Arizona · 2026 election coverage

Maricopa County: ballot results

2026 election results and ballot analysis across 270 contests in the county's official results file. Every covered contest remains available here; use the county overview to browse communities and school districts.

82% counted

An estimate, from the county's progress in the governor's race. How Arizona's count runs.

Official county results. These are the contests in the county's results file, not an address-specific sample ballot. Eligibility varies by district and precinct.

Results file posted Nov 5, 8:21 AM. Source checked Nov 5, 5:30 PM.

Covered contests: 270
Propositions with yes/no returns: 64
Incorporated cities & towns: 25

Observed returns, unofficial until certified. “Ahead” describes the current count; it is not a local race call. Candidate selections in multi-seat contests are not ballots. Precinct reporting does not establish how many ballots remain.

Ballot & results

All named candidates and reported write-in groups are retained. Shares use valid candidate selections for that contest, excluding overvotes and undervotes. A multi-seat share is not the percentage of voters supporting a candidate.

Federal & state

Attorney General

Attorney General: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kris Mayes D	768,658	56.9%
Warren Petersen R	582,386	43.1%
Write-in	867	0.1%

1,351,911 valid selections.

Kris Mayes ahead by 186,272 votes (13.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Mayes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Corporation Commission vote for 2

Corporation Commission: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Clara Pratte D	698,046	27.8%
Jonathon Hill D	674,541	26.8%
Kevin Thompson R	567,499	22.6%
Ralph Heap R	537,241	21.4%
Mike Cease G	35,642	1.4%
Write-in	951	0.0%

2,513,920 valid selections.

107,042 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Pratte >99%, Hill 98%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Governor

Governor: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Katie Hobbs D	780,711	57.0%
Andy Biggs R	565,269	41.3%
Risa Lombardo G	10,807	0.8%
Teri Ann Hourihan N	10,411	0.8%
Write-in	870	0.1%
not Qualified	633	0.0%
Alice Novoa	4	0.0%
Gertritrude Gonzalez	2	0.0%

1,368,707 valid selections.

Katie Hobbs ahead by 215,442 votes (15.7 points).

Called statewide: Hobbs. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Secretary of State

Secretary of State: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Adrian Fontes D	768,917	56.6%
Alexander Kolodin R	571,851	42.1%
Duwayne Collier G	17,111	1.3%
Write-in	554	0.0%

1,358,433 valid selections.

Adrian Fontes ahead by 197,066 votes (14.5 points).

Statewide forecast: Fontes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Mine Inspector

State Mine Inspector: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Brian Matlock D	707,557	53.8%
Walter "les" Presmyk R	607,448	46.1%
Write-in	1,248	0.1%

1,316,253 valid selections.

Brian Matlock ahead by 100,109 votes (7.6 points).

Statewide forecast: Matlock 97%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-10 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-10: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Justin Olson R	37,919	27.1%
James Rogers R	37,033	26.4%
Helen Hunter D	32,165	23.0%
Brian Calaway D	30,485	21.8%
David Scott N	2,409	1.7%
Write-in	43	0.0%

140,054 valid selections.

4,868 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Olson >99%, Rogers >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-11 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-11: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Oscar De Los Santos D	35,042	41.1%
Junelle Cavero D	33,758	39.6%
Joseph Charles Dailey R	8,273	9.7%
Cesar Aleman R	8,106	9.5%
Write-in	59	0.1%

85,238 valid selections.

25,485 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Santos >99%, Cavero >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-12 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-12: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Stacey Travers D	52,802	38.4%
Armando Montero D	51,760	37.6%
David Richardson R	32,693	23.8%
Write-in	369	0.3%

137,624 valid selections.

19,067 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Travers >99%, Montero >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-13 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-13: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Racquel "rockee" Armstrong D	42,740	27.3%
Jacob Weinberg D	42,299	27.0%
Kevin Hartke R	37,058	23.7%
Janet Weninger R	34,374	22.0%
Write-in	72	0.0%

156,543 valid selections.

5,241 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Armstrong >99%, Weinberg 98%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-14 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-14: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mary Rose D	40,368	34.7%
Tyler Andrew Farnsworth R	38,468	33.1%
Laurin Hendrix R	37,151	31.9%
Write-in	400	0.3%

116,387 valid selections.

1,317 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Rose 95%, Farnsworth >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-15 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-15: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michael Way R	30,123	49.8%
Neal Carter R	28,921	47.8%
Write-in	1,417	2.3%

60,461 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Carter >99%, Way >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-16 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-16: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Julia Romero Gusse D	304	73.3%
Teresa Martinez R	62	14.9%
Chris Lopez R	46	11.1%
Write-in	3	0.7%

415 valid selections.

16 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Gusse >99%, Martinez >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-2 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-2: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Stephanie Simacek D	40,294	41.3%
Justin Wilmeth R	29,652	30.4%
Paul Carver R	27,382	28.0%
Write-in	335	0.3%

97,663 valid selections.

2,270 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Simacek >99%, Wilmeth >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-22 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-22: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Betsy Munoz D	27,785	49.1%
Elda Luna-Nájera D	27,233	48.2%
Write-in	1,515	2.7%

56,533 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Munoz >99%, Luna-Nájera >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-23 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-23: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mariana Sandoval D	12,079	28.5%
Emilia Cortez D	11,921	28.1%
Michele Peña R	9,751	23.0%
Gary Garcia Snyder R	8,650	20.4%
Write-in	33	0.1%

42,434 valid selections.

2,170 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Sandoval >99%, Cortez >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-24 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-24: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Alberto Flores D	21,321	42.1%
Lisbeth Arescurenaga D	20,521	40.5%
Delores Mclaughlin R	8,635	17.1%
Write-in	135	0.3%

50,612 valid selections.

11,886 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Flores >99%, Arescurenaga >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-25 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-25: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michael Carbone R	27,636	34.5%
Tiffany Byrne D	26,560	33.2%
Nickolas "nick" Kupper R	25,522	31.9%
Write-in	276	0.3%

79,994 valid selections.

1,038 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Carbone >99%, Kupper 95%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-26 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-26: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Cesar Aguilar D	22,987	39.5%
Quantá Crews D	20,986	36.0%
Frank Roberts R	6,735	11.6%
Jonathan Mckenna R	6,369	10.9%
Hector Gomez G	1,124	1.9%
Write-in	31	0.1%

58,232 valid selections.

14,251 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Aguilar >99%, Crews >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-27 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-27: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Deborah Howard D	35,879	36.9%
Lisa Fink R	30,669	31.5%
Tony Rivero R	30,346	31.2%
Write-in	331	0.3%

97,225 valid selections.

323 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Howard >99%, Fink 85%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-28 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-28: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
David Livingston R	58,718	28.9%
Beverly Pingerelli R	58,274	28.7%
Barbara Fike D	43,659	21.5%
Marc Graham D	42,090	20.8%
Write-in	88	0.0%

202,829 valid selections.

14,615 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Livingston >99%, Pingerelli >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-29 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-29: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Christine Marie Scianna D	38,765	33.8%
Steve Montenegro R	38,309	33.4%
James Taylor R	37,120	32.4%
Write-in	406	0.4%

114,600 valid selections.

1,189 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Montenegro >99%, Scianna 74%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-3 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Cody Reim R	67,585	29.7%
George Khalaf R	65,810	28.9%
Julie Gable D	48,627	21.4%
Richard "rick" Robert Spargo D	44,076	19.4%
John Skirbst N	1,565	0.7%
Write-in	82	0.0%

227,745 valid selections.

17,183 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Reim >99%, Khalaf >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-30 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-30: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mike Gannuscio R	2,141	43.2%
David Rose R	1,937	39.0%
Brian Mcmahan D	868	17.5%
Write-in	15	0.3%

4,961 valid selections.

1,069 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Gannuscio >99%, Rose >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-4 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-4: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Tammy Caputi D	53,643	26.6%
Karen Gresham D	53,379	26.5%
Matt Gress R	49,189	24.4%
Pamela Carter R	45,364	22.5%
Write-in	83	0.0%

201,658 valid selections.

4,190 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Caputi 97%, Gresham 93%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-5 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-5: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sarah Liguori D	49,222	50.5%
Aaron Márquez D	46,682	47.9%
Write-in	1,569	1.6%

97,473 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Liguori >99%, Márquez >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-8 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-8: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Janeen Connolly D	35,148	40.5%
Brian Garcia D	34,649	40.0%
Donald Hawker R	16,649	19.2%
Write-in	237	0.3%

86,683 valid selections.

18,000 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Connolly >99%, Garcia >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Rep Dist-9 vote for 2

State Rep Dist-9: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lorena Austin D	28,588	36.8%
Jacob D. Martinez D	28,512	36.7%
Bradley D. Bettencourt R	20,257	26.1%
Write-in	327	0.4%

77,684 valid selections.

8,255 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Statewide forecast: Austin >99%, Martinez >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-10

State Senator Dist-10: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
David Christian Farnsworth R	39,339	52.5%
Blair Moses D	32,851	43.9%
Nick Fierro I	2,691	3.6%
Write-in	30	0.0%

74,911 valid selections.

David Christian Farnsworth ahead by 6,488 votes (8.7 points).

Statewide forecast: Farnsworth >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-11

State Senator Dist-11: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Catherine Miranda D	38,070	80.6%
Joshua Ayala R	9,092	19.3%
Write-in	48	0.1%

47,210 valid selections.

Catherine Miranda ahead by 28,978 votes (61.4 points).

Statewide forecast: Miranda >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-12

State Senator Dist-12: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Patricia "patty" Contreras D	57,203	69.5%
Anthony Jason Ramirez N	23,999	29.2%
Write-in	622	0.8%
not Qualified	250	0.3%
Gary Hatch	174	0.2%

82,248 valid selections.

Patricia "patty" Contreras ahead by 33,204 votes (40.4 points).

Statewide forecast: Contreras >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-13

State Senator Dist-13: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kristie O'brien D	45,846	55.0%
Julie Willoughby R	37,521	45.0%
Write-in	53	0.1%

83,420 valid selections.

Kristie O'brien ahead by 8,325 votes (10.0 points).

Statewide forecast: O'Brien >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-14

State Senator Dist-14: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Stephanie Walsh D	41,683	51.4%
Mylie Biggs R	39,333	48.5%
Write-in	77	0.1%

81,093 valid selections.

Stephanie Walsh ahead by 2,350 votes (2.9 points).

Statewide forecast: Walsh 84%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-15

State Senator Dist-15: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jake Hoffman R	30,381	57.0%
Jayme Accalia D	22,842	42.9%
Write-in	61	0.1%

53,284 valid selections.

Jake Hoffman ahead by 7,539 votes (14.1 points).

Statewide forecast: Hoffman >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-16

State Senator Dist-16: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Elaine Aldrete D	305	86.6%
Thomas "t.j." Shope R	45	12.8%
Write-in	2	0.6%

352 valid selections.

Elaine Aldrete ahead by 260 votes (73.9 points).

Statewide forecast: Aldrete 98%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-2

State Senator Dist-2: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Amelia Gallitano D	39,847	55.9%
Shawnna Bolick R	31,400	44.0%
Write-in	69	0.1%

71,316 valid selections.

Amelia Gallitano ahead by 8,447 votes (11.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Gallitano >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-22

State Senator Dist-22: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Eva Diaz D	33,857	96.9%
Write-in	1,077	3.1%

34,934 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Diaz >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-23

State Senator Dist-23: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Brian Fernandez D	12,990	55.4%
Michelle Altherr R	10,452	44.5%
Write-in	20	0.1%

23,462 valid selections.

Brian Fernandez ahead by 2,538 votes (10.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Fernandez >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-24

State Senator Dist-24: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Analise Ortiz D	23,937	73.9%
Frank Steele R	8,435	26.0%
Write-in	38	0.1%

32,410 valid selections.

Analise Ortiz ahead by 15,502 votes (47.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Ortiz >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-25

State Senator Dist-25: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Timothy "tim" Dunn R	29,991	53.1%
Laura Huber D	26,417	46.8%
Write-in	40	0.1%

56,448 valid selections.

Timothy "tim" Dunn ahead by 3,574 votes (6.3 points).

Statewide forecast: Dunn >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-26

State Senator Dist-26: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Flavio Bravo D	24,397	76.8%
Jim Bishop R	7,313	23.0%
Write-in	40	0.1%

31,750 valid selections.

Flavio Bravo ahead by 17,084 votes (53.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Bravo >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-27

State Senator Dist-27: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kyle Clayton D	35,728	52.6%
Kevin Payne R	32,115	47.3%
Write-in	66	0.1%

67,909 valid selections.

Kyle Clayton ahead by 3,613 votes (5.3 points).

Statewide forecast: Clayton 96%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-28

State Senator Dist-28: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Frank Carroll R	62,306	57.8%
Michael Braun D	45,354	42.1%
Write-in	76	0.1%

107,736 valid selections.

Frank Carroll ahead by 16,952 votes (15.7 points).

Statewide forecast: Carroll >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-29

State Senator Dist-29: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Janae Shamp R	41,332	51.5%
Eric Stafford D	38,837	48.4%
Write-in	69	0.1%

80,238 valid selections.

Janae Shamp ahead by 2,495 votes (3.1 points).

Statewide forecast: Shamp 96%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-3

State Senator Dist-3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
John Kavanagh R	73,696	60.5%
Jeffrey Fortney D	47,935	39.4%
Write-in	84	0.1%
not Qualified	54	0.0%
Frank Bertone	2	0.0%

121,771 valid selections.

John Kavanagh ahead by 25,761 votes (21.2 points).

Statewide forecast: Kavanagh >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-30

State Senator Dist-30: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Leo Biasiucci R	2,506	97.4%
Write-in	66	2.6%

2,572 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Biasiucci >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-4

State Senator Dist-4: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Aaron Lieberman D	56,534	52.9%
Carine Werner R	50,261	47.0%
Write-in	86	0.1%

106,881 valid selections.

Aaron Lieberman ahead by 6,273 votes (5.9 points).

Statewide forecast: Lieberman 99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-5

State Senator Dist-5: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Christine Marsh D	55,121	84.2%
Jason Laforest N	9,904	15.1%
Write-in	425	0.6%

65,450 valid selections.

Christine Marsh ahead by 45,217 votes (69.1 points).

Statewide forecast: Marsh >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-8

State Senator Dist-8: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lauren Kuby D	38,647	69.8%
Bill Loughrige R	16,693	30.1%
Write-in	56	0.1%

55,396 valid selections.

Lauren Kuby ahead by 21,954 votes (39.6 points).

Statewide forecast: Kuby >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Senator Dist-9

State Senator Dist-9: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kiana Maria Sears D	30,826	60.3%
Bridget Fitzgibbons R	20,287	39.7%
Write-in	45	0.1%

51,158 valid selections.

Kiana Maria Sears ahead by 10,539 votes (20.6 points).

Statewide forecast: Sears >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

State Treasurer

State Treasurer: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Nick Mansour D	737,443	55.1%
Elijah Norton R	598,929	44.8%
Write-in	968	0.1%

1,337,340 valid selections.

Nick Mansour ahead by 138,514 votes (10.4 points).

Statewide forecast: Mansour >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Superintendent of Public Instruction: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Teresa Leyba Ruiz D	727,002	54.3%
Kimberly Yee R	610,423	45.6%
Write-in	1,336	0.1%
not Qualified	737	0.1%
Stephen Neal Jr.	238	0.0%
Gerard Davis	38	0.0%

1,339,774 valid selections.

Teresa Leyba Ruiz ahead by 116,579 votes (8.7 points).

Statewide forecast: Ruiz 98%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-1

US Rep Dist CD-1: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Amish Shah D	169,687	52.4%
Thomas "jay" Feely IV R	146,978	45.4%
Monica Alponte L	6,725	2.1%
Write-in	235	0.1%
not Qualified	155	0.0%
Dev Gupta	8	0.0%
Gage Dylan Thunder	7	0.0%

323,795 valid selections.

Amish Shah ahead by 22,709 votes (7.0 points).

Called statewide: Shah. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-2

US Rep Dist CD-2: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jonathan Nez D	299	81.9%
Eli Crane R	37	10.1%
Curtis Goodwin L	28	7.7%
Write-in	1	0.3%

365 valid selections.

Jonathan Nez ahead by 262 votes (71.8 points).

Statewide forecast: Crane 94%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-3

US Rep Dist CD-3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Yassamin Ansari D	108,264	84.9%
Alan Aversa N	7,624	6.0%
David Redkey G	6,698	5.3%
Write-in	2,788	2.2%
Jacob Parkman	1,314	1.0%
not Qualified	767	0.6%

127,455 valid selections.

Yassamin Ansari ahead by 100,640 votes (79.0 points).

Called statewide: Ansari. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-4

US Rep Dist CD-4: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Greg Stanton D	140,838	62.1%
Zuhdi Jasser R	80,074	35.3%
Tisha Benoit N	5,002	2.2%
Write-in	469	0.2%
not Qualified	288	0.1%
Steven Sanders	37	0.0%

226,708 valid selections.

Greg Stanton ahead by 60,764 votes (26.8 points).

Called statewide: Stanton. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-5

US Rep Dist CD-5: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Elizabeth Lee D	115,847	50.1%
Mark Lamb R	115,036	49.7%
Write-in	386	0.2%

231,269 valid selections.

Elizabeth Lee ahead by 811 votes (0.4 points).

Statewide forecast: Lamb 97%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-7

US Rep Dist CD-7: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Adelita Grijalva D	17,270	74.3%
Daniel Francis Butierez Sr. R	5,950	25.6%
Write-in	26	0.1%

23,246 valid selections.

Adelita Grijalva ahead by 11,320 votes (48.7 points).

Called statewide: Grijalva. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-8

US Rep Dist CD-8: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Abraham "abe" Hamadeh R	136,501	51.4%
Bernadette Greene-Placentia D	128,705	48.4%
Write-in	534	0.2%

265,740 valid selections.

Abraham "abe" Hamadeh ahead by 7,796 votes (2.9 points).

Statewide forecast: Hamadeh 98%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

US Rep Dist CD-9

US Rep Dist CD-9: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Danielle "dani" Sterbinsky D	79,230	50.4%
Paul Gosar R	77,557	49.3%
Write-in	223	0.1%
not Qualified	133	0.1%
William Perry	16	0.0%
G. Seville Hatch	9	0.0%

157,168 valid selections.

Danielle "dani" Sterbinsky ahead by 1,673 votes (1.1 points).

Called statewide: Gosar. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Propositions

Agua Fria UHSD #216-PROPOSITION 438

Agua Fria UHSD #216-PROPOSITION 438: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	29,564	59.4%
Budget Override Continuation, No	20,167	40.6%

49,731 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 9,397 votes (18.9 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Alhambra ESD #68-QUESTION

Alhambra ESD #68-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	6,234	68.9%
Budget Increase, No	2,820	31.1%

9,054 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 3,414 votes (37.7 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Arlington ESD #47-QUESTION

Arlington ESD #47-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	161	54.6%
Bond Approval, No	134	45.4%

295 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 27 votes (9.2 points).

Estimate: Yes 98% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Avondale-PROPOSITION 418

Avondale-PROPOSITION 418: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	12,097	69.0%
Bond Approval, No	5,433	31.0%

17,530 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 6,664 votes (38.0 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Balsz ESD #31-QUESTION 1

Balsz ESD #31-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	3,947	69.7%
Budget Increase, No	1,718	30.3%

5,665 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 2,229 votes (39.3 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Balsz ESD #31-QUESTION 2

Balsz ESD #31-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	3,568	65.3%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	1,893	34.7%

5,461 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 1,675 votes (30.7 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cartwright ESD #83-QUESTION

Cartwright ESD #83-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	8,255	70.2%
Budget Override Continuation, No	3,507	29.8%

11,762 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 4,748 votes (40.4 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cave Creek USD #93-QUESTION

Cave Creek USD #93-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	22,888	67.6%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	10,959	32.4%

33,847 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 11,929 votes (35.2 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cave Creek-PROPOSITION 440

Cave Creek-PROPOSITION 440: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	1,947	63.9%
No	1,101	36.1%

3,048 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 846 votes (27.8 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-PROPOSITION 430

Chandler-PROPOSITION 430: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	68,938	82.8%
No	14,324	17.2%

83,262 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 54,614 votes (65.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-PROPOSITION 431

Chandler-PROPOSITION 431: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	68,981	85.1%
No	12,036	14.9%

81,017 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 56,945 votes (70.3 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-PROPOSITION 432

Chandler-PROPOSITION 432: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	54,885	67.3%
No	26,643	32.7%

81,528 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 28,242 votes (34.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-PROPOSITION 433

Chandler-PROPOSITION 433: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	41,172	50.9%
Yes	39,727	49.1%

80,899 valid selections.

No ahead by 1,445 votes (1.8 points).

Estimate: No 69% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-PROPOSITION 434

Chandler-PROPOSITION 434: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	71,058	85.3%
No	12,253	14.7%

83,311 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 58,805 votes (70.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Chandler-QUESTION 1

Chandler-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
For The Franchise NON	42,897	56.5%
Against The Franchise NON	33,036	43.5%

75,933 valid selections.

For The Franchise ahead by 9,861 votes (13.0 points).

Estimate: For The Franchise >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

COUNTY PROP 413

COUNTY PROP 413: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	831,541	64.8%
No	451,983	35.2%

1,283,524 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 379,558 votes (29.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Creighton ESD #14-QUESTION 1

Creighton ESD #14-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	8,377	64.4%
Budget Increase, No	4,634	35.6%

13,011 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 3,743 votes (28.8 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Creighton ESD #14-QUESTION 2

Creighton ESD #14-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	8,182	63.7%
Budget Override Continuation, No	4,662	36.3%

12,844 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 3,520 votes (27.4 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Dysart USD #89-PROPOSITION 421

Dysart USD #89-PROPOSITION 421: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	32,721	52.9%
Bond Approval, No	29,159	47.1%

61,880 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 3,562 votes (5.8 points).

Estimate: Yes 93% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Fountain Hills USD #98-QUESTION

Fountain Hills USD #98-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	7,509	57.0%
Budget Override Continuation, No	5,665	43.0%

13,174 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 1,844 votes (14.0 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Gila Bend-PROPOSITION 414

Gila Bend-PROPOSITION 414: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	145	66.5%
No	73	33.5%

218 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 72 votes (33.0 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Gilbert USD #41-PROPOSITION 422

Gilbert USD #41-PROPOSITION 422: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	33,849	50.7%
Bond Approval, No	32,868	49.3%

66,717 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 981 votes (1.5 points).

Estimate: Yes 66% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Gilbert USD #41-PROPOSITION 423

Gilbert USD #41-PROPOSITION 423: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	45,026	68.8%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	20,407	31.2%

65,433 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 24,619 votes (37.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Glendale UHSD #205-QUESTION

Glendale UHSD #205-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	43,609	64.2%
Budget Override Continuation, No	24,312	35.8%

67,921 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 19,297 votes (28.4 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Isaac ESD #5-QUESTION

Isaac ESD #5-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	2,051	54.4%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	1,722	45.6%

3,773 valid selections.

No ahead by 329 votes (8.7 points).

Estimate: No 98% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Litchfield ESD #79-PROPOSITION 437

Litchfield ESD #79-PROPOSITION 437: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	23,230	60.9%
Budget Override Continuation, No	14,924	39.1%

38,154 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 8,306 votes (21.8 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Littleton ESD #65-QUESTION

Littleton ESD #65-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	5,216	50.2%
Bond Approval, No	5,168	49.8%

10,384 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 48 votes (0.5 points).

Estimate: Yes 55% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa USD #4-PROPOSITION 419

Mesa USD #4-PROPOSITION 419: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, No	65,524	51.1%
Bond Approval, Yes	62,676	48.9%

128,200 valid selections.

No ahead by 2,848 votes (2.2 points).

Estimate: No 74% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa USD #4-PROPOSITION 420

Mesa USD #4-PROPOSITION 420: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	83,755	66.6%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	41,936	33.4%

125,691 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 41,819 votes (33.3 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa-QUESTION 1

Mesa-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	88,249	65.7%
Bond Approval, No	46,099	34.3%

134,348 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 42,150 votes (31.4 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa-QUESTION 2

Mesa-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	86,133	64.2%
Bond Approval, No	48,110	35.8%

134,243 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 38,023 votes (28.3 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa-QUESTION 3

Mesa-QUESTION 3: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	116,537	89.4%
No	13,761	10.6%

130,298 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 102,776 votes (78.9 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa-QUESTION 4

Mesa-QUESTION 4: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	117,108	90.4%
No	12,385	9.6%

129,493 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 104,723 votes (80.9 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Osborn ESD #8-QUESTION 1

Osborn ESD #8-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	9,384	77.2%
Budget Override Continuation, No	2,774	22.8%

12,158 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 6,610 votes (54.4 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Osborn ESD #8-QUESTION 2

Osborn ESD #8-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	9,161	75.4%
Budget Increase, No	2,992	24.6%

12,153 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 6,169 votes (50.8 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paradise Valley USD #69-QUESTION 1

Paradise Valley USD #69-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	52,036	57.8%
Budget Override Continuation, No	37,974	42.2%

90,010 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 14,062 votes (15.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paradise Valley USD #69-QUESTION 2

Paradise Valley USD #69-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	48,979	54.2%
Budget Increase, No	41,454	45.8%

90,433 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 7,525 votes (8.3 points).

Estimate: Yes 98% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paradise Valley-PROPOSITION 426

Paradise Valley-PROPOSITION 426: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	3,850	58.9%
No	2,681	41.1%

6,531 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 1,169 votes (17.9 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paradise Valley-PROPOSITION 427

Paradise Valley-PROPOSITION 427: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	4,125	63.5%
No	2,366	36.5%

6,491 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 1,759 votes (27.1 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria USD #11-PROPOSITION 428

Peoria USD #11-PROPOSITION 428: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	42,091	52.3%
Budget Increase, No	38,396	47.7%

80,487 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 3,695 votes (4.6 points).

Estimate: Yes 89% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria USD #11-PROPOSITION 429

Peoria USD #11-PROPOSITION 429: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	53,871	68.7%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	24,502	31.3%

78,373 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 29,369 votes (37.5 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria-PROPOSITION 417

Peoria-PROPOSITION 417: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	37,813	63.6%
No	21,659	36.4%

59,472 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 16,154 votes (27.2 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix ESD #1-QUESTION

Phoenix ESD #1-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	9,169	71.3%
Bond Approval, No	3,687	28.7%

12,856 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 5,482 votes (42.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

PROPOSITION 141

PROPOSITION 141: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	647,157	50.3%
Yes	639,237	49.7%

1,286,394 valid selections.

No ahead by 7,920 votes (0.6 points).

Statewide forecast: Yes 83%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 142

PROPOSITION 142: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	780,422	60.3%
Yes	512,775	39.7%

1,293,197 valid selections.

No ahead by 267,647 votes (20.7 points).

Statewide forecast: No >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 144

PROPOSITION 144: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	722,576	54.9%
Yes	592,817	45.1%

1,315,393 valid selections.

No ahead by 129,759 votes (9.9 points).

Statewide forecast: No >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 316

PROPOSITION 316: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	795,284	60.9%
No	511,217	39.1%

1,306,501 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 284,067 votes (21.7 points).

Statewide forecast: Yes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 317

PROPOSITION 317: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	722,739	55.1%
No	590,119	44.9%

1,312,858 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 132,620 votes (10.1 points).

Statewide forecast: Yes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 318

PROPOSITION 318: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	751,957	57.1%
No	564,645	42.9%

1,316,602 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 187,312 votes (14.2 points).

Statewide forecast: Yes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 319

PROPOSITION 319: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	821,094	62.7%
No	488,028	37.3%

1,309,122 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 333,066 votes (25.4 points).

Statewide forecast: Yes >99%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

PROPOSITION 320

PROPOSITION 320: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	673,224	52.3%
Yes	612,879	47.7%

1,286,103 valid selections.

No ahead by 60,345 votes (4.7 points).

Statewide forecast: No 93%. This is the county's share of a bigger contest.

Riverside ESD #2-QUESTION 1

Riverside ESD #2-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	704	61.1%
Bond Approval, No	449	38.9%

1,153 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 255 votes (22.1 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Riverside ESD #2-QUESTION 2

Riverside ESD #2-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	773	66.2%
Budget Increase, No	394	33.8%

1,167 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 379 votes (32.5 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Saddle Mountain USD #90-PROPOSITION 435

Saddle Mountain USD #90-PROPOSITION 435: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, No	2,237	54.9%
Budget Increase, Yes	1,840	45.1%

4,077 valid selections.

No ahead by 397 votes (9.7 points).

Estimate: No 99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Saddle Mountain USD #90-PROPOSITION 436

Saddle Mountain USD #90-PROPOSITION 436: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, No	2,313	57.0%
Bond Approval, Yes	1,746	43.0%

4,059 valid selections.

No ahead by 567 votes (14.0 points).

Estimate: No >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Scottsdale USD #48-QUESTION 1

Scottsdale USD #48-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	49,230	54.4%
Bond Approval, No	41,343	45.6%

90,573 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 7,887 votes (8.7 points).

Estimate: Yes 98% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Scottsdale USD #48-QUESTION 2

Scottsdale USD #48-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	60,897	69.3%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	27,002	30.7%

87,899 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 33,895 votes (38.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tempe-PROPOSITION 424

Tempe-PROPOSITION 424: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	26,535	59.3%
Yes	18,190	40.7%

44,725 valid selections.

No ahead by 8,345 votes (18.7 points).

Estimate: No >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tolleson UHSD #214-QUESTION 1

Tolleson UHSD #214-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, No	18,088	53.9%
Bond Approval, Yes	15,488	46.1%

33,576 valid selections.

No ahead by 2,600 votes (7.7 points).

Estimate: No 97% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tolleson UHSD #214-QUESTION 2

Tolleson UHSD #214-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, No	17,373	51.6%
Budget Increase, Yes	16,303	48.4%

33,676 valid selections.

No ahead by 1,070 votes (3.2 points).

Estimate: No 81% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tolleson-PROPOSITION 416

Tolleson-PROPOSITION 416: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	791	68.9%
No	357	31.1%

1,148 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 434 votes (37.8 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Union ESD #62-QUESTION 1

Union ESD #62-QUESTION 1: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	1,454	56.0%
Budget Override Continuation, No	1,141	44.0%

2,595 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 313 votes (12.1 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Union ESD #62-QUESTION 2

Union ESD #62-QUESTION 2: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, Yes	1,493	55.8%
Budget Increase, No	1,183	44.2%

2,676 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 310 votes (11.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Washington ESD #6-QUESTION

Washington ESD #6-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	35,026	65.3%
Budget Override Continuation, No	18,581	34.7%

53,607 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 16,445 votes (30.7 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Wickenburg USD #9-QUESTION

Wickenburg USD #9-QUESTION: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Continuation, Yes	5,208	60.6%
Budget Override Continuation, No	3,381	39.4%

8,589 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 1,827 votes (21.3 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Judges

Michael S. Catlett Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court CATLETT, MICHAEL: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	569,899	62.6%
No	340,229	37.4%

910,128 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 229,670 votes (25.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated Michael S. Catlett acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Anni Hill Foster Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court HILL FOSTER, ANNI: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	473,738	50.5%
No	464,481	49.5%

938,219 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 9,257 votes (1.0 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated Anni Hill Foster acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes 61% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Randall M. Howe Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court HOWE, RANDALL: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	620,074	69.9%
No	267,136	30.1%

887,210 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 352,938 votes (39.8 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2012

Share of people surveyed who rated Randall M. Howe acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Andrew M. Jacobs Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court JACOBS, ANDREW: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	575,756	62.9%
No	340,267	37.1%

916,023 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 235,489 votes (25.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Administration, 87% against 100%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Andrew M. Jacobs acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Daniel J. Kiley Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court KILEY, DANIEL: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	566,720	63.9%
No	320,612	36.1%

887,332 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 246,108 votes (27.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated Daniel J. Kiley acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

James B. Morse Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court MORSE JR., JAMES: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	544,620	60.3%
No	359,027	39.7%

903,647 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 185,593 votes (20.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2017

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated James B. Morse acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jennifer M. Perkins Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court PERKINS, JENNIFER: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	521,619	55.6%
No	416,314	44.4%

937,933 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 105,305 votes (11.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2017

Furthest below typical: Administration, 94% against 100%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jennifer M. Perkins acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

David Weinzweig Court of Appeals, Division I

Appeals Court WEINZWEIG, DAVID: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	499,915	53.6%
No	432,215	46.4%

932,130 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 67,700 votes (7.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2018

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 93% against 100%.

Share of people surveyed who rated David Weinzweig acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes 96% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

JP- CANYON TRAILS

JP- CANYON TRAILS: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	2,671	55.5%
not Qualified	1,891	39.3%
Christopher Sumner	252	5.2%
No Candidate	0	0.0%

4,814 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-AGUA FRIA

JP-AGUA FRIA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lupe Chavira Contreras D	18,112	98.0%
Write-in	376	2.0%

18,488 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-ARROWHEAD

JP-ARROWHEAD: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Craig W. Wismer R	59,627	97.2%
Write-in	1,743	2.8%

61,370 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-EAST MESA

JP-EAST MESA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Fred Arnett R	41,965	96.0%
Write-in	1,733	4.0%

43,698 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-EL CENTRO

JP-EL CENTRO: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jennifer "jen" Hernandez Sama D	10,926	98.6%
Write-in	159	1.4%

11,085 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-ENCANTO

JP-ENCANTO: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Deborah Ann Begay D	23,779	98.2%
Write-in	430	1.8%

24,209 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-HASSAYAMPA

JP-HASSAYAMPA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Danielle Blake R	63,120	97.7%
Write-in	1,489	2.3%

64,609 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-IRONWOOD

JP-IRONWOOD: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lori A. Burkhardt R	3,614	95.9%
Write-in	154	4.1%

3,768 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-KYRENE

JP-KYRENE: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sharron L. Sauls D	37,572	97.2%
Write-in	1,078	2.8%

38,650 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-MANISTEE

JP-MANISTEE: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lizbeth "liz" Feria R	18,088	93.0%
Write-in	1,355	7.0%

19,443 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN

JP-MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michele Reagan R	76,474	97.6%
Write-in	1,914	2.4%

78,388 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-NORTH VALLEY

JP-NORTH VALLEY: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Desarae Tucker R	40,762	96.6%
Write-in	1,429	3.4%

42,191 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-SAN MARCOS

JP-SAN MARCOS: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jennifer Jermaine D	50,791	57.6%
J.d. Mesnard R	37,360	42.4%
Write-in	55	0.1%

88,206 valid selections.

Jennifer Jermaine ahead by 13,431 votes (15.2 points).

Estimate: Jennifer Jermaine >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

JP-SOUTH MOUNTAIN

JP-SOUTH MOUNTAIN: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Rebecca Rios D	34,242	97.7%
Write-in	806	2.3%

35,048 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-UNIVERSITY LAKES

JP-UNIVERSITY LAKES: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Tyler Kissell D	24,991	97.5%
Write-in	633	2.5%

25,624 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-WEST MCDOWELL

JP-WEST MCDOWELL: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Teresa Lopez D	12,904	97.2%
Write-in	377	2.8%

13,281 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-WEST MESA

JP-WEST MESA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Elaissia Sears D	7,775	96.7%
Write-in	267	3.3%

8,042 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

JP-WHITE TANK

JP-WHITE TANK: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Heidi Owens R	37,341	96.3%
Write-in	1,445	3.7%

38,786 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Brad Astrowsky Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court ASTROWSKY, BRAD: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	506,505	55.2%
No	410,301	44.8%

916,806 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 96,204 votes (10.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2012

Share of people surveyed who rated Brad Astrowsky acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	50
Integrity	92%	96%	126
Communication	95%	96%	119
Temperament	92%	95%	126
Administration	95%	97%	128

134 of 638 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Michael C. Blair Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court BLAIR, MICHAEL C.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	626,763	72.5%
No	237,847	27.5%

864,610 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 388,916 votes (45.0 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2016

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Michael C. Blair acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	37
Integrity	96%	96%	46
Communication	99%	96%	44
Temperament	95%	95%	49
Administration	98%	97%	49

54 of 264 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

John L. Blanchard Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court BLANCHARD, JOHN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	565,719	65.0%
No	305,183	35.0%

870,902 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 260,536 votes (29.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2019

Share of people surveyed who rated John L. Blanchard acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	76
Integrity	95%	96%	107
Communication	94%	96%	112
Temperament	96%	95%	117
Administration	98%	97%	114

139 of 930 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Robert I. Brooks Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court BROOKS, ROBERT IAN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	628,577	73.2%
No	230,519	26.8%

859,096 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 398,058 votes (46.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Share of people surveyed who rated Robert I. Brooks acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	87
Integrity	94%	96%	147
Communication	94%	96%	139
Temperament	95%	95%	148
Administration	98%	97%	146

153 of 678 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Sunita A. Cairo Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court CAIRO, SUNITA A.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	637,479	74.0%
No	224,484	26.0%

861,963 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 412,995 votes (47.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated Sunita A. Cairo acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	59
Integrity	99%	96%	184
Communication	99%	96%	174
Temperament	99%	95%	186
Administration	99%	97%	183

194 of 670 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Michelle Carson Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court CARSON, MICHELLE: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	564,066	62.4%
No	340,440	37.6%

904,506 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 223,626 votes (24.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 88% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Michelle Carson acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	49
Integrity	88%	96%	80
Communication	93%	96%	76
Temperament	90%	95%	82
Administration	95%	97%	81

85 of 426 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Gregory S. Como Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court COMO, GREGORY S.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	577,927	64.8%
No	314,009	35.2%

891,936 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 263,918 votes (29.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Gregory S. Como acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	46
Integrity	97%	96%	132
Communication	98%	96%	121
Temperament	95%	95%	132
Administration	97%	97%	131

133 of 441 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Katherine M. Cooper Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court COOPER, KATHERINE (KAY) MARGARET: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	644,048	74.6%
No	219,069	25.4%

863,117 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 424,979 votes (49.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2011

Share of people surveyed who rated Katherine M. Cooper acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	46
Integrity	95%	96%	132
Communication	95%	96%	116
Temperament	95%	95%	133
Administration	97%	97%	132

139 of 622 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Max-Henri Covil Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court COVIL, MAX-HENRI: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	567,582	65.9%
No	293,122	34.1%

860,704 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 274,460 votes (31.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Furthest below typical: Legal ability, 89% against 97%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Max-Henri Covil acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	89%	97%	74
Integrity	92%	96%	120
Communication	91%	96%	111
Temperament	92%	95%	122
Administration	92%	97%	118

128 of 782 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Kristin Culbertson Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court CULBERTSON, KRISTIN R.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	600,867	69.3%
No	266,690	30.7%

867,557 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 334,177 votes (38.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2016

Furthest below typical: Legal ability, 91% against 97%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Kristin Culbertson acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	91%	97%	45
Integrity	94%	96%	100
Communication	95%	96%	98
Temperament	93%	95%	107
Administration	97%	97%	107

114 of 398 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Marvin L. Davis Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court DAVIS, MARVIN L.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	635,256	74.4%
No	218,835	25.6%

854,091 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 416,421 votes (48.8 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Share of people surveyed who rated Marvin L. Davis acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	37
Integrity	99%	96%	77
Communication	96%	96%	71
Temperament	98%	95%	77
Administration	98%	97%	77

77 of 314 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Monica N. B. Edelstein Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court EDELSTEIN, MONICA N.B.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	562,778	64.5%
No	310,289	35.5%

873,067 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 252,489 votes (28.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Share of people surveyed who rated Monica N. B. Edelstein acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	56
Integrity	96%	96%	85
Communication	97%	96%	81
Temperament	94%	95%	89
Administration	96%	97%	88

95 of 413 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Geoffrey Fish Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court FISH, GEOFFREY H: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	621,998	72.8%
No	232,544	27.2%

854,542 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 389,454 votes (45.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2014

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Geoffrey Fish acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	60
Integrity	98%	96%	64
Communication	100%	96%	63
Temperament	97%	95%	67
Administration	99%	97%	66

70 of 335 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Dewain Fox Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court FOX, DEWAIN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	625,997	73.2%
No	229,497	26.8%

855,494 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 396,500 votes (46.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Dewain Fox acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	97%	97%	62
Integrity	99%	96%	68
Communication	98%	96%	64
Temperament	99%	95%	68
Administration	98%	97%	67

73 of 373 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jillian B. Francis Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court FRANCIS, JILLIAN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	627,175	73.1%
No	230,241	26.9%

857,416 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 396,934 votes (46.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2022

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 88% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jillian B. Francis acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	72
Integrity	88%	96%	106
Communication	90%	96%	101
Temperament	89%	95%	111
Administration	94%	97%	110

117 of 783 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Marischa H. Gilla Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court GILLA, MARISCHA: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	611,466	69.0%
No	275,062	31.0%

886,528 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 336,404 votes (37.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Marischa H. Gilla acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	38
Integrity	99%	96%	153
Communication	98%	96%	146
Temperament	98%	95%	153
Administration	99%	97%	153

160 of 568 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jennifer Green Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court GREEN, JENNIFER E.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	638,099	74.5%
No	218,277	25.5%

856,376 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 419,822 votes (49.0 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jennifer Green acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	28
Integrity	99%	96%	102
Communication	99%	96%	96
Temperament	98%	95%	102
Administration	100%	97%	101

103 of 327 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Lauren R. Guyton Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court GUYTON, LAUREN R.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	559,345	63.0%
No	329,049	37.0%

888,394 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 230,296 votes (25.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2024

Furthest below typical: Communication, 84% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Lauren R. Guyton acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	86%	97%	68
Integrity	87%	96%	127
Communication	84%	96%	116
Temperament	86%	95%	133
Administration	91%	97%	129

140 of 824 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Melody Garland Harmon Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court HARMON, MELODY G.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	605,612	68.5%
No	279,001	31.5%

884,613 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 326,611 votes (36.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Melody Garland Harmon acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	46
Integrity	99%	96%	104
Communication	99%	96%	98
Temperament	99%	95%	104
Administration	99%	97%	105

105 of 443 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Michael J. Herrod Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court HERROD, MICHAEL J.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	538,779	61.6%
No	336,058	38.4%

874,837 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 202,721 votes (23.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2011

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Michael J. Herrod acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	97%	97%	95
Integrity	98%	96%	120
Communication	98%	96%	125
Temperament	99%	95%	134
Administration	100%	97%	125

157 of 1,282 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Charlene D. Jackson Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court JACKSON, CHARLENE D: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	494,666	56.8%
No	376,272	43.2%

870,938 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 118,394 votes (13.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2022

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 82% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Charlene D. Jackson acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	93%	97%	86
Integrity	82%	96%	121
Communication	85%	96%	127
Temperament	81%	95%	130
Administration	88%	97%	127

134 of 690 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Melissa I. Julian Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court JULIAN, MELISSA I.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	560,921	64.8%
No	304,094	35.2%

865,015 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 256,827 votes (29.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2019

Share of people surveyed who rated Melissa I. Julian acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	97%	97%	114
Integrity	97%	96%	125
Communication	95%	96%	128
Temperament	96%	95%	134
Administration	99%	97%	124

142 of 1,072 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Amy M. Kalman Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court KALMAN, AMY MICHELLE: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	551,553	61.8%
No	341,364	38.2%

892,917 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 210,189 votes (23.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Temperament, 86% against 95%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Amy M. Kalman acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	99%	97%	77
Integrity	89%	96%	149
Communication	93%	96%	145
Temperament	86%	95%	151
Administration	93%	97%	151

156 of 773 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Joseph S. Kiefer Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court KIEFER, JOSEPH: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	609,969	71.9%
No	238,915	28.1%

848,884 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 371,054 votes (43.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2019

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Joseph S. Kiefer acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	97%	97%	39
Integrity	99%	96%	68
Communication	98%	96%	65
Temperament	99%	95%	69
Administration	97%	97%	68

71 of 459 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Ronee Korbin Steiner Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court KORBIN STEINER, RONEE: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	543,483	63.6%
No	311,197	36.4%

854,680 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 232,286 votes (27.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

Share of people surveyed who rated Ronee Korbin Steiner acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	99%	97%	44
Integrity	94%	96%	86
Communication	98%	96%	82
Temperament	94%	95%	87
Administration	98%	97%	86

91 of 397 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Joseph C. Kreamer Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court KREAMER, JOSEPH C: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	559,299	63.4%
No	322,927	36.6%

882,226 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 236,372 votes (26.8 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2007

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Joseph C. Kreamer acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	99%	97%	103
Integrity	98%	96%	120
Communication	98%	96%	117
Temperament	98%	95%	121
Administration	99%	97%	121

124 of 570 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Kerstin G. LeMaire Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court LEMAIRE, KERSTIN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	610,334	71.8%
No	239,987	28.2%

850,321 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 370,347 votes (43.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Kerstin G. LeMaire acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	79
Integrity	99%	96%	126
Communication	99%	96%	120
Temperament	99%	95%	128
Administration	99%	97%	125

134 of 541 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Daniel G. Martin Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court MARTIN, DANIEL: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	522,199	60.2%
No	345,690	39.8%

867,889 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 176,509 votes (20.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2007

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Daniel G. Martin acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	68
Integrity	99%	96%	79
Communication	100%	96%	78
Temperament	100%	95%	82
Administration	99%	97%	82

83 of 319 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Julie A. Mata Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court MATA, JULIE: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	459,771	50.5%
Yes	450,281	49.5%

910,052 valid selections.

No ahead by 9,490 votes (1.0 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 77% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Julie A. Mata acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	90%	97%	78
Integrity	77%	96%	141
Communication	82%	96%	136
Temperament	78%	95%	146
Administration	87%	97%	143

148 of 690 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: No 62% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Steven W. McCarthy Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court MCCARTHY, STEVEN WARREN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	579,628	66.1%
No	297,143	33.9%

876,771 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 282,485 votes (32.2 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated Steven W. McCarthy acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	99
Integrity	92%	96%	178
Communication	93%	96%	172
Temperament	94%	95%	182
Administration	96%	97%	179

190 of 800 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Frank W. Moskowitz Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court MOSKOWITZ, FRANK WILLIAM: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	583,274	68.4%
No	269,802	31.6%

853,076 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 313,472 votes (36.7 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

Share of people surveyed who rated Frank W. Moskowitz acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	97%	97%	118
Integrity	97%	96%	139
Communication	95%	96%	145
Temperament	95%	95%	150
Administration	96%	97%	140

162 of 1,141 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Superior Court MYERS, SAM J.

Superior Court MYERS, SAM J.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	495,051	56.8%
No	376,738	43.2%

871,789 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 118,313 votes (13.6 points).

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Suzanne M. Nicholls Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court NICHOLLS, SUZANNE M.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	530,764	61.5%
No	332,927	38.5%

863,691 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 197,837 votes (22.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Furthest below typical: Temperament, 67% against 95%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Suzanne M. Nicholls acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	85%	97%	73
Integrity	80%	96%	118
Communication	77%	96%	111
Temperament	67%	95%	123
Administration	74%	97%	122

127 of 786 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Colleen O'Donnell-Smith Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court O'DONNELL-SMITH, COLLEEN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	534,036	60.2%
No	352,617	39.8%

886,653 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 181,419 votes (20.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 84% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Colleen O'Donnell-Smith acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	71
Integrity	84%	96%	121
Communication	87%	96%	117
Temperament	84%	95%	124
Administration	88%	97%	122

125 of 560 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jay M. Polk Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court POLK, JAY M.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	619,409	73.3%
No	225,728	26.7%

845,137 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 393,681 votes (46.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2011

Share of people surveyed who rated Jay M. Polk acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	36
Integrity	95%	96%	80
Communication	97%	96%	78
Temperament	94%	95%	82
Administration	96%	97%	82

85 of 271 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Michael Z. Rassas Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court RASSAS, MICHAEL Z: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	438,230	50.1%
Yes	437,159	49.9%

875,389 valid selections.

No ahead by 1,071 votes (0.1 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Furthest below typical: Temperament, 85% against 95%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Michael Z. Rassas acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	33
Integrity	93%	96%	169
Communication	90%	96%	160
Temperament	85%	95%	172
Administration	93%	97%	170

176 of 756 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: No 51% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Joshua D. Rogers Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court ROGERS, JOSHUA D: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	534,932	62.2%
No	324,535	37.8%

859,467 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 210,397 votes (24.5 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

Share of people surveyed who rated Joshua D. Rogers acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	37
Integrity	96%	96%	77
Communication	95%	96%	75
Temperament	97%	95%	80
Administration	99%	97%	80

84 of 327 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jeffrey Rueter Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court RUETER, JEFFREY: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	612,153	72.7%
No	230,287	27.3%

842,440 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 381,866 votes (45.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jeffrey Rueter acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	87
Integrity	97%	96%	119
Communication	98%	96%	113
Temperament	97%	95%	123
Administration	97%	97%	123

128 of 770 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Jennifer Ryan-Touhill Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court RYAN-TOUHILL, JENNIFER: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	612,975	72.3%
No	235,107	27.7%

848,082 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 377,868 votes (44.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

Furthest below typical: Communication, 84% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jennifer Ryan-Touhill acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	86%	97%	46
Integrity	91%	96%	45
Communication	84%	96%	45
Temperament	92%	95%	50
Administration	91%	97%	46

51 of 237 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Aryeh D. Schwartz Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court SCHWARTZ, ARYEH D.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	593,803	70.5%
No	248,105	29.5%

841,908 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 345,698 votes (41.1 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2020

Share of people surveyed who rated Aryeh D. Schwartz acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	74
Integrity	100%	96%	99
Communication	96%	96%	95
Temperament	99%	95%	105
Administration	98%	97%	105

109 of 511 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Danielle J. Viola Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court VIOLA, DANIELLE J.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	634,099	74.9%
No	212,767	25.1%

846,866 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 421,332 votes (49.8 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2011

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Danielle J. Viola acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	67
Integrity	100%	96%	74
Communication	100%	96%	75
Temperament	99%	95%	77
Administration	100%	97%	72

86 of 755 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Randall H. Warner Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WARNER, RANDALL H.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	532,961	62.2%
No	324,529	37.8%

857,490 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 208,432 votes (24.3 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2007

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Randall H. Warner acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	163
Integrity	98%	96%	201
Communication	98%	96%	208
Temperament	98%	95%	214
Administration	98%	97%	206

221 of 1,410 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Joseph C. Welty Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WELTY, JOSEPH C: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	542,386	63.5%
No	311,658	36.5%

854,044 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 230,728 votes (27.0 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2007

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Joseph C. Welty acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	N/A	97%	–
Integrity	97%	96%	76
Communication	98%	96%	75
Temperament	96%	95%	75
Administration	99%	97%	75
Administrative skills	98%	–	74

77 of 159 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Roy Whitehead Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WHITEHEAD, ROY "CHUCK": reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	586,441	69.8%
No	253,720	30.2%

840,161 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 332,721 votes (39.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2015

Share of people surveyed who rated Roy Whitehead acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	36
Integrity	99%	96%	79
Communication	99%	96%	76
Temperament	99%	95%	80
Administration	97%	97%	79

82 of 334 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paula A. Williams Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WILLIAMS, PAULA: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	550,708	62.7%
No	327,861	37.3%

878,569 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 222,847 votes (25.4 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Temperament, 72% against 95%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Paula A. Williams acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	90%	97%	98
Integrity	83%	96%	139
Communication	84%	96%	136
Temperament	72%	95%	145
Administration	87%	97%	144

152 of 740 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

William R. Wingard Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WINGARD, WILLIAM R.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	553,319	63.5%
No	318,627	36.5%

871,946 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 234,692 votes (26.9 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Share of people surveyed who rated William R. Wingard acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	77
Integrity	92%	96%	167
Communication	93%	96%	167
Temperament	94%	95%	168
Administration	97%	97%	165

178 of 795 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cassie B. Woo Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court WOO, CASSIE BRAY: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	474,566	54.4%
No	398,016	45.6%

872,582 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 76,550 votes (8.8 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2019

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 88% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Cassie B. Woo acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	98
Integrity	88%	96%	154
Communication	93%	96%	158
Temperament	89%	95%	161
Administration	96%	97%	163

167 of 746 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes 98% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Melissa M. Zabor Maricopa County Superior Court

Superior Court ZABOR, MELISSA: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	543,186	61.3%
No	343,035	38.7%

886,221 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 200,151 votes (22.6 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2023

Furthest below typical: Integrity, 84% against 96%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Melissa M. Zabor acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	81
Integrity	84%	96%	148
Communication	90%	96%	144
Temperament	86%	95%	150
Administration	93%	97%	148

155 of 826 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 67 trial-court judges reviewed.

Estimate: Yes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

John R. Lopez IV Arizona Supreme Court

Supreme Court LOPEZ IV, JOHN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	561,313	55.0%
No	458,560	45.0%

1,019,873 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 102,753 votes (10.1 points).

Meets standards in the Commission on Judicial Performance Review · On the bench since 2017

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated John R. Lopez IV acceptable or better
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.

Estimate: Yes 99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

County & local

Clerk of the Superior Court

Clerk of the Superior Court: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sebastian Seb Maximiliano Matta D	699,569	53.3%
Jeff Dial R	612,927	46.7%
Write-in	968	0.1%

1,313,464 valid selections.

Sebastian Seb Maximiliano Matta ahead by 86,642 votes (6.6 points).

Estimate: Sebastian Seb Maximiliano Matta 95% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Constable-AGUA FRIA

Constable-AGUA FRIA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michael A Flores D	17,870	98.1%
Write-in	343	1.9%

18,213 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-ARROWHEAD

Constable-ARROWHEAD: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Darren Troy Emfinger R	54,332	97.0%
Write-in	1,654	3.0%

55,986 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-CANYON TRAILS

Constable-CANYON TRAILS: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jeremiah Schultz R	21,044	94.3%
Write-in	1,276	5.7%

22,320 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-EAST MESA

Constable-EAST MESA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Luke Thompson R	40,318	96.1%
Write-in	1,622	3.9%

41,940 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-EL CENTRO

Constable-EL CENTRO: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Darlene T Martinez D	10,332	97.3%
Write-in	178	1.7%
not Qualified	67	0.6%
Reuben V Macias	42	0.4%

10,619 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Darlene T Martinez >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Constable-ENCANTO

Constable-ENCANTO: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Maria Ligocki-Russell D	22,172	98.4%
Write-in	353	1.6%

22,525 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-HASSAYAMPA

Constable-HASSAYAMPA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Scott Blake R	58,541	97.6%
Write-in	1,458	2.4%

59,999 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-IRONWOOD

Constable-IRONWOOD: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Daniel Birchfield R	3,321	95.7%
Write-in	151	4.3%

3,472 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-KYRENE

Constable-KYRENE: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Bridget Bellavigna D	34,987	97.2%
Write-in	995	2.8%

35,982 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-MANISTEE

Constable-MANISTEE: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
April Flores R	17,249	93.6%
Write-in	1,187	6.4%

18,436 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN

Constable-MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Dan Diaz R	72,187	97.7%
Write-in	1,691	2.3%

73,878 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-NORTH VALLEY

Constable-NORTH VALLEY: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mike Rowe R	37,877	96.6%
Write-in	1,340	3.4%

39,217 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-SAN MARCOS

Constable-SAN MARCOS: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Nathan F Wallace R	45,066	94.2%
Write-in	2,784	5.8%

47,850 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-SOUTH MOUNTAIN

Constable-SOUTH MOUNTAIN: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mahogany Kennedy D	32,199	97.8%
Write-in	734	2.2%

32,933 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-UNIVERSITY LAKES

Constable-UNIVERSITY LAKES: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Karyn Lathan D	23,357	97.6%
Write-in	574	2.4%

23,931 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-WEST MCDOWELL

Constable-WEST MCDOWELL: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Byron L Rhymes Jr D	12,223	97.2%
Write-in	350	2.8%

12,573 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-WEST MESA

Constable-WEST MESA: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Brandon Giles R	4,909	89.8%
Write-in	560	10.2%

5,469 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Constable-WHITE TANK

Constable-WHITE TANK: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Steven Gayle Conner R	34,518	95.9%
Write-in	1,482	4.1%

36,000 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

MC Special Healthcare Dist 3

MC Special Healthcare Dist 3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kelly J. Barr NON	96,285	50.7%
Angel B. Algarin NON	92,426	48.7%
Write-in	1,069	0.6%

189,780 valid selections.

Kelly J. Barr ahead by 3,859 votes (2.0 points).

Estimate: Kelly J. Barr 72% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

MC Special Healthcare Dist 4

MC Special Healthcare Dist 4: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jolynn Herber NON	115,232	53.6%
Woody Thomas NON	98,524	45.8%
Write-in	1,221	0.6%

214,977 valid selections.

Jolynn Herber ahead by 16,708 votes (7.8 points).

Estimate: Jolynn Herber 97% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cities & towns

Carefree-Councilmember

Carefree-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sharon P. Smith NON	1,102	52.2%
Ted Taylor NON	1,005	47.6%
Write-in	3	0.1%

2,110 valid selections.

Sharon P. Smith ahead by 97 votes (4.6 points).

Estimate: Sharon P. Smith 89% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

El Mirage-Councilmember

El Mirage-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Cindy Gentry-Oliveres NON	2,957	61.2%
Todd Balash NON	1,845	38.2%
Write-in	31	0.6%

4,833 valid selections.

Cindy Gentry-Oliveres ahead by 1,112 votes (23.0 points).

Estimate: Cindy Gentry-Oliveres >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa Dist 5-Councilmember

Mesa Dist 5-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Alicia Goforth NON	16,145	59.3%
Aleks Vranicic NON	10,951	40.2%
Write-in	135	0.5%

27,231 valid selections.

Alicia Goforth ahead by 5,194 votes (19.1 points).

Estimate: Alicia Goforth >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria - Mayor

Peoria - Mayor: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michael Finn NON	32,832	56.3%
Art Miller NON	25,329	43.4%
Write-in	206	0.4%

58,367 valid selections.

Michael Finn ahead by 7,503 votes (12.9 points).

Estimate: Michael Finn >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria Councilmember-Acacia Dist

Peoria Councilmember-Acacia Dist: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jennifer Crawford NON	4,558	84.2%
Write-in	464	8.6%
Emily Saeteurn	311	5.7%
not Qualified	83	1.5%

5,416 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Jennifer Crawford >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria Councilmember-Palo Verde Dist.

Peoria Councilmember-Palo Verde Dist.: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Tad Snidecor NON	5,378	98.6%
Write-in	79	1.4%

5,457 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Peoria Councilmember-Pine Dist.

Peoria Councilmember-Pine Dist.: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Eva Osuna NON	3,399	62.3%
Joysaphine Waitman-Powell NON	2,007	36.8%
Write-in	54	1.0%

5,460 valid selections.

Eva Osuna ahead by 1,392 votes (25.5 points).

Estimate: Eva Osuna >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix Dist 2-Councilmember

Phoenix Dist 2-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Matt Evans NON	17,512	34.1%
Julie Read NON	16,761	32.6%
Danny Mazza NON	16,445	32.0%
Write-in	686	1.3%

51,404 valid selections.

Matt Evans ahead by 751 votes (1.5 points).

Estimate: Matt Evans 66% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix Dist 4-Councilmember

Phoenix Dist 4-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Ed Hermes NON	13,319	40.2%
Ashley Harder NON	4,173	12.6%
Patricia Jimenez NON	3,681	11.1%
Cassandra Hernandez NON	3,522	10.6%
Megan Schmitz NON	2,589	7.8%
Michael Mazzocco NON	2,075	6.3%
Zachary Lauer NON	1,879	5.7%
Robb Olivieri NON	1,756	5.3%
Write-in	124	0.4%

33,118 valid selections.

Ed Hermes ahead by 9,146 votes (27.6 points).

Estimate: Ed Hermes >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix Dist 6-Councilmember

Phoenix Dist 6-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kevin Robinson NON	39,429	64.3%
Michael Del Prete NON	21,676	35.3%
Write-in	239	0.4%

61,344 valid selections.

Kevin Robinson ahead by 17,753 votes (28.9 points).

Estimate: Kevin Robinson >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix Dist 8-Councilmember

Phoenix Dist 8-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kesha Hodge Washington NON	24,974	72.1%
Frank Abasciano Jr NON	6,248	18.0%
Jr., Jarrett Barton Maupin NON	3,254	9.4%
Write-in	181	0.5%

34,657 valid selections.

Kesha Hodge Washington ahead by 18,726 votes (54.0 points).

Estimate: Kesha Hodge Washington >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Scottsdale-Councilmember vote for 2

Scottsdale-Councilmember: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Michelle Ugenti-Rita NON	48,816	33.7%
Barry Graham NON	48,777	33.7%
Raoul Zubia NON	46,569	32.2%
Write-in	552	0.4%

144,714 valid selections.

2,208 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Barry Graham 67% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Schools

Agua Fria UHSD #216-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Agua Fria UHSD #216-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Vickie Landis NON	30,295	49.8%
Eric Cultum NON	28,514	46.9%
Write-in	1,110	1.8%
not Qualified 1	412	0.7%
Ethan L Canny	359	0.6%
not Qualified 2	130	0.2%

60,820 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Vickie Landis and Eric Cultum >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Alhambra ESD #68-GBM-2yr

Alhambra ESD #68-GBM-2yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	1,024	56.5%
Jonathan Allan Cordoba Ramsey	366	20.2%
not Qualified	336	18.6%
Jason J Miranda	85	4.7%
No Candidate	0	0.0%

1,811 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Jonathan Allan Cordoba Ramsey >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Buckeye UHSD #201-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Buckeye UHSD #201-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	3,795	55.4%
Richard Hopkins	1,056	15.4%
not Qualified 1	753	11.0%
Heather E. Barron	624	9.1%
Nathan Gage Madden	411	6.0%
not Qualified 2	217	3.2%
No Candidate	0	0.0%

6,856 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Richard Hopkins and *not Qualified 1* 87% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cartwright ESD #83-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Cartwright ESD #83-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Pedro Caudillo Paredes NON	6,250	30.6%
Marissa Elodia Hernandez NON	5,833	28.5%
Lydia Hernández NON	4,578	22.4%
Teresa Tapia NON	3,683	18.0%
Write-in	96	0.5%

20,440 valid selections.

1,255 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Pedro Caudillo Paredes and Marissa Elodia Hernandez 94% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Cave Creek USD #93-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Cave Creek USD #93-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Scott Brown NON	19,973	39.9%
Marla Riney NON	18,742	37.4%
Sucheta R. Shah NON	11,198	22.4%
Write-in	142	0.3%

50,055 valid selections.

7,544 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Scott Brown and Marla Riney >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Deer Valley USD #97-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Deer Valley USD #97-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kristi Cooper NON	38,654	29.3%
Paul Carver NON	37,419	28.4%
Julie Stockwell NON	35,979	27.3%
David M. Alvarado NON	19,435	14.7%
Write-in	388	0.3%

131,875 valid selections.

1,440 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Kristi Cooper and Paul Carver 62% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Dysart USD #89-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Dysart USD #89-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lisa S. Everett NON	27,963	35.9%
William Coniam NON	24,855	31.9%
Dawn Densmore NON	24,558	31.5%
Write-in	516	0.7%

77,892 valid selections.

297 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Lisa S. Everett and William Coniam 54% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

EVIT - Dist 3

EVIT - Dist 3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	7,595	53.9%
Jill Osborne	3,778	26.8%
not Qualified	2,369	16.8%
Robert T. Covington	336	2.4%
No Candidate	0	0.0%

14,078 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Jill Osborne >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

EVIT - Dist 7

EVIT - Dist 7: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Bonnie P. Hickman NON	41,137	95.4%
Write-in	1,101	2.6%
not Qualified	745	1.7%
Jessica Archambault	116	0.3%

43,099 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Bonnie P. Hickman >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Fowler ESD #45-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Fowler ESD #45-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Lisa M. Perez NON	2,302	40.0%
Francisca Montoya NON	2,272	39.5%
Sylvia Herrada Miller NON	1,113	19.3%
Write-in	65	1.1%

5,752 valid selections.

1,159 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Lisa M. Perez and Francisca Montoya >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Glendale UHSD #205-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Glendale UHSD #205-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Patty Kennedy NON	43,568	49.9%
Natalie Evans Veidmark NON	41,504	47.6%
Write-in	1,224	1.4%
not Qualified 1	446	0.5%
Brad Doyle	352	0.4%
not Qualified 2	147	0.2%

87,241 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Patty Kennedy and Natalie Evans Veidmark >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Higley USD #60-GBM-2yr

Higley USD #60-GBM-2yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	3,065	55.2%
Travis White	1,239	22.3%
not Qualified	600	10.8%
Kurt. M. Brooks	408	7.4%
Kathleen Richards	237	4.3%
No Candidate	0	0.0%

5,549 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Travis White >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Higley USD #60-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Higley USD #60-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Amanda Wade NON	12,854	34.2%
Michelle M Morris NON	12,073	32.1%
Anna Van Hoek NON	11,256	30.0%
Write-in	1,372	3.7%

37,555 valid selections.

817 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Amanda Wade and Michelle M Morris 74% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Isaac ESD #5-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Isaac ESD #5-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Patricia Jimenez NON	2,511	42.3%
Savannah Galaviz NON	1,913	32.2%
Harry Valenzuela Garewal NON	1,479	24.9%
Write-in	38	0.6%

5,941 valid selections.

434 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Patricia Jimenez and Savannah Galaviz 97% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Kyrene ESD #28-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Kyrene ESD #28-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kevin Walsh NON	27,739	33.2%
Catherine Peters NON	27,341	32.7%
Donald "franklin" Zyriek NON	17,189	20.6%
Mathew R Sparkes NON	10,901	13.0%
Write-in	468	0.6%

83,638 valid selections.

10,152 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Kevin Walsh and Catherine Peters >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Liberty ESD #25-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Liberty ESD #25-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Ashley Wright NON	7,648	40.6%
Maeghan Kinnan NON	6,779	36.0%
Paul Bixler NON	4,219	22.4%
Write-in	190	1.0%

18,836 valid selections.

2,560 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Ashley Wright and Maeghan Kinnan >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Littleton ESD #65-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Littleton ESD #65-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Valeria Guadalupe Rodriguez NON	5,381	34.9%
Markus Ceniceros NON	4,068	26.4%
Amy E. Soucinek NON	3,145	20.4%
Gwendalyn "gwen" Johnston NON	2,697	17.5%
Write-in	111	0.7%

15,402 valid selections.

923 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Valeria Guadalupe Rodriguez and Markus Ceniceros 94% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

MCCCD - AT LARGE

MCCCD - AT LARGE: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Judy Schwiebert NON	588,642	59.2%
John David Crow NON	401,611	40.4%
Write-in	4,531	0.5%

994,784 valid selections.

Judy Schwiebert ahead by 187,031 votes (18.8 points).

Estimate: Judy Schwiebert >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

MCCCD - Dist 3

MCCCD - Dist 3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
William "bill" Sandweg NON	104,124	53.0%
Susan Hightower Winder NON	91,362	46.5%
Write-in	914	0.5%

196,400 valid selections.

William "bill" Sandweg ahead by 12,762 votes (6.5 points).

Estimate: William "bill" Sandweg 95% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

MCCCD - Dist 4

MCCCD - Dist 4: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Donna J Davis NON	98,318	44.1%
Ryan Caracciolo NON	67,587	30.3%
Jack Hastings NON	56,279	25.2%
Write-in	946	0.4%

223,130 valid selections.

Donna J Davis ahead by 30,731 votes (13.8 points).

Estimate: Donna J Davis >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Mesa USD #4-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Mesa USD #4-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Rachel Walden NON	56,842	30.6%
Jen Echols NON	54,046	29.1%
Josh Chilton NON	47,790	25.7%
Jason Smithson NON	26,507	14.3%
Write-in	804	0.4%

185,989 valid selections.

6,256 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Rachel Walden and Jen Echols 83% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Osborn ESD #8-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Osborn ESD #8-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Violeta M Ramos NON	6,813	38.4%
Erica K Switalla NON	5,072	28.6%
Ben Blink NON	3,024	17.0%
Janet Viloria NON	2,722	15.3%
Write-in	113	0.6%

17,744 valid selections.

2,048 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Violeta M Ramos and Erica K Switalla >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Paradise Valley USD #69-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Paradise Valley USD #69-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Richard "rick" Ross NON	47,518	39.1%
Kea Carota NON	39,607	32.6%
Catherine Cat Barrett NON	33,704	27.7%
Write-in	667	0.5%

121,496 valid selections.

5,903 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Richard "rick" Ross and Kea Carota 90% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Peoria USD #11-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Peoria USD #11-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Melissa Anne Ewing NON	37,687	34.1%
Heather Rooks NON	37,356	33.8%
Desiree' Byrne NON	34,811	31.5%
Write-in	728	0.7%

110,582 valid selections.

2,545 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Melissa Anne Ewing and Heather Rooks 74% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix ESD #1-GBM-2yr vote for 2

Phoenix ESD #1-GBM-2yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Caitlin Millat NON	8,178	52.7%
Damian Sandoval Barrera NON	3,789	24.4%
Suanne E. Edmiston NON	3,430	22.1%
Write-in	125	0.8%

15,522 valid selections.

359 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Caitlin Millat and Damian Sandoval Barrera 75% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix ESD #1-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Phoenix ESD #1-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Carmen R Trujillo NON	6,814	38.5%
Adrianne A. Speas NON	5,374	30.4%
Allison Gullick NON	5,364	30.3%
Write-in	126	0.7%

17,678 valid selections.

10 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Carmen R Trujillo and Adrianne A. Speas 51% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 2-GBM

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 2-GBM: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Signa Renee Oliver NON	17,466	75.0%
Joseph "joe" Charles Dailey NON	5,630	24.2%
Write-in	180	0.8%

23,276 valid selections.

Signa Renee Oliver ahead by 11,836 votes (50.9 points).

Estimate: Signa Renee Oliver >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 3-GBM

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 3-GBM: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Debbie Cross NON	21,086	63.0%
Rosalva Lagunas-Kuauhtli NON	12,109	36.2%
Write-in	261	0.8%

33,456 valid selections.

Debbie Cross ahead by 8,977 votes (26.8 points).

Estimate: Debbie Cross >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 4-GBM

Phoenix UHSD #210 Ward 4-GBM: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Laura A. Pastor NON	13,717	75.3%
Salina M. Peña NON	4,372	24.0%
Write-in	129	0.7%

18,218 valid selections.

Laura A. Pastor ahead by 9,345 votes (51.3 points).

Estimate: Laura A. Pastor >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Queen Creek ESD #95-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Queen Creek ESD #95-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Samantha Davis NON	12,237	28.5%
Kelli D Anderson NON	10,448	24.3%
Michael Romero NON	10,190	23.7%
Sarah Purcell NON	9,984	23.2%
Write-in	126	0.3%

42,985 valid selections.

258 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Samantha Davis and Kelli D Anderson 57% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Roosevelt ESD #66-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Roosevelt ESD #66-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Ashley Hodge NON	18,474	72.0%
Write-in	4,041	15.7%
Patricia Valenzuela	2,235	8.7%
Janelle Wood	463	1.8%
not Qualified 1	380	1.5%
not Qualified 2	70	0.3%

25,663 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Ashley Hodge and Patricia Valenzuela 98% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Saddle Mountain USD #90-GBM-2yr

Saddle Mountain USD #90-GBM-2yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Daniel E. Blackson NON	1,696	57.3%
Keith Kronback NON	1,228	41.5%
Write-in	38	1.3%

2,962 valid selections.

Daniel E. Blackson ahead by 468 votes (15.8 points).

Estimate: Daniel E. Blackson >99% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Saddle Mountain USD #90-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Saddle Mountain USD #90-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Amy Marie Amaral NON	1,796	37.2%
Emilie Myth NON	1,514	31.4%
Nicole Connot NON	1,452	30.1%
Write-in	63	1.3%

4,825 valid selections.

62 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Amy Marie Amaral and Emilie Myth 65% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Scottsdale USD #48-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Scottsdale USD #48-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jennifer M Johnson NON	43,315	37.4%
Amy L. Carney NON	37,745	32.6%
Jeanne Beasley NON	34,402	29.7%
Write-in	495	0.4%

115,957 valid selections.

3,343 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Jennifer M Johnson and Amy L. Carney 79% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tempe ESD #3-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Tempe ESD #3-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Charlotte Winsor NON	17,027	41.7%
Michael Edwardo Abramson III NON	14,310	35.0%
Eric Miller NON	9,141	22.4%
Write-in	398	1.0%

40,876 valid selections.

5,169 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Charlotte Winsor and Michael Edwardo Abramson III >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tolleson ESD #17-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Tolleson ESD #17-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Eva Diaz NON	1,594	47.5%
Samuel A. Quezada Jr NON	1,035	30.8%
Tida Garcia NON	712	21.2%
Write-in	15	0.4%

3,356 valid selections.

323 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Eva Diaz and Samuel A. Quezada Jr 99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Tolleson UHSD #214-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Tolleson UHSD #214-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Elda Luna-Nájera NON	15,935	31.9%
Fernando Urbina NON	12,422	24.9%
Devin J Del Palacio NON	11,363	22.7%
Diann Chavira Amaro NON	9,800	19.6%
Write-in	450	0.9%

49,970 valid selections.

1,059 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

Estimate: Elda Luna-Nájera and Fernando Urbina 73% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Union ESD #62-GBM-4yr vote for 2

Union ESD #62-GBM-4yr: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Tabitha Miriam Velasquez NON	1,873	52.9%
Reanna Marie Kiefer NON	1,579	44.6%
Write-in	48	1.4%
not Qualified 1	24	0.7%
Nubia Briceno	12	0.3%
not Qualified 2	6	0.2%

3,542 valid selections.

Reported candidate selections; no local race call or seat outcome is inferred.

Estimate: Tabitha Miriam Velasquez and Reanna Marie Kiefer >99% chance for the last seat. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

Sources & scope

Reported contest data: Maricopa County official results file.
Maricopa County election office for local ballot information, official returns and address-specific resources.
Population: U.S. Census Bureau, July 1, 2025 estimates. Counts are for residents, not registered voters or ballots.
Election rules and reporting limits: our methodology. Judicial background: Arizona judicial performance review.

We do not infer local winners, certification, turnout, remaining ballots or citywide or districtwide results from precinct percentages, population, county totals or the number of seats. Your own ballot depends on your registered address.