When 16 Representatives Voted to Protect Your Referendum Rights, Your Two Arizona LD1 Representatives Were Not Among Them.
The right of referendum is not a recent invention. Arizona's founders placed it in the state constitution more than a century ago because they had watched legislators become captive to special interests — and they wanted the people to have a check on that power.
On February 26, 2026, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 37–16 on HB2873, a bill that allows the proponent of a ballot measure — including developers and their lawyers — to withdraw a citizen referendum petition after voters have already signed it. In practical terms: you sign a petition, follow every rule, gather every required signature, and a corporate attorney can make it disappear.
Sixteen Representatives voted NO. They understood what the bill was. Rep. Quang Nguyen and Rep. Selina Bliss were not among them. Both voted YES to take away your right to a referendum.
Recent and local example: If this bill had passed, the Chino Valley, residents who organized a referendum against a proposed airstrip could have had their right to a ballot referendum taken from them even though they followed the rules. They submitted their petitions lawfully. They gathered more than twice the required number of signatures. After all of that work, a proponent with a lawyer and a filing fee could have the Chino Valley residents' referendum withdrawn before it ever reached the ballot. Nguyen and Bliss voted to take away your voice and your right to referendum. Chino Valley would not have seen their referendum on the ballot even after all their work to get it there.
"The people reserve the power to approve or reject at the polls, any Act or item...of the Legislature."
— Arizona Constitution, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1(1) — the right of referendum, in the state's founding documentThe framers of Arizona's constitution included referendum specifically because they saw how easily legislators could become "captive to special interests." That is a direct quote from the historical record of Arizona's constitutional convention. They were writing about exactly the kind of situation HB2873 creates: a developer or corporate proponent who can use the legislative process to advance a project, watch citizens organize opposition, and then pull the petition before the people can vote.
The bill passed because most Representatives voted for it. But sixteen did not. Sixteen looked at this bill and said: no. The people's right to referendum is not negotiable.
The two representatives from LD1 were on the other side of that vote.
This is not a complicated question. The vote is on public record. The constitutional provision is clear. And the residents of Chino Valley who followed every rule, gathered every signature, and built their case know exactly what a vote like this means for people like them.
Shawn Dell Wildman would have voted no. Not because the airstrip was wrong, not because developers are always wrong, but because the right of the people to have the last word on decisions that affect their lives is the foundation of representative government — and it is not something a representative should vote away to make a project easier to push through.
"Would you rather believe a beautiful lie or know an ugly truth?" The ugly truth is on the public record. Your two LD1 representatives voted to give special interests the power to cancel your referendum after you signed it. Sixteen Representatives disagreed. And I would have been one of them.
Where the facts end: The vote on HB2873 is public record. The bill exists. The roll call is confirmed. Nguyen voted YES. Those are facts. Where the fudging begins: The framing that this bill was anything other than a mechanism for special interests to nullify citizen petitions ignores the plain text of Arizona’s Constitution and the documented history of Arizona’s constitutional convention. Sixteen Representatives saw it clearly and voted no. Nguyen and Bliss were not among them. The impact on Chino Valley residents — who gathered more than double the required signatures — illustrates exactly what this vote means in practice. Voting to give proponents the power to erase citizen signatures is a documented act; calling it anything else is the fudge.
When 16 Representatives Voted to Protect Your Referendum Rights, Your Two Arizona LD1 Representatives Were Not Among Them.
The right of referendum is not a recent invention. Arizona's founders placed it in the state constitution more than a century ago because they had watched legislators become captive to special interests — and they wanted the people to have a check on that power.
On February 26, 2026, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 37–16 on HB2873, a bill that allows the proponent of a ballot measure — including developers and their lawyers — to withdraw a citizen referendum petition after voters have already signed it. In practical terms: you sign a petition, follow every rule, gather every required signature, and a corporate attorney can make it disappear.
Sixteen Representatives voted NO. They understood what the bill was. Rep. Quang Nguyen and Rep. Selina Bliss were not among them. Both voted YES to take away your right to a referendum.
Recent and local example: If this bill had passed, the Chino Valley, residents who organized a referendum against a proposed airstrip could have had their right to a ballot referendum taken from them even though they followed the rules. They submitted their petitions lawfully. They gathered more than twice the required number of signatures. After all of that work, a proponent with a lawyer and a filing fee could have the Chino Valley residents' referendum withdrawn before it ever reached the ballot. Nguyen and Bliss voted to take away your voice and your right to referendum. Chino Valley would not have seen their referendum on the ballot even after all their work to get it there.
"The people reserve the power to approve or reject at the polls, any Act or item...of the Legislature."
— Arizona Constitution, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1(1) — the right of referendum, in the state's founding documentThe framers of Arizona's constitution included referendum specifically because they saw how easily legislators could become "captive to special interests." That is a direct quote from the historical record of Arizona's constitutional convention. They were writing about exactly the kind of situation HB2873 creates: a developer or corporate proponent who can use the legislative process to advance a project, watch citizens organize opposition, and then pull the petition before the people can vote.
The bill passed because most Representatives voted for it. But sixteen did not. Sixteen looked at this bill and said: no. The people's right to referendum is not negotiable.
The two representatives from LD1 were on the other side of that vote.
This is not a complicated question. The vote is on public record. The constitutional provision is clear. And the residents of Chino Valley who followed every rule, gathered every signature, and built their case know exactly what a vote like this means for people like them.
Shawn Dell Wildman would have voted no. Not because the airstrip was wrong, not because developers are always wrong, but because the right of the people to have the last word on decisions that affect their lives is the foundation of representative government — and it is not something a representative should vote away to make a project easier to push through.
"Would you rather believe a beautiful lie or know an ugly truth?" The ugly truth is on the public record. Your two LD1 representatives voted to give special interests the power to cancel your referendum after you signed it. Sixteen Representatives disagreed. And I would have been one of them.
Where the facts end: The vote on HB2873 is public record. The bill exists. The roll call is confirmed. Nguyen voted YES. Those are facts. Where the fudging begins: The framing that this bill was anything other than a mechanism for special interests to nullify citizen petitions ignores the plain text of Arizona’s Constitution and the documented history of Arizona’s constitutional convention. Sixteen Representatives saw it clearly and voted no. Nguyen and Bliss were not among them. The impact on Chino Valley residents — who gathered more than double the required signatures — illustrates exactly what this vote means in practice. Voting to give proponents the power to erase citizen signatures is a documented act; calling it anything else is the fudge.
