require the legislature to fund these provisions.
- A yes vote
- Amends the constitution to require proof of government-issued ID for all voting, including by mail, and makes the other listed election changes.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current constitutional provisions governing elections.
Yes 47.0%
No 53.0%
Expected to finish ahead: No >99% chance
Prop. 316 Municipal Transaction Privilege Tax
Would bar local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 (retroactive), and after that bar new or increased grocery taxes without voter approval, capped at a 2% rate.
- A yes vote
- Retroactively prohibits local grocery tax adoption or increases from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027, and afterward requires voter approval and a 2% maximum for any new or increased grocery tax.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current laws on local government taxation.
Yes 61.7%
No 38.3%
Expected to finish ahead: Yes >99% chance
Prop. 317 Arizona Department of Homeland Security
Would declare drug cartels to be terrorist organizations and direct the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its authority to address threats from drug cartels. It defines 'drug cartel' as an association of persons engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking or acts defined as terrorism under Arizona law, and says it does not support an asylum claim.
- A yes vote
- Declares drug cartels terrorist organizations and directs the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its authority to address them.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current laws on terrorism and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security.
Yes 57.1%
No 42.9%
Expected to finish ahead: Yes >99% chance
Prop. 318 Student Athletics
Would require all schools (public and private) and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female or coed based on biological sex recorded at birth, and bar them from authorizing use of private spaces such as restrooms not designated for a person's sex. It defines 'sex' by the original birth certificate and lets athletes sue schools and associations that knowingly violate it.
- A yes vote
- Requires schools and athletic associations to designate every team by sex as defined at birth, bars authorizing use of private spaces not designated for a person's sex, and allows athletes to sue for knowing violations.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current laws on student athletics.
Yes 59.0%
No 41.0%
Expected to finish ahead: Yes >99% chance
Prop. 319 Photo Enforcement Systems
Would bar state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify traffic-law violators unless they have a contract to use them by December 31, 2026. Local governments would need voter approval of existing systems at the next regular general election and every 10 years afterward.
- A yes vote
- Prohibits state and local photo traffic enforcement unless contracted by December 31, 2026, and requires local voter approval at the next general election and every 10 years to continue.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current laws governing photo enforcement systems.
Yes 61.5%
No 38.5%
Expected to finish ahead: Yes >99% chance
Prop. 320 School District Budgets
Would require school districts with 7,500 or more students, or operating in a county of 500,000 or more people, to spend at least 60% of operational spending on direct instructional expenses as defined by the Auditor General. Non-compliant districts would adjust gradually, and the Department of Education would cut their state Classroom Site Fund money by 25% each year, subject to limited waivers.
- A yes vote
- Requires covered school districts to spend at least 60% of operational spending on direct instruction and reduces certain state funding for districts that do not comply.
- A no vote
- Keeps the current laws governing school district budgets.
Yes 48.6%
No 51.4%
Expected to finish ahead: No 93% chance
Unofficial returns only. We show the count and don't call measures, because we haven't checked each one's passage rule.
Judges up for retention
Commission on Judicial Performance ReviewArizona voters created the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, mostly public members plus attorneys and judges, to rate judges up for retention. It surveys attorneys, jurors, litigants, witnesses and staff, holds public hearings, and votes on whether each judge meets its standards for legal knowledge, impartiality, communication, temperament and work ethic. All 82 judges it reviewed this year met them, so the survey scores are where they differ.
Andrew Jacobs Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
Furthest below typical: Administration, 87% against 100%.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 96% | 97% | 37 | |
| Integrity | 94% | 100% | 31 | |
| Communication | 98% | 100% | 22 | |
| Temperament | 93% | 100% | 24 | |
| Administration | 87% | 100% | 31 | |
43 of 180 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 62.9%
Remove 37.1%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Anni Hill Foster Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 97% | 97% | 27 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 25 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 20 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 23 | |
| Administration | 96% | 100% | 25 | |
33 of 136 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 50.5%
Remove 49.5%
Expected: Retained 69% chance
Daniel Kiley Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 98% | 97% | 33 | |
| Integrity | 97% | 100% | 30 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 18 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Administration | 97% | 100% | 31 | |
35 of 138 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 63.9%
Remove 36.1%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
David Weinzweig Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2018
Furthest below typical: Integrity, 93% against 100%.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 93% | 97% | 30 | |
| Integrity | 93% | 100% | 27 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Administration | 97% | 100% | 29 | |
32 of 145 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 53.6%
Remove 46.4%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
James Morse Jr. Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2017
At or above the typical judge in every category.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 22 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 22 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 18 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 18 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 22 | |
24 of 104 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 60.3%
Remove 39.7%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Jennifer Perkins Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2017
Furthest below typical: Administration, 94% against 100%.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 94% | 97% | 35 | |
| Integrity | 97% | 100% | 31 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Administration | 94% | 100% | 33 | |
36 of 134 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 55.6%
Remove 44.4%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Michael Catlett Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 97% | 97% | 30 | |
| Integrity | 97% | 100% | 29 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Administration | 97% | 100% | 30 | |
32 of 187 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 62.6%
Remove 37.4%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Randall Howe Judge of the Court of Appeals Division I
Meets standards · On the bench since 2012
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 38 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 35 | |
| Communication | 99% | 100% | 25 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 25 | |
| Administration | 97% | 100% | 38 | |
46 of 178 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 69.9%
Remove 30.1%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Christopher O’Neil Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 94% | 97% | 18 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 16 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 14 | |
22 of 102 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 75.2%
Remove 24.8%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Jeffrey Sklar Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2022
At or above the typical judge in every category.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 21 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 18 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 14 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 14 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 17 | |
28 of 160 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 65.9%
Remove 34.1%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Karl Eppich Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2017
At or above the typical judge in every category.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 11 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 9 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 9 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
13 of 89 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 73.1%
Remove 26.9%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Lacey Stover Gard Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
Furthest below typical: Legal ability, 90% against 97%.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 90% | 97% | 26 | |
| Integrity | 95% | 100% | 22 | |
| Communication | 93% | 100% | 11 | |
| Temperament | 91% | 100% | 11 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 25 | |
31 of 141 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 73.5%
Remove 26.5%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Michael Kelly Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2023
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 11 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Communication | 85% | 100% | 10 | |
| Temperament | 94% | 100% | 10 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
15 of 114 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 66.3%
Remove 33.7%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Sean Brearcliffe Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II
Meets standards · On the bench since 2017
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 88% | 97% | 16 | |
| Integrity | 93% | 100% | 14 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 11 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 14 | |
20 of 94 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 56.1%
Remove 43.9%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
John Lopez IV Justice of the Supreme Court
Meets standards · On the bench since 2017
At or above the typical judge in every category.
| Rated acceptable or better | Score | Typical | Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal ability | 100% | 97% | 15 | |
| Integrity | 100% | 100% | 15 | |
| Communication | 100% | 100% | 19 | |
| Temperament | 100% | 100% | 20 | |
| Administration | 100% | 100% | 12 | |
26 of 127 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.
Retain 60.1%
Remove 39.9%
Expected: Retained >99% chance
Counties
Explore all 15 county ballots and local results
Maricopa County: Every contest on the county's ballot: judges, cities, schools and local measures.
Official sources: Arizona Clean Elections; Independent Redistricting Commission maps; Arizona Legislature; Secretary of State: ballot measures; Arizona Secretary of State. Candidate photos remain their owners' work. Totals for offices where voters choose two count candidate selections, not ballots. Official results posted Nov 5, 5:45 PM.