In Arizona, it’s the Voter’s Choice for GOP SOS: Gina Swoboda, or Alex Kolodin.

Why Would an Election Integrity Advocate Attack Election Integrity Efforts & an Election Integrity HERO?

Swoboda Attacks Pima County Election Observers and Alex Kolodin’s Election-Integrity Record

Guest post by Linda Brickman

Just when you thought things were quieting down in the upcoming mid-terms election cycle, along comes the candidate ads attacking a staunch conservative election lawyer for representing We the People in the contested 2020 elections because the deep-state leaning Arizona State Bar prosecuted him for taking the case, claiming there was no factual basis supporting election improprieties (aka “theft”)!

You have to hand it to Gina Swoboda for having the misguided “chutzpah” to undermine her own election integrity credentials…

… But Her Pima County Observer Problem May Be the Real Story!

So, with ballots beginning to move, Arizona Republican voters deserve more than campaign slogans, polished titles, and last-minute attacks.

They Deserve the Full Record

In the Republican primary for Arizona Secretary of State, Gina Swoboda has tried to turn Rep. Alex Kolodin’s State Bar discipline into a “political weapon. “ She wants voters to see his election-related legal battles as a liability.

But Republican voters may see something vastly different.

They may see an election attorney who was willing to step into the courtroom when election integrity was unpopular, professionally risky, and politically dangerous.

And many see Kolodin’s efforts here as a “Badge of Honor” willing to take on the election integrity fights when the Deep State and the Arizona State Bar had already threatened election attorneys to “back off” or risk retaliation!

And before Swoboda attacks Kolodin’s record, aren’t voters entitled to examine her own — especially her role in the Pima County Observer Controversy?

This is not a personality contest. It is a test of record, judgment, courage, and election-integrity instinct. Before Republican voters return their ballots, they deserve to know which candidate fought for transparency — and which candidate explained away its absence.

The Pima County Observer Problem

The Pima County observer controversy may tell voters more than Swoboda’s attack ever could.

During the November 2025 election, political-party observers were reportedly turned away from ballot-replacement centers in Pima County. The election was mail-only, so there were no traditional polling places. But ballots were still being managed, replaced, transferred, and processed.

That is where transparency matters most.

According to Votebeat, the AZGOP “X” account then controlled by Gina Swoboda stated there was no legal requirement to allow observers into a ballot-replacement center and that Pima County had never allowed them there before.

That may be the technical answer.

But Republican voters should ask whether it was the right answer.

When observers are kept outside the room, when ballots are being managed, and when public trust in elections is already fragile, should the chair of the Arizona Republican Party defend the minimum legal requirement — or demand maximum election transparency?

For a candidate now seeking to become Arizona’s Secretary of State and chief elections officer, shouldn’t that question matter.

And that is the potential problem for Swoboda.

She did not merely say, “Let’s demand more transparency.” She defended the position that there was no legal requirement to allow observers.

For a Republican Party Chair, that should be troubling.
For a Secretary of State candidate is that disqualifying for poor judgment.

“The issue did not disappear.”

The Pima County controversy did not end with one election-day disagreement or one social media exchange.

It became part of something much larger.

Pima County GOP Chairwoman Kathleen Winn later directly connected the observer-access dispute to the federal lawsuit challenging Arizona’s 2025 Elections Procedures Manual.

That matters because the lawsuit was not merely about one county, one election, or one set of observers.

It was about whether election rules can be written or interpreted in a way that restricts political speech, limits election-related activity, or keeps party observers away from important parts of the process.

And that is why Swoboda’s position deserves scrutiny.

If the chair of the Arizona Republican Party saw Republican observers being denied access and responded by defending the position that there was no legal requirement to let them in, then voters are entitled to ask what that tells them about her instincts as a candidate for Secretary of State.

Does she default to the narrowest legal reading?

Or does she fight for the broadest possible transparency?

That is not a technical question.

That is a leadership question.

The Secretary of State should not merely ask, “What is the minimum the law requires?”

The better question is, “What protects voter confidence, transparency, and trust?”

In Pima County, Swoboda appeared to choose the minimum.

Kolodin and others chose to challenge the system.

This was not an “X”/Twitter fight.

It became a lawsuit.

And when an observer-access dispute becomes part of a federal challenge to the Elections Procedures Manual, voters should pay attention to who demanded transparency — and who defended the door being closed.

Swoboda’s Disciplinary Attack on Kolodin May Have Backfired

Swoboda wants voters to see Kolodin’s State Bar discipline as a stain.

But many Republican voters may see it as a battle scar, a “Badge of Honor.”

And there is a difference.

A stain suggests shame.

A scar suggests he was in the fight.

That brings voters back to Swoboda’s attack on Kolodin.

She has tried to use his State Bar discipline as a political weapon. On the surface, it may sound damaging. State Bar discipline is serious, and voters have every right to know about it.

But voters also have the right to understand the context:

Kolodin was not disciplined because he avoided the election-integrity fight.
He was not disciplined because he sat quietly on the sidelines while voters asked questions.
He was not disciplined because he refused to challenge powerful officials.

He was disciplined because he stepped into election-related legal battles after 2020 — the very fights many Republican voters believed someone had to bring.

That does not mean voters must ignore the discipline.

It means they should ask whether Swoboda is telling the whole story.

There is a difference between a candidate with battle scars, and a candidate who uses someone else’s battle scars as a campaign weapon.

Swoboda is not attacking Kolodin because he failed to fight for election integrity.

She is attacking him because he did.

And that may be her mistake.

Because to many Republican voters, Kolodin’s record may not look like a liability. It may look like proof that he was willing to take professional risks when the issue mattered most.

In a race for Secretary of State, shouldn’t that distinction matter?

Does Arizona need a chief elections officer who simply manages paperwork, repeats talking points, or hides behind technical answers when transparency is on the line?

Or does Arizona need someone who understands the law, knows the weaknesses in the system, and is willing to fight for voter confidence even when the fight has a personal cost?

And for transparency, should voters know what Gina was doing after she left working for then Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in the election office, staffed with other Democratic operatives? She marketed herself as a conservative election integrity expert and parlayed that into a $15,000/month contract with the Arizona State Senate Republicans advising them on election integrity bills, none of which ever made it past now Governor Hobb’s vetoes!

HCR2001: The Record Voters Can Actually See for Themselves?

The contrast between the candidates becomes even clearer when voters look at HCR2001.

HCR2001, the Arizona Secure Elections Act (aka the Arizona Save America Act), did not move forward because people talked about election integrity. It moved forward because legislators fought for it, rallied the grassroots, counted votes, worked the floor, made calls, and refused to let it die before Sine Die.

Kolodin was one of the leading legislative forces behind that effort.

The measure is now headed to Arizona voters. If approved, it would strengthen voter ID requirements, confirm citizenship as a qualification for voting, address foreign funding in Arizona elections, and improve election security procedures.

That is not a slogan.

That is a record.

And that is why the questions surrounding Swoboda’s role matter.

Public comments from legislators and political observers have accused Swoboda of trying to take credit for HCR2001 after allegedly working against it behind the scenes. Those allegations deserve answers, especially now that she is asking Republican voters to trust her as the party’s strongest election-integrity candidate.

If Swoboda supported HCR2001, she should explain exactly what she did to help pass it.
If she opposed it, the voters deserve to know why.
And if she tried to claim credit for work done by others, voters deserve to know that too.

Election integrity is not proven by press releases…

It is proven by action when the votes are hard, the clock is running, and the outcome is uncertain.

On the Arizona Save America Act (HCR2001), the record unquestionably points to Kolodin as a fighter who helped move the measure across the finish line.

So, Swoboda still has questions to answer.

This is a real election-integrity measure that survived the pressure, the clock, the politics, and Sine Die.

And That’s the Key Difference Between…

Just Talking About Election Integrity and Delivering on It.

Swoboda’s Vetting Dilemma: From Clinton Democrat to Trump Loyalist – How Did the Voters Not Know?

Swoboda’s own political journey also deserves scrutiny.

This is not about punishing someone for changing parties. People are allowed to grow, learn, change their minds, and realign politically.

But when a candidate attacks another Republican’s election-integrity record, voters are entitled to examine her record, too.

In a 2025 public interview, Swoboda acknowledged that she had been a “Clinton Democrat” before later becoming aligned with President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. And election contribution reports show she and her husband were “active” contributors to Clinton’s two presidential campaigns. She also acknowledged that her political path had not been straight.

Again, that does not automatically disqualify her.

But it does raise fair questions.

If Swoboda wants Republican voters to overlook her own political evolution while condemning Kolodin for fighting election-related legal battles, voters should ask why one record is being excused, while the other is being weaponized.

Kolodin’s record is public, legal, legislative, and battle tested.

Swoboda’s record is more complicated: former Clinton Democrat, former Katie Hobbs election employee, later Trump loyalist, former AZGOP Chair, congressional candidate, Secretary of State candidate, and now critic of the very election-integrity attorney who has spent years fighting the battles Republican voters say matter most.

Voters do not need perfection.

Voters need honesty.

And before ballots are returned, they deserve to know which candidate has actually stood in the fight when election integrity was on the line.

The Arizona Save America Act (HCR2001) is a real election-integrity measure that survived the pressure, the clock, the politics, and Sine Die.

That is the difference between talking about election integrity and delivering it.

Changing political views is not the problem.

Rewriting the record is.

If Swoboda wants Republican voters to examine Kolodin’s election-integrity scars, then voters have every right to examine her political journey, her judgment calls, and the record she now asks them to trust.

The Questions Before Voters

This race is not about who can say “election integrity” the LOUDEST.

It is about who has actually fought for it.

Swoboda wants voters to focus on Kolodin’s State Bar discipline. But voters may see that discipline differently when they understand the context. They may see it as the professional scar of an attorney who was willing to take on difficult election cases when others would not.

They may also ask why Swoboda, while serving as AZGOP Chair, appeared to defend Pima County’s exclusion of observers from ballot-replacement centers instead of demanding maximum transparency.

They may ask why the Pima County dispute later became part of a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona’s election rules.

They may ask what Swoboda did, or did not do, to help HCR2001 pass before Sine Die.

They may ask why a former Clinton Democrat turned Trump loyalist is attacking the election-integrity record of a Republican attorney and legislator who has successfully fought Fontes in court, fought for election reforms at the Legislature, and helped send a major election-security measure to voters.

Those are fair questions.

And with ballots going out, they are urgent questions.

Key Takeaways

✓ Republican voters do not need Campaign Fog

✓ They need records.

✓ They need answers.

✓ They need to know who stood for transparency when the law was unclear, who fought when the fight had a cost, and who showed up when election integrity was more than a campaign slogan.

So, before voters return their ballots, they should ask two simple questions:

When election integrity was on the line, who fought for access, transparency, and reform?
And if election integrity was on the line, who defended the technical excuses?

Those answers may matter, because …

Arizona needs a Secretary of State who explains why observers are or are not necessary for election integrity.

Arizona needs a Secretary of State who fights to make sure they are let in if election integrity is on the line.

Support Joe's Work

In Arizona, it’s the Voter’s Choice for GOP SOS: Gina Swoboda, or Alex Kolodin.