The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 3
The “Technicality,” the Timeline, and the Bigger Lesson
What the final chapter reveals about constitutional safeguards, public accountability, and why the full story matters.
Editor’s Note
In Part 1, we examined how the original $15.3 million appropriation came together and why the constitutional challenge was not about the Prescott Rodeo itself, but about the legal structure of its appropriation.
In Part 2, we explored why comparing the rodeo funding to other nonprofit appropriations does not answer the constitutional question Arizona courts were asked to decide.
This final installment examines the closing portion of the interview, comparing key statements with the court’s ruling, and considering the broader lesson for taxpayers and public officials alike.
“We Took the Judge’s Language”
Why Tone Matters
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the interview is the conversational tone.
Throughout the discussion, constitutional litigation involving $15.3 million of taxpayer money is treated lightly.
The lawsuit that was filed by a concerned citizen is referred to as a “tantrum.”
The constitutional ruling that identified legal deficits is referred to as a “technicality.”
The legal questions become punchlines.
Perhaps that is simply conversational style.
Please do note that constitutional safeguards are rarely appreciated when they succeed, in the same way no one celebrates a bridge that has never collapsed.
No one thanks the smoke detector that has never had to sound.
No one applauds a lawsuit that prevented years of legal uncertainty.
Yet those safeguards are often the very reason disaster has not occurred.
The Bigger Lesson
The Prescott Rodeo deserved investment.
Deserving investment is not the issue.
The issue has been whether or not public officials followed constitutional rules while making those investments.
Public officials routinely pursue worthwhile projects. Arizona’s Constitution is in place because good intentions need guardrails. The Constitution determines how those projects may be accomplished within legal guardrails.
Sometimes the difference between a celebrated success and a constitutional crisis is not the destination but rather the path taken to get there. This may be the most important lesson we can learn here.
The “Technicality” That Rewrote the Appropriation
Late in the interview, Representative Nguyen offers his clearest characterization of the court’s ruling:
“It’s a technicality. I’m not a lawyer, neither am I a judge.”
Moments earlier, he had also stated that the case:
“...has nothing to do with the Gift Clause.”
Let’s compared those statements with the court’s ruling itself.
In May 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled that the $15.3 million appropriation violated both prongs of Arizona’s Gift Clause. The court concluded that the appropriation lacked a stated public purpose or limitation on the use of the funds and that the value received by the public did not satisfy constitutional requirements.
A ruling cannot “have nothing to do with the Gift Clause” and simultaneously be that the Gift Clause is the constitutional basis upon which the case was decided.
The Account That Refutes Itself
Moments later in the interview, Representative Nguyen describes how the funding ultimately moved forward.
He recalls speaking with former House counsel before explaining:
“We basically took the judge language and incorporate it into budget blurb. And that’s how we got it.”
Read those two statements together.
If the ruling were merely a “technicality,” there would have been nothing that required repair.
Yet by Representative Nguyen’s own description, lawmakers returned to the judge’s language, incorporated it into the revised appropriation, and only then did the funding move forward.
That is not what ordinarily happens with an inconsequential procedural error.
That is what happens when lawmakers revise legislation to address constitutional deficiencies identified by a court.
Representative Nguyen then adds:
“It has nothing to do with somebody coming along with the rope and save the rodeo.”
Whether someone “saved the rodeo” depends on how that phrase is defined.
The documented sequence is straightforward.
- Representatives Bliss and Nguyen helped secure the original appropriation.
- Taxpayers challenged that appropriation in court.
- The court ruled the appropriation unconstitutional.
- As a result the funding was frozen.
- The Legislature later adopted a revised funding structure intended to address the constitutional concerns identified by the court and the funds were saved because they were approved for improving the rodeo grounds through the City of Prescott.
Those facts are not mutually exclusive.
The complete historical record includes both the original legislative effort and the subsequent constitutional restructuring.
The Observatory Question, Revisited
The interview repeatedly returns to the Lowell Observatory and other nonprofit appropriations.
If those appropriations were separately challenged, each would be evaluated on its own facts.
Each appropriation stands—or falls—on its own constitutional record.
Two Details the Record Preserves
Two details from the public record are worth remembering.
First, the nonprofit’s president acknowledged during the litigation that there were no written contracts or enforceable promises of public benefit attached to the original $15.3 million appropriation—an issue directly relevant to the Gift Clause analysis.
Second, one of the two citizens who brought the lawsuit was retired Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Ralph Hess.
A constitutional challenge joined by a former Superior Court judge, and ultimately decided by another Superior Court judge under both prongs of Arizona’s Gift Clause, is difficult to dismiss as a “tantrum.”
Series Summary
Over the course of this three-part investigation, we examined three distinct parts of the story.
Part 1 looked at how the original appropriation came together and why the constitutional challenge was directed at the funding mechanism—not at the Prescott Rodeo itself.
Part 2 examined the Gift Clause, the comparison to other nonprofit appropriations, and why Arizona courts may evaluate each appropriation independently rather than by analogy.
Part 3 compared key statements from the podcast with the court’s ruling and the Legislature’s subsequent actions, including Representative Nguyen’s acknowledgment that lawmakers ultimately incorporated the judge’s language into the revised appropriation and then the funding was able to move forward.
The purpose of this series has not been to diminish the work of those who sought funding for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds.
The public record supports the conclusion that Representatives Quang Nguyen, Selina Bliss, and then-Senator Ken Bennett played significant roles in obtaining the original appropriation.
The public record also shows that the original appropriation did not survive constitutional review and that the Legislature later adopted a different legal structure to free up the funding after the court identified constitutional deficiencies.
That is why constitutional safeguards matter.
History is best served when it includes both accomplishments and corrections.
And that is why understanding the entire sequence of events matters, not only for this appropriation, but for every future expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Sources & Documentation
The following public sources informed this series:
- Arizona Constitution, Article IX, Section 7 (Gift Clause)
- Mechanic, et al. v. State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2023-009364
- Arizona Legislature budget bills and appropriations (2023–2026)
- City of Prescott Rodeo Grounds Improvement announcements
- Goldwater Institute reporting on the Prescott Rodeo appropriation
- 12News coverage of the court’s ruling
- KAWC / Capitol Media Services reporting
- KNAU Arizona Public Radio reporting
- Ride With Us podcast featuring Greg Mengarelli, Representative Quang Nguyen, and Representative Selina Bliss https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
- Ride With Us podcast transcript
- Full “Ride With Us” podcast link here: https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 3
The “Technicality,” the Timeline, and the Bigger Lesson
What the final chapter reveals about constitutional safeguards, public accountability, and why the full story matters.
Editor’s Note
In Part 1, we examined how the original $15.3 million appropriation came together and why the constitutional challenge was not about the Prescott Rodeo itself, but about the legal structure of its appropriation.
In Part 2, we explored why comparing the rodeo funding to other nonprofit appropriations does not answer the constitutional question Arizona courts were asked to decide.
This final installment examines the closing portion of the interview, comparing key statements with the court’s ruling, and considering the broader lesson for taxpayers and public officials alike.
“We Took the Judge’s Language”
Why Tone Matters
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the interview is the conversational tone.
Throughout the discussion, constitutional litigation involving $15.3 million of taxpayer money is treated lightly.
The lawsuit that was filed by a concerned citizen is referred to as a “tantrum.”
The constitutional ruling that identified legal deficits is referred to as a “technicality.”
The legal questions become punchlines.
Perhaps that is simply conversational style.
Please do note that constitutional safeguards are rarely appreciated when they succeed, in the same way no one celebrates a bridge that has never collapsed.
No one thanks the smoke detector that has never had to sound.
No one applauds a lawsuit that prevented years of legal uncertainty.
Yet those safeguards are often the very reason disaster has not occurred.
The Bigger Lesson
The Prescott Rodeo deserved investment.
Deserving investment is not the issue.
The issue has been whether or not public officials followed constitutional rules while making those investments.
Public officials routinely pursue worthwhile projects. Arizona’s Constitution is in place because good intentions need guardrails. The Constitution determines how those projects may be accomplished within legal guardrails.
Sometimes the difference between a celebrated success and a constitutional crisis is not the destination but rather the path taken to get there. This may be the most important lesson we can learn here.
The “Technicality” That Rewrote the Appropriation
Late in the interview, Representative Nguyen offers his clearest characterization of the court’s ruling:
“It’s a technicality. I’m not a lawyer, neither am I a judge.”
Moments earlier, he had also stated that the case:
“...has nothing to do with the Gift Clause.”
Let’s compared those statements with the court’s ruling itself.
In May 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled that the $15.3 million appropriation violated both prongs of Arizona’s Gift Clause. The court concluded that the appropriation lacked a stated public purpose or limitation on the use of the funds and that the value received by the public did not satisfy constitutional requirements.
A ruling cannot “have nothing to do with the Gift Clause” and simultaneously be that the Gift Clause is the constitutional basis upon which the case was decided.
The Account That Refutes Itself
Moments later in the interview, Representative Nguyen describes how the funding ultimately moved forward.
He recalls speaking with former House counsel before explaining:
“We basically took the judge language and incorporate it into budget blurb. And that’s how we got it.”
Read those two statements together.
If the ruling were merely a “technicality,” there would have been nothing that required repair.
Yet by Representative Nguyen’s own description, lawmakers returned to the judge’s language, incorporated it into the revised appropriation, and only then did the funding move forward.
That is not what ordinarily happens with an inconsequential procedural error.
That is what happens when lawmakers revise legislation to address constitutional deficiencies identified by a court.
Representative Nguyen then adds:
“It has nothing to do with somebody coming along with the rope and save the rodeo.”
Whether someone “saved the rodeo” depends on how that phrase is defined.
The documented sequence is straightforward.
- Representatives Bliss and Nguyen helped secure the original appropriation.
- Taxpayers challenged that appropriation in court.
- The court ruled the appropriation unconstitutional.
- As a result the funding was frozen.
- The Legislature later adopted a revised funding structure intended to address the constitutional concerns identified by the court and the funds were saved because they were approved for improving the rodeo grounds through the City of Prescott.
Those facts are not mutually exclusive.
The complete historical record includes both the original legislative effort and the subsequent constitutional restructuring.
The Observatory Question, Revisited
The interview repeatedly returns to the Lowell Observatory and other nonprofit appropriations.
If those appropriations were separately challenged, each would be evaluated on its own facts.
Each appropriation stands—or falls—on its own constitutional record.
Two Details the Record Preserves
Two details from the public record are worth remembering.
First, the nonprofit’s president acknowledged during the litigation that there were no written contracts or enforceable promises of public benefit attached to the original $15.3 million appropriation—an issue directly relevant to the Gift Clause analysis.
Second, one of the two citizens who brought the lawsuit was retired Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Ralph Hess.
A constitutional challenge joined by a former Superior Court judge, and ultimately decided by another Superior Court judge under both prongs of Arizona’s Gift Clause, is difficult to dismiss as a “tantrum.”
Series Summary
Over the course of this three-part investigation, we examined three distinct parts of the story.
Part 1 looked at how the original appropriation came together and why the constitutional challenge was directed at the funding mechanism—not at the Prescott Rodeo itself.
Part 2 examined the Gift Clause, the comparison to other nonprofit appropriations, and why Arizona courts may evaluate each appropriation independently rather than by analogy.
Part 3 compared key statements from the podcast with the court’s ruling and the Legislature’s subsequent actions, including Representative Nguyen’s acknowledgment that lawmakers ultimately incorporated the judge’s language into the revised appropriation and then the funding was able to move forward.
The purpose of this series has not been to diminish the work of those who sought funding for improvements to the Prescott Rodeo Grounds.
The public record supports the conclusion that Representatives Quang Nguyen, Selina Bliss, and then-Senator Ken Bennett played significant roles in obtaining the original appropriation.
The public record also shows that the original appropriation did not survive constitutional review and that the Legislature later adopted a different legal structure to free up the funding after the court identified constitutional deficiencies.
That is why constitutional safeguards matter.
History is best served when it includes both accomplishments and corrections.
And that is why understanding the entire sequence of events matters, not only for this appropriation, but for every future expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Sources & Documentation
The following public sources informed this series:
- Arizona Constitution, Article IX, Section 7 (Gift Clause)
- Mechanic, et al. v. State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2023-009364
- Arizona Legislature budget bills and appropriations (2023–2026)
- City of Prescott Rodeo Grounds Improvement announcements
- Goldwater Institute reporting on the Prescott Rodeo appropriation
- 12News coverage of the court’s ruling
- KAWC / Capitol Media Services reporting
- KNAU Arizona Public Radio reporting
- Ride With Us podcast featuring Greg Mengarelli, Representative Quang Nguyen, and Representative Selina Bliss https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
- Ride With Us podcast transcript
- Full “Ride With Us” podcast link here: https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
Defend Life. Defend Freedom. Yavapai County First.
