Rebecca Gau has considered herself a Republican all her life. Raised outside Washington, D.C., during the Reagan era, she embraced the party’s traditional positions of lowering taxes, supporting small businesses and expanding school choice. She worked on George H.W. Bush’s 1992 presidential campaign and later served in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration.
She also holds a longstanding belief that the government shouldn’t be involved in a person’s medical decisions. So in November 2024, she defied recommendations from many in her party and voted yes on a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Arizonans the right to abortion.
Election data suggests she wasn’t an outlier, in her conservative East Valley district or Arizona at large. An AZCIR analysis found that a majority of voters in every district supported Proposition 139, the “Arizona for Abortion Access Act,” a measure Gau sees as consistent with her conservative principles.
“It’s the philosophy that the government should stay the hell out of people’s business on most elements of their lives,” Gau said.
Statewide, the measure passed with nearly 62% support. Yet within months, a bloc of Republican lawmakers responded not by adjusting course, but by advancing six measures aimed at restricting abortion access. GOP leaders also blocked Democratic efforts to repeal older state laws that amendment supporters say are now unconstitutional, and later intervened in court to defend those laws after the attorney general declined.
Some of these and other lawmakers have already prefiled new, highly restrictive abortion bills for the 2026 legislative session, including one that would require a doctor to get “informed consent” from a fetus before performing a medical procedure. Another would classify abortion as first-degree murder.
What’s unfolding in Arizona is part of a broader nationwide pattern in which legislatures and political networks use procedural maneuvers and legal challenges to limit or reinterpret voter-approved measures. The same playbook has been deployed in recent years around tax initiatives, voting-rights changes and marijuana legalization.
In Arizona, years of escalating battles over the initiative process, court authority and partisan primaries have created a system in which voters can pass a constitutional amendment, only to see lawmakers search for ways around it.
For voters like Gau, a senior Arizona leader with education advocacy group Stand for Children, the disconnect is jarring. Both of her representatives co-sponsored at least one bill aimed at restricting the right she and more than half her district had voted to protect.
“It goes without saying that those are the kind of tricks that make people cynical about elected officials,” Gau said.
When lawmakers returned to the Capitol after voters approved Prop. 139, a handful of Republican representatives introduced six bills and resolutions that sought to curb abortion access or narrow how the new constitutional right could be applied, according to an AZCIR review of legislation proposed in the 2025 session.
Reps. Rachel Keshel, Lupe Diaz, Walter Blackman and Alexander Kolodin sponsored the measures, while an amendment from Rep. Neal Carter altered one proposal to explicitly target the Arizona for Abortion Access Act.
Three of the six pieces of legislation came from Keshel, R-Tucson, whose southeastern Arizona district backed Prop. 139 by a slightly wider margin than the state as a whole.
One bill would have imposed new limits on medication abortion. Another would have required the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state’s Medicaid program, to prominently link on its website to adoption and pregnancy-assistance organizations that do not provide or refer patients for abortion care, such as crisis pregnancy centers. A resolution proposed referring to voters a new ballot measure that would have effectively reversed the Arizona for Abortion Access Act.
Keshel was the sole sponsor of the resolution, which she told Capitol Media Services she put forward because she believed voters were “misled on Prop. 139.”
Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson
Legislative District 17
Sponsored Bills, Resolution:
Neither of Keshel’s bills made it into law. But the measure targeting medication abortion garnered 17 co-sponsors—the most of the six pieces of legislation analyzed—and her AHCCCS bill advanced to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk before being vetoed.
“It is an issue that we’ve proven, in (Keshel’s) own district, transcends party lines,” said Athena Salman, a former state representative turned Arizona director of Reproductive Freedom for All. The nonprofit helped launch the Arizona for Abortion Access Campaign that got Prop. 139 on the ballot. “(Yet) she doubles down and introduces a bill that would send the question back to voters in a way that undermines and guts Prop 139.”
Diaz, for his part, introduced a bill that would have prevented facilities that accept public funding from performing or referring patients for abortions. The Benson Republican also co-sponsored Keshel’s AHCCCS and medication abortion bills.
Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson
Legislative District 19
Sponsored Bill:
In a recent interview, Diaz called the level of support for Prop. 139 in his district—about 55%— “surprisingly high.” He said his legislative efforts reflected both concerns that voters did not fully understand the measure and his moral opposition to abortion.
“I do believe that it’s the murder of innocent lives,” Diaz said, adding that he planned to reintroduce the public funding bill this legislative session.
In 2025, Blackman, R-Snowflake, sponsored legislation that would have established a state-funded grant program for crisis pregnancy centers. And Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, introduced another House resolution that would have raised the threshold for future constitutional amendments to 60% voter approval.
Rep. Walter Blackman, R-Snowflake
Legislative District 6
Sponsored Bill:
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale
Legislative District 3
Sponsored Resolution:
Rep. Neal Carter, R-San Tan Valley
Legislative District 8
Amended Resolution:
On its own, Kolodin’s proposal would not have directly affected access to abortion. But Carter, R-San Tan Valley, tacked on an amendment creating a carve-out for changes specifically related to the Arizona for Abortion Access Act, singling out the amendment for different treatment.
“(It’s) not the first time legislators have tried to undermine the will of the people,” Gau said.
Diaz was the only lawmaker to respond to AZCIR’s interview requests.
Arizona is one of 24 states that allow voters to directly propose laws, constitutional amendments or both through ballot initiatives. Here, the process involves forming a political committee, circulating petitions and gathering signatures throughout the state. The secretary of state then determines if the measure qualifies for the ballot.
Citizen initiatives emerged during the Progressive Era as a way to give voters greater control over public policy. But their effectiveness ultimately depends on whether lawmakers respect the outcomes, according to Anne Whitesell, an associate professor of political science at Ohio’s Miami University.
“Within the American context, there’s always been some mistrust of the people,” said Whitesell, who studies representation and public policy.
Arizonans sought to insulate initiatives from legislative interference in 1998 by passing the Voter Protection Act, which bars governors from vetoing voter-approved measures and sharply limits lawmakers’ ability to repeal or amend them.
“The Voter Protection Act is very clear, and the courts have been very protective of the citizens’ right to make a law,” said Jim Barton, a Tempe attorney who frequently represents statewide ballot-measure campaigns. Generally speaking, he said, “legislative shenanigans” seeking to dismantle voter-enacted policies have not been successful in Arizona.
That hasn’t stopped lawmakers and aligned groups from trying, or from finding cases where courts have been willing to step in.
In 2020, Arizonans passed Proposition 208, the Invest in Education Initiative, raising taxes on high earners to fund public schools—an initiative supported by Gau’s organization. It was later overturned after the libertarian Goldwater Institute sued on behalf of several Republican lawmakers and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative PAC.
Support AZCIR
Help AZCIR do more to keep you informed.
Prefer to send a check? Mail it to AZCIR: PO Box 3665, Phoenix, AZ 85030
In 2022, the Club joined the Center for Arizona Policy in a legal challenge to Proposition 211, the Voters’ Right to Know Act. Passed that year with 72% of the vote, the initiative aimed to eliminate undisclosed “dark money” in Arizona elections. An appeal is now under consideration by the Arizona Supreme Court after lower courts upheld the law.
In recent years, lawmakers have had more success intervening earlier in the process by making it harder for initiatives to reach the ticket in the first place, imposing stricter technical standards on initiative petitions than on candidate petitions. Judges have tossed entire batches of signatures over minor errors, from notary mistakes and formatting issues to discrepancies in how voters fill out address lines.
Even the paper matters: Signatures supporting initiatives must be collected on 8.5-by-14-inch sheets, while candidate petitions can be circulated on standard, letter-sized paper.
Because the Legislature has determined that anyone can contest the validity of an initiative or referendum, campaigns almost always face a court challenge while the secretary of state reviews their petition. Prop. 139 was no exception, though Barton described the attempt to block it as “anemic.”
When state legislators do seek to directly undo a voter-backed initiative, Whitesell said, the most common justification is that voters didn’t fully understand what they were voting for—an argument she deemed paternalistic.
“When it comes to voting for candidates, we don’t ask people, ‘Do you understand the position of the candidate you’re voting for?’” she said. “The right to vote is a right.”
“When it comes to voting for candidates, we don’t ask people, ‘Do you understand the position of the candidate you’re voting for?’ The right to vote is a right.”
Anne Whitesell, associate political science professor at Ohio’s Miami University
Keshel’s claim that voters had been “misled” about Prop. 139 fits neatly into that historical trend, reflecting an argument that decision-making authority should rest with elected officials rather than voters themselves, Whitesell said.
Like Keshel, Diaz insisted the measure went “far beyond what most of the constituents and Arizona really understood.” He said his bill was intended to protect women’s health and welfare, since voters didn’t grasp the implications of Prop. 139 “quite like we do in the Legislature as lawmakers.”
Across the nation, similar clashes have played out under both Democratic and Republican leadership in response to initiatives involving taxes, marijuana legalization and abortion access. In some cases, Whitesell said, lawmakers are motivated by political self-preservation.
“Sometimes, it’s because a ballot initiative limits the power of the legislators, and so they’re acting out of self-interest,“ Whitesell said. “Or … it could be special interests that are fueling this.”
Though Keshel—who sponsored half the measures AZCIR focused on—attended the anti-abortion Live Action Conference in 2024 and introduced an Arizona Right to Life lobbyist in the House gallery that same year, she hasn’t received direct campaign contributions from explicitly anti-abortion groups.
Instead, much of her support comes from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the powerful PAC involved in recent efforts to challenge or overturn multiple voter-backed measures. More than half of Keshel’s PAC contributions in both 2022 and 2024 came from the group, an AZCIR review of campaign finance data shows, and it spent almost $25,000 more in independent expenditures to boost her 2024 campaign.
The Club is part of the Arizona Liberty Network, a conservative coalition that includes the lobbying arms of the Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA and the Center for Arizona Policy. The Club’s president, Scot Mussi, has chaired the network’s board and served on the board of Arizona Freedom Foundation, a member organization.
While the Arizona Free Enterprise Club did not publicly support bills restricting abortion during the 2025 session, Barton contended the organization’s “raison d’être is to oppose voters.” In addition to the group’s history of legal challenges targeting voter initiatives, the Club has pushed for legislation affecting voter registration, ballot measure language and the way legislative districts are drawn. Mussi in 2024 also joined a lawsuit seeking to purge up to 1 million-plus voters from Arizona’s rolls.
The Club declined to comment, despite repeated outreach attempts by AZCIR.
About 40% of the PAC’s individual donations in 2024 came from Randy Kendrick, a Goldwater Institute board member and wife of Ken Kendrick, principal owner and managing general partner of the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Kendricks also contributed nearly $11,000 to Keshel that year.
Taken together, the Club, the Kendricks and other aligned donors made up roughly 18% of Keshel’s 2024 campaign funding, AZCIR found. Stand for Children, which Gau helps lead, spent about $700 to oppose Keshel’s campaign in 2024.
The Club contributed $5,000 to Carter, nearly a quarter of his PAC contributions that year. Other lawmakers backing the six measures also received contributions from the Club. Diaz and Blackman’s largest PAC contributors were real-estate groups.
Several Republican lawmakers who signed on as co-sponsors to the six measures received donations or independent support from the same constellation of groups backing Keshel. Some represented districts where Prop. 139 passed by comfortable margins yet still backed efforts to restrict it.
Political analyst Chuck Coughlin said that pattern illustrates the power of partisan primaries, where a small share of voters effectively decides who holds office—and sets the policy agenda.
Sign up. Get engaged.
Get AZCIR’s latest investigations and updates delivered straight into your inbox.
With little risk of facing a competitive general election, he explained, lawmakers in “safe” Republican or Democratic districts often prioritize the preferences of a narrow primary electorate over the district’s overall majority. Diaz, Kolodin, Blackman and Carter, as well as most co-sponsors, represent districts that he described as safely Republican.
“There is no risk to them to be supportive of something that the majority of the Republicans in their district who vote in general elections would be intimidated by,” said Coughlin, whose firm was part of a campaign to eliminate partisan primaries. “In fact, it’s just the opposite.”
As Republican lawmakers moved measures to limit or complicate Prop. 139’s implementation, they also blocked efforts to repeal established abortion laws that advocates say the amendment renders unconstitutional.
Those statutes remain in effect unless and until courts strike them down.
“Each of these harmful restrictions is going to have to be challenged … to get the rights that people voted for when they approved Proposition 139,” said Dr. William Richardson, an OB-GYN and medical director of Choices Women’s Center in Tucson, which provides medication and procedural abortions up to 11 weeks. “The only way to do that is through the court system at this point, since the Legislature is not going to do that for us.”
Backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Richardson and Dr. Paul Isaacson, an OB-GYN and co-owner of Family Planning Associates in Phoenix, filed suit against the state in May seeking to block enforcement of three provisions they consider major barriers to abortion care. Isaacson v. Arizona targets a mandated 24-hour waiting period, which requires two trips to a doctor’s office, as well as a ban on providing abortion medication through telehealth and a prohibition on performing abortions sought based on fetal genetic abnormalities.
The physicians argue the requirements impose significant burdens on patients, especially those who must travel long distances from places like Yuma or the Navajo Nation to get care. “They just amount to extra hoops that people need to jump through,” said Isaacson, translating into missed work, travel and lodging costs, and extra child care needs.
After Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the laws, Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, and House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, intervened. Public records obtained by AZCIR show the House and Senate had been charged roughly $475,000 for legal work on the case as of late November, with taxpayer funds expected to cover those bills. Their legal team includes Andrew Gould, who previously represented parties challenging voter registrations and the Voters’ Right to Know Act.
During a November evidentiary hearing, Petersen and Montenegro’s lawyers defended the laws as protective measures that do not hinder abortion access. Plaintiffs countered that the restrictions are medically unnecessary and serve only to obstruct what is now constitutionally protected care.
Telehealth, for instance, could substantially reduce logistical burdens for medication-abortion patients, Richardson noted, yet Arizona remains an outlier compared to other states. Although the Legislature has embraced telemedicine for everything from diabetes management to stroke care, it prohibits its use for abortion.
“I think there’s just no rational defense of that other than that it is politically motivated,” Richardson said.
State-mandated informed-consent scripts pose similar issues, dictating what doctors must tell abortion patients. “For some reason, the state of Arizona has singled out abortion,” Judge Greg Como remarked during the hearing. A witness for the intervenors agreed.
The stalled repeals and ongoing litigation mean that, despite voters’ approval of Prop. 139, many of the statutory hurdles it was meant to override persist, leaving providers and patients to continue navigating barriers voters intended to eliminate.
Conversations that should occur privately between patients and physicians are now “under the microscope,” Richardson said, with both parties unsure of what they can legally say or do.
“I think that the government has created an atmosphere of fear,” he said—one that forces patients “to go through a process in which the government’s interest, clearly, is that they come to a different decision than the one that they came to my office to see me for.”
Analysis for this story drew on legislative data from State Affairs.
