Arizona · 2026 election coverage

Pima County

2026 election results and ballot analysis across 76 contests in the county's official results file. Explore local offices, propositions and the communities within Pima County.

79% 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.

Source checked Nov 5, 5:29 PM. This file does not provide a reliable vote-update timestamp.

Covered contests: 76
Propositions with yes/no returns: 18
Incorporated cities & towns: 5

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.

Reading the county count

The governor's race

340,558 valid candidate selections are reported for governor in this county observation. Katie Hobbs / John Giles ahead by 106,160 votes (31.2 points).

This is a county portion of a statewide contest. A county lead is not a statewide election outcome.

Where the count is close

Corporation Commissioner: 73,095 votes between the current last seat position and the next candidate.

The smallest verifiable seat-boundary gap among covered candidate contests with a known seat count. A gap is withheld if unassigned write-ins could change its ranking. District races show this county's portion.

Among the 18 covered propositions with yes/no choices, Yes is ahead in 11 and No in 7. Ties and unreported counts remain unresolved. These are observed leads, not declarations that a measure passed or failed.

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	217,214	64.4%
Warren Petersen R	119,886	35.5%
Write-in	278	0.1%

337,378 valid selections.

Kris Mayes ahead by 97,328 votes (28.8 points).

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

Corporation Commissioner vote for 2

Corporation Commissioner: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Clara Pratte D	199,378	32.2%
Jonathon Hill D	189,322	30.6%
Kevin Thompson R	116,227	18.8%
Ralph Heap R	105,132	17.0%
Mike Cease G	8,919	1.4%
Write-in	443	0.1%

619,421 valid selections.

73,095 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 and Lieutenant Governor

Governor and Lieutenant Governor: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Katie Hobbs / John Giles	220,033	64.6%
Andy Biggs / Sine Kerr R	113,873	33.4%
Risa Lombardo / Lisa Castillo G	3,507	1.0%
Teri Ann Hourihan / Angela Harrolle Mohan	2,949	0.9%
Write-in	196	0.1%

340,558 valid selections.

Katie Hobbs / John Giles ahead by 106,160 votes (31.2 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	212,817	63.2%
Alexander Kolodin R	118,551	35.2%
Duwayne Collier G	5,186	1.5%
Write-in	183	0.1%

336,737 valid selections.

Adrian Fontes ahead by 94,266 votes (28.0 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	205,577	61.7%
Walter "les" Presmyk R	127,443	38.2%
Write-in	396	0.1%

333,416 valid selections.

Brian Matlock ahead by 78,134 votes (23.4 points).

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

State Representative Dist. 16

State Representative Dist. 16: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Julia Romero Gusse D	7,974	43.3%
Chris Lopez R	5,242	28.4%
Teresa Martinez R	5,137	27.9%
Write-in	75	0.4%

18,428 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 17

State Representative Dist. 17: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kevin Volk D	51,712	27.6%
Hollace "holly" Lyon D	51,212	27.4%
John Winchester R	43,067	23.0%
Rachel "jones" Keshel R	41,134	22.0%
Write-in	117	0.1%

187,242 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 18

State Representative Dist. 18: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Nancy Gutierrez D	56,190	40.4%
Chris Mathis D	52,750	37.9%
Bob Dohse R	29,820	21.4%
Write-in	424	0.3%

139,184 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 19

State Representative Dist. 19: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jackie O'donnell Anderson D	15,779	26.2%
David Gowan R	15,338	25.5%
Aiden Nicholette Swallow D	15,075	25.0%
Lupe Diaz R	14,026	23.3%
Write-in	40	0.1%

60,258 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 20

State Representative Dist. 20: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sally Ann Gonzales D	34,433	49.4%
Betty Villegas D	33,814	48.5%
Write-in	1,405	2.0%

69,652 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 21

State Representative Dist. 21: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Miranda Lopez D	24,042	39.9%
Consuelo Hernandez D	22,833	37.9%
Christopher Kibbey R	13,051	21.7%
Write-in	309	0.5%

60,235 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Representative Dist. 23

State Representative Dist. 23: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Mariana Sandoval D	5,986	35.7%
Emilia Cortez D	5,949	35.5%
Michele Peña R	2,450	14.6%
Gary Garcia Snyder R	2,358	14.1%
Write-in	14	0.1%

16,757 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Sandoval >99%, Cortez >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	7,886	58.0%
Thomas "t.j." Shope R	5,698	41.9%
Write-in	13	0.1%

13,597 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Senator Dist. 17

State Senator Dist. 17: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Edgar Soto D	55,295	55.2%
Christopher King R	44,847	44.7%
Write-in	109	0.1%

100,251 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Senator Dist. 18

State Senator Dist. 18: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Priya Sundareshan D	59,199	66.2%
Douglas Everett R	30,127	33.7%
Write-in	100	0.1%

89,426 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Senator Dist. 19

State Senator Dist. 19: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Bob Karp D	16,608	50.5%
Gail Griffin R	16,282	49.5%
Write-in	27	0.1%

32,917 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Senator Dist. 20

State Senator Dist. 20: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Alma Hernandez D	38,588	95.6%
Write-in	1,785	4.4%

40,373 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

State Senator Dist. 21

State Senator Dist. 21: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Rosanna Gabaldón D	27,156	67.8%
Esteban Flores R	12,841	32.0%
Write-in	75	0.2%

40,072 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Gabaldón >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	6,722	71.0%
Michelle Altherr R	2,728	28.8%
Write-in	11	0.1%

9,461 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Statewide forecast: Fernandez >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	210,982	62.9%
Elijah Norton R	124,210	37.0%
Write-in	301	0.1%

335,493 valid selections.

Nick Mansour ahead by 86,772 votes (25.9 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	208,648	62.2%
Kimberly Yee R	126,608	37.7%
Write-in	434	0.1%

335,690 valid selections.

Teresa Leyba Ruiz ahead by 82,040 votes (24.4 points).

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

U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 6

U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 6: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Joanna Mendoza D	133,874	57.3%
Juan Ciscomani R	94,890	40.6%
Jereme Lance Peters L	2,634	1.1%
Gary Swing G	1,937	0.8%
Write-in	231	0.1%

233,566 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 7

U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 7: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Adelita Grijalva D	76,459	72.0%
Daniel Francis Butierez Sr. R	29,504	27.8%
Write-in	203	0.2%

106,166 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

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

Propositions

PROPOSITION 141

PROPOSITION 141: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	173,316	53.4%
Yes	151,262	46.6%

324,578 valid selections.

No ahead by 22,054 votes (6.8 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	216,162	66.0%
Yes	111,300	34.0%

327,462 valid selections.

No ahead by 104,862 votes (32.0 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	202,307	61.3%
Yes	127,811	38.7%

330,118 valid selections.

No ahead by 74,496 votes (22.6 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	183,450	56.2%
No	143,207	43.8%

326,657 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 40,243 votes (12.3 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
No	165,372	50.8%
Yes	159,910	49.2%

325,282 valid selections.

No ahead by 5,462 votes (1.7 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	167,105	51.1%
No	160,105	48.9%

327,210 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 7,000 votes (2.1 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	181,875	55.9%
No	143,572	44.1%

325,447 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 38,303 votes (11.8 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	186,921	58.2%
Yes	133,979	41.8%

320,900 valid selections.

No ahead by 52,942 votes (16.5 points).

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

PROPOSITION 421 City of Tucson

PROPOSITION 421 City of Tucson: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
No	71,487	55.1%
Yes	58,143	44.9%

129,630 valid selections.

No ahead by 13,344 votes (10.3 points).

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

PROPOSITION 422 City of Tucson

PROPOSITION 422 City of Tucson: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	95,362	72.2%
No	36,784	27.8%

132,146 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 58,578 votes (44.3 points).

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

PROPOSITION 423 Vail Unified School District No. 20

PROPOSITION 423 Vail Unified School District No. 20: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Cont., Yes	17,050	63.9%
Budget Override Cont., No	9,639	36.1%

26,689 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 7,411 votes (27.8 points).

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

PROPOSITION 424 Northwest Fire District

PROPOSITION 424 Northwest Fire District: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
For The Bonds	32,872	71.1%
Against The Bonds	13,384	28.9%

46,256 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

PROPOSITION 425

PROPOSITION 425: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	158,874	50.4%
No	156,633	49.6%

315,507 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 2,241 votes (0.7 points).

Estimate: Yes 57% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

PROPOSITION 426 Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10

PROPOSITION 426 Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, Yes	35,936	74.5%
Sale, Lease Or Exchange Of Real Property, No	12,285	25.5%

48,221 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 23,651 votes (49.0 points).

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

PROPOSITION 427 Joint Technical Education Districts

PROPOSITION 427 Joint Technical Education Districts: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	152,198	51.4%
Bond Approval, No	143,641	48.6%

295,839 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 8,557 votes (2.9 points).

Estimate: Yes 75% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

PROPOSITION 428 Sahuarita Unified School District No. 30

PROPOSITION 428 Sahuarita Unified School District No. 30: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Increase, No	4,738	51.0%
Budget Increase, Yes	4,557	49.0%

9,295 valid selections.

No ahead by 181 votes (1.9 points).

Estimate: No 68% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

PROPOSITION 429 Tanque Verde Unified School District No. 13

PROPOSITION 429 Tanque Verde Unified School District No. 13: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Budget Override Cont., Yes	3,366	56.3%
Budget Override Cont., No	2,613	43.7%

5,979 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 753 votes (12.6 points).

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

PROPOSITION 430

PROPOSITION 430: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Bond Approval, Yes	161,695	51.3%
Bond Approval, No	153,551	48.7%

315,246 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 8,144 votes (2.6 points).

Estimate: Yes 73% chance. It only asks whether the votes left could close the gap.

PROPOSITION 431 Town of Oro Valley

PROPOSITION 431 Town of Oro Valley: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	17,928	79.4%
No	4,641	20.6%

22,569 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 13,287 votes (58.9 points).

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

Judges

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 1

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 1: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Victoria Steele D	41,480	97.4%
Write-in	1,127	2.6%

42,607 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 3

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Sara Mae Williams D	1,440	70.5%
Rodney W. Hopkins I	589	28.8%
Write-in	13	0.6%

2,042 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 6

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 6: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Morgan Miholich D	26,787	97.0%
Write-in	818	3.0%

27,605 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 7

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 7: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Raymond Carroll R	32,963	95.7%
Write-in	1,484	4.3%

34,447 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 8

Justice of the Peace Justice Prec. 8: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Kristel Ann Foster D	29,790	63.9%
William Parven R	16,774	36.0%
Write-in	68	0.1%

46,632 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Michael F. Kelly Court of Appeals, Division II

Retain Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II: KELLY, MICHAEL: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	177,315	66.3%
No	90,222	33.7%

267,537 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 87,093 votes (32.6 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Michael F. Kelly acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	11
Integrity	100%	100%	11
Communication	85%	100%	10
Temperament	94%	100%	10
Administration	100%	100%	11

15 of 114 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.

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

Jeffrey L. Sklar Court of Appeals, Division II

Retain Judge of the Court of Appeals Division II: SKLAR, JEFFREY: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	176,438	65.9%
No	91,479	34.1%

267,917 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 84,959 votes (31.7 points).

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

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Jeffrey L. Sklar acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	100%	97%	21
Integrity	100%	100%	18
Communication	100%	100%	14
Temperament	100%	100%	14
Administration	100%	100%	17

28 of 160 voluntary surveys returned, February–September 2025, the later of two survey periods. Typical, the gold mark, is the median of the 15 appeals and Supreme Court judges reviewed.

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

Retain Judge of the Court of Appeals Divisions II: BREARRCLIFFE, SEAN

Retain Judge of the Court of Appeals Divisions II: BREARRCLIFFE, SEAN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	154,413	56.1%
No	120,590	43.9%

275,003 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 33,823 votes (12.3 points).

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

Sandra M. Bensley Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: BENSLEY, SANDRA M.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	188,081	70.8%
No	77,596	29.2%

265,677 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 110,485 votes (41.6 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Sandra M. Bensley acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	66
Integrity	95%	96%	85
Communication	96%	96%	81
Temperament	94%	95%	85
Administration	95%	97%	81

98 of 607 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 T. Bergin Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: BERGIN, JEFFREY T.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	178,251	67.2%
No	86,854	32.8%

265,105 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 91,397 votes (34.5 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 Jeffrey T. Bergin acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	129
Integrity	99%	96%	150
Communication	99%	96%	161
Temperament	99%	95%	161
Administration	99%	97%	155

184 of 1,181 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.

Janet C. Bostwick Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: BOSTWICK, JANET CALKINS: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	186,873	70.8%
No	77,194	29.2%

264,067 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 109,679 votes (41.5 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Janet C. Bostwick acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	95%	97%	36
Integrity	97%	96%	75
Communication	99%	96%	67
Temperament	99%	95%	74
Administration	99%	97%	74

76 of 463 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.

Randi L. Burnett Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: BURNETT, RANDI: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	184,688	69.6%
No	80,584	30.4%

265,272 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 104,104 votes (39.2 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Randi L. Burnett acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	41
Integrity	92%	96%	50
Communication	97%	96%	50
Temperament	93%	95%	52
Administration	97%	97%	51

53 of 343 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.

J. Alan Goodwin Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior CoUrt: GOODWIN, J. ALAN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	173,690	64.7%
No	94,644	35.3%

268,334 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 79,046 votes (29.5 points).

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

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated J. Alan Goodwin acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	99%	97%	67
Integrity	99%	96%	125
Communication	99%	96%	110
Temperament	100%	95%	125
Administration	100%	97%	120

131 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.

Cynthia Kuhn Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: KUHN, CYNTHIA T.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	179,299	67.8%
No	85,101	32.2%

264,400 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 94,198 votes (35.6 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Cynthia Kuhn acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	96%	97%	113
Integrity	92%	96%	132
Communication	94%	96%	130
Temperament	92%	95%	137
Administration	97%	97%	130

156 of 1,094 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.

Danelle Liwski Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: LIWSKI, DANELLE BENNETT: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	180,570	68.5%
No	82,851	31.5%

263,421 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 97,719 votes (37.1 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Danelle Liwski acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	88%	97%	17
Integrity	95%	96%	21
Communication	91%	96%	18
Temperament	93%	95%	21
Administration	98%	97%	18

21 of 176 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.

Kathleen A. Quigley Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: QUIGLEY, KATHLEEN A.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	193,571	73.3%
No	70,574	26.7%

264,145 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 122,997 votes (46.6 points).

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

At or above the typical judge in every category.

Share of people surveyed who rated Kathleen A. Quigley acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	98%	97%	45
Integrity	99%	96%	69
Communication	97%	96%	70
Temperament	98%	95%	72
Administration	98%	97%	69

73 of 415 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.

Laurie B. San Angelo Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: SAN ANGELO, LAURIE B.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	177,098	67.2%
No	86,505	32.8%

263,603 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 90,593 votes (34.4 points).

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

Share of people surveyed who rated Laurie B. San Angelo acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	94%	97%	35
Integrity	92%	96%	60
Communication	96%	96%	56
Temperament	93%	95%	60
Administration	96%	97%	59

61 of 483 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.

Catherine M. Woods Pima County Superior Court

Retain Judge of the Superior Court: WOODS, CATHERINE M.: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	147,882	55.2%
No	119,795	44.8%

267,677 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 28,087 votes (10.5 points).

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

Furthest below typical: Legal ability, 82% against 97%.

Share of people surveyed who rated Catherine M. Woods acceptable or better
Rated acceptable or better	Score	Typical	Responses
Legal ability	82%	97%	73
Integrity	83%	96%	106
Communication	87%	96%	101
Temperament	85%	95%	107
Administration	89%	97%	105

116 of 629 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.

John R. Lopez IV Arizona Supreme Court

Retain Justice of the Supreme Court: LOPEZ IV, JOHN: reported votes and shares
Choice	Votes	Share
Yes	161,075	57.9%
No	116,988	42.1%

278,063 valid selections.

Yes ahead by 44,087 votes (15.9 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

Board Member Drexel Heights Fire District

Board Member Drexel Heights Fire District: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Write-in	2,880	100.0%

2,880 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Board Member Hidden Valley Fire District

Board Member Hidden Valley Fire District: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Richard Flores	469	60.0%
Trevor Mulligan	312	39.9%
Write-in	1	0.1%

782 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Board Member Mescal-J6 Fire District

Board Member Mescal-J6 Fire District: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Bruce Andrews	134	19.6%
Mike Nervik	133	19.4%
Dana Law	118	17.3%
Deborah Wise	116	17.0%
Wade Temple II	94	13.7%
Stephanie Libercci	89	13.0%
Write-in	0	0.0%

684 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Board Member Northwest Fire District

Board Member Northwest Fire District: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Roger Wright	22,427	38.2%
Paul Hestand	20,261	34.5%
David Talas	15,627	26.6%
Write-in	377	0.6%

58,692 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Board of Supervisors Dist. 5

Board of Supervisors Dist. 5: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Andrés Cano D	38,391	79.5%
Jeff Rhodes R	9,853	20.4%
Write-in	31	0.1%

48,275 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Clerk of the Superior Court

Clerk of the Superior Court: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
James W. Giacomino D	241,501	96.5%
Write-in	8,755	3.5%

250,256 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Constable Justice Prec. 2

Constable Justice Prec. 2: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Francisco Lopez D	22,063	95.8%
Write-in	963	4.2%

23,026 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Constable Justice Prec. 3

Constable Justice Prec. 3: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Letitia Martin D	1,518	72.1%
Eric Krznarich R	583	27.7%
Write-in	5	0.2%

2,106 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Constable Justice Prec. 9

Constable Justice Prec. 9: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Gerard Acuña D	17,190	98.1%
Write-in	339	1.9%

17,529 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Cities & towns

Council Member City of South Tucson

Council Member City of South Tucson: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Cesar Aguirre	295	27.3%
Eduardo Baca	285	26.3%
Debbie Federico	277	25.6%
Brian Flagg	219	20.2%
Write-in	6	0.6%

1,082 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Schools

Governing Board Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10

Governing Board Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Elizabeth Slater	24,763	23.5%
Nina Godlewski	23,087	21.9%
John Fife	19,855	18.9%
Michael Gemma	19,155	18.2%
Kimberly Outlaw Ryan	17,676	16.8%
Write-in	509	0.5%
Write-in	279	0.3%

105,324 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Governing Board Joint Technical Education District 2

Governing Board Joint Technical Education District 2: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Beth Lehr	15,743	50.0%
Cindy Rankin Elliott	15,338	48.7%
Write-in	387	1.2%

31,468 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Governing Board Sahuarita Unified School District No. 30

Governing Board Sahuarita Unified School District No. 30: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
John Sparks	5,752	48.5%
Raul Rodriguez	5,721	48.2%
Write-in	385	3.2%

11,858 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Governing Board Tanque Verde Unified School District No. 13

Governing Board Tanque Verde Unified School District No. 13: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Beth Peterson	3,545	39.2%
Thomas Trask	2,758	30.5%
Piper Jordan	2,591	28.7%
Write-in	139	1.5%

9,033 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Governing Board Tucson Unified School District No. 1

Governing Board Tucson Unified School District No. 1: reported votes and shares
Candidate	Votes	Share
Jennifer Eckstrom	61,356	30.2%
Pilar Acosta Ruiz	38,330	18.8%
Val Romero	36,864	18.1%
Tre'davon Rhodes	35,149	17.3%
Skye Fernandez	30,478	15.0%
Write-in	1,232	0.6%

203,409 valid selections.

The results file does not state the seat count. No seat outcome is inferred.

Cities & towns

Largest first, using dated population estimates. Population describes the whole municipality and is not used to allocate votes. A place spanning counties has one canonical page linked from each containing county.

Tucson548,371 · 2025 estimate
Marana65,523 · 2025 estimate · also spans Pima / Pinal
Oro Valley48,085 · 2025 estimate
Sahuarita37,694 · 2025 estimate
South Tucson4,452 · 2025 estimate

Presidential voting history

Final county returns from 2000–2024. Different offices and electorates make this context for 2026, not a like-for-like estimate of the current election's final result.

Year	Democratic votes	Republican votes	All votes	Margin
2000	147,688	124,579	287,640	D +8.0
2004	193,128	171,109	366,907	D +6.0
2008	206,254	182,406	393,428	D +6.1
2012	201,251	174,779	382,250	D +6.9
2016	224,661	167,428	421,640	D +13.6
2020	304,991	207,767	520,416	D +18.7
2024	292,484	214,772	513,412	D +15.1

Margin is Democratic minus Republican share of all valid votes. Historical returns are final; current returns remain unofficial. MIT Election Data and Science Lab (CC0 (MEDSL)); Polling Forecast; original VEST (CC BY 4.0 (VEST / Polling Forecast)); Polling Forecast; original MEDSL (CC0 (MEDSL); CC BY 4.0 (Polling Forecast redistribution)).

Sources & scope

Reported contest data: Pima County official results file.
Pima 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.