The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 1
The Constitutional Question Behind the Rodeo Money
The story the interview doesn’t spend much time telling.
Editor’s Note
In a recent Ride With Us podcast, Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss joined host Greg Mengarelli to discuss the effort to secure funding for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds. Their conversation provides valuable firsthand insight into how the original appropriation came together and why they believed the project was important.
The interview also touches on the constitutional lawsuit that followed, though only briefly. This three-part series compares statements made during that interview with the public record, court filings, legislative actions, and Arizona’s Constitution. The purpose is not to diminish anyone’s work on behalf of the Prescott Rodeo. Rather, it is to place the complete story into context so readers can better understand what happened, why the lawsuit was filed, and how the funding was ultimately restructured.
The Story Begins
There is a remarkable moment in the recent Ride With Us podcast featuring Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss.
For nearly twenty-four minutes, the discussion celebrates the success of securing $15.3 million for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds. They describe how the funding came together, joke with the host, reminisce about meetings from 2023, and dismiss much of the controversy that followed.
Listening casually, a viewer could easily conclude the entire constitutional lawsuit amounted to little more than political drama.
The documented record tells a more complicated story.
“How the $15.3 Million Came Together”
“We put it together and we came up with $15.3 million… that $15.3 million actually came out of the bucket that belongs to Selina Bliss and myself.”
That portion of the interview is largely consistent with the legislative history. The original appropriation did originate through the work of Representatives Bliss and Nguyen together with then-Senator Ken Bennett. But obtaining an appropriation is only the beginning of the story.
The question that ultimately reached the courts was not whether the Prescott Rodeo deserved support. It was whether the method chosen to provide that support complied with the Arizona Constitution.
The Constitutional Question
The question that ultimately reached the courts was not whether the Prescott Rodeo deserved public support.
It was not whether improving the rodeo grounds would benefit Prescott.
It was not whether the World’s Oldest Rodeo is an important Arizona institution.
Instead, the legal question was much more narrow:
Did the method chosen to provide that public funding comply with the Arizona Constitution?
That distinction is easy to overlook.
Yet it is the distinction that shaped everything that followed.
The Court Didn’t Stop the Rodeo
It Stopped One Particular Way of Funding It.
One point frequently lost in public discussion is that the court did not rule the rodeo project itself was unconstitutional. The World’s Oldest Rodeo remains one of Arizona’s most recognizable traditions. No one questioned its cultural significance or its economic importance to Prescott and Yavapai County.
Instead, the court examined one specific appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause and concluded that the direct transfer of $15.3 million to a private nonprofit organization did not satisfy Arizona’s constitutional requirements.
That distinction matters.
Supporting the rodeo and complying with the Constitution are not competing ideas. The issue before the court was whether the chosen legal structure satisfied constitutional safeguards governing taxpayer dollars.
Who Deserves the Credit?
As the interview continues, Greg Mengarelli reflects on wanting to recognize Representatives Bliss and Nguyen publicly for their work on the appropriation.
Representative Nguyen responds:
“As a matter of fact, we never claimed credit in the first place.”
“We Never Claimed Credit”
No one should erase the work Representatives Bliss and Nguyen performed in obtaining the original appropriation. That effort appears well documented. But securing funding and ensuring that funding survives constitutional scrutiny are two different accomplishments. Both deserve their place in the historical record.
One recognizes the effort to secure funding. The other recognizes the legal process that determined whether the funding mechanism complied with Arizona law. Understanding both is essential to understanding the complete story.
The Question Nobody Asked
Throughout much of the interview, the discussion naturally returns to one question:
Who deserves the credit?
What if there is a more important question?
What if nobody had fixed it?
Suppose the original appropriation had remained exactly as written.
Construction begins. Contracts are signed. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent. Then the courts declare the appropriation unconstitutional.
Suddenly the questions change.
- Who pays the contractors?
- Are contracts still enforceable?
- Can taxpayers recover improperly spent money?
- Does the nonprofit become involved in years of litigation?
- Does the City inherit responsibility?
- Does the entire project stop?
Those are not political questions. They are constitutional questions.
Arizona’s constitutional safeguards exist precisely because public officials cannot rely solely on good intentions. Worthy projects still must be carried out through lawful means.
When those safeguards work, they often prevent problems that never become visible to the public.
“What If Nobody Had Fixed It?”
The accompanying illustration is not intended to suggest those events actually occurred. Instead, it illustrates what reasonably could have happened had the appropriation remained unchanged after the court found it unconstitutional. That is often the nature of constitutional protections. When they function properly, they prevent crises that don’t make headlines.
Coming in Part 2
Representative Nguyen raises what many listeners may consider his strongest argument:
“If you’re talking about a Gift Clause violation… how did we get money to US VETS?… How do we get it to the observatory?… So does that mean the observatory is also a Gift Clause violation?”
At first hearing, that sounds like a compelling question.
But is it actually the question the Arizona court was deciding?
In Part 2, we’ll examine:
- why comparing the rodeo appropriation to other nonprofits may be comparing unlike situations,
- how Arizona’s Gift Clause is applied,
- why the legal issue was narrower than it appeared,
- and what the court actually decided.
Next in the series: Facts or Fudging? Special Report – Part 2: The Gift Clause, the Observatory, and the Sleight of Hand.
The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 1
The Constitutional Question Behind the Rodeo Money
The story the interview doesn’t spend much time telling.
Editor’s Note
In a recent Ride With Us podcast, Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss joined host Greg Mengarelli to discuss the effort to secure funding for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds. Their conversation provides valuable firsthand insight into how the original appropriation came together and why they believed the project was important.
The interview also touches on the constitutional lawsuit that followed, though only briefly. This three-part series compares statements made during that interview with the public record, court filings, legislative actions, and Arizona’s Constitution. The purpose is not to diminish anyone’s work on behalf of the Prescott Rodeo. Rather, it is to place the complete story into context so readers can better understand what happened, why the lawsuit was filed, and how the funding was ultimately restructured.
The Story Begins
There is a remarkable moment in the recent Ride With Us podcast featuring Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss.
For nearly twenty-four minutes, the discussion celebrates the success of securing $15.3 million for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds. They describe how the funding came together, joke with the host, reminisce about meetings from 2023, and dismiss much of the controversy that followed.
Listening casually, a viewer could easily conclude the entire constitutional lawsuit amounted to little more than political drama.
The documented record tells a more complicated story.
“How the $15.3 Million Came Together”
“We put it together and we came up with $15.3 million… that $15.3 million actually came out of the bucket that belongs to Selina Bliss and myself.”
That portion of the interview is largely consistent with the legislative history. The original appropriation did originate through the work of Representatives Bliss and Nguyen together with then-Senator Ken Bennett. But obtaining an appropriation is only the beginning of the story.
The question that ultimately reached the courts was not whether the Prescott Rodeo deserved support. It was whether the method chosen to provide that support complied with the Arizona Constitution.
The Constitutional Question
The question that ultimately reached the courts was not whether the Prescott Rodeo deserved public support.
It was not whether improving the rodeo grounds would benefit Prescott.
It was not whether the World’s Oldest Rodeo is an important Arizona institution.
Instead, the legal question was much more narrow:
Did the method chosen to provide that public funding comply with the Arizona Constitution?
That distinction is easy to overlook.
Yet it is the distinction that shaped everything that followed.
The Court Didn’t Stop the Rodeo
It Stopped One Particular Way of Funding It.
One point frequently lost in public discussion is that the court did not rule the rodeo project itself was unconstitutional. The World’s Oldest Rodeo remains one of Arizona’s most recognizable traditions. No one questioned its cultural significance or its economic importance to Prescott and Yavapai County.
Instead, the court examined one specific appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause and concluded that the direct transfer of $15.3 million to a private nonprofit organization did not satisfy Arizona’s constitutional requirements.
That distinction matters.
Supporting the rodeo and complying with the Constitution are not competing ideas. The issue before the court was whether the chosen legal structure satisfied constitutional safeguards governing taxpayer dollars.
Who Deserves the Credit?
As the interview continues, Greg Mengarelli reflects on wanting to recognize Representatives Bliss and Nguyen publicly for their work on the appropriation.
Representative Nguyen responds:
“As a matter of fact, we never claimed credit in the first place.”
“We Never Claimed Credit”
No one should erase the work Representatives Bliss and Nguyen performed in obtaining the original appropriation. That effort appears well documented. But securing funding and ensuring that funding survives constitutional scrutiny are two different accomplishments. Both deserve their place in the historical record.
One recognizes the effort to secure funding. The other recognizes the legal process that determined whether the funding mechanism complied with Arizona law. Understanding both is essential to understanding the complete story.
The Question Nobody Asked
Throughout much of the interview, the discussion naturally returns to one question:
Who deserves the credit?
What if there is a more important question?
What if nobody had fixed it?
Suppose the original appropriation had remained exactly as written.
Construction begins. Contracts are signed. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent. Then the courts declare the appropriation unconstitutional.
Suddenly the questions change.
- Who pays the contractors?
- Are contracts still enforceable?
- Can taxpayers recover improperly spent money?
- Does the nonprofit become involved in years of litigation?
- Does the City inherit responsibility?
- Does the entire project stop?
Those are not political questions. They are constitutional questions.
Arizona’s constitutional safeguards exist precisely because public officials cannot rely solely on good intentions. Worthy projects still must be carried out through lawful means.
When those safeguards work, they often prevent problems that never become visible to the public.
“What If Nobody Had Fixed It?”
The accompanying illustration is not intended to suggest those events actually occurred. Instead, it illustrates what reasonably could have happened had the appropriation remained unchanged after the court found it unconstitutional. That is often the nature of constitutional protections. When they function properly, they prevent crises that don’t make headlines.
Coming in Part 2
Representative Nguyen raises what many listeners may consider his strongest argument:
“If you’re talking about a Gift Clause violation… how did we get money to US VETS?… How do we get it to the observatory?… So does that mean the observatory is also a Gift Clause violation?”
At first hearing, that sounds like a compelling question.
But is it actually the question the Arizona court was deciding?
In Part 2, we’ll examine:
- why comparing the rodeo appropriation to other nonprofits may be comparing unlike situations,
- how Arizona’s Gift Clause is applied,
- why the legal issue was narrower than it appeared,
- and what the court actually decided.
Next in the series: Facts or Fudging? Special Report – Part 2: The Gift Clause, the Observatory, and the Sleight of Hand.
Defend Life. Defend Freedom. Yavapai County First.
