Elijah Crane

Rep. Eli Crane often claims to champion rural Arizona, recently attending a Federal Partners Forum in Prescott, highlighted on his website. However, his legislative record tells a different story. Rep. Crane was among six Arizona Republicans who voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Trump in 2025. Despite its appealing name, the bill’s impact on rural Arizonans is alarming.

The legislation includes deep cuts to Medicaid and other federal health programs, threatening already struggling rural hospitals. Experts warn these cuts could force more hospital closures and reduce essential services, especially in areas where many depend on Medicaid. Gov. Katie Hobbs cautioned that labor and delivery units will close, and vital services will disappear, putting pregnant women at risk in counties where OB-GYNs are scarce.

Additionally, the bill slashes SNAP (food assistance), hurting families and local farmers. Medicaid cuts alone could reduce rural spending by $155 billion over 10 years. The law also fails to extend enhanced ACA subsidies, risking health coverage for 4.2 million people.

Supporters highlight the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, but the American Medical Association notes this cannot offset the estimated $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts.

Rep. Crane says rural needs are often overshadowed by urban interests. He’s right — but actions matter more than words. I urge my neighbors to look beyond headlines and demand that our representatives’ votes truly support our communities.

Rev. Dr. David Stabenfeldt (Retired United Church of Christ pastor), Clarkdale

Lamb should live in Arizona, not Tennessee, if he wants to represent us

I honestly can’t imagine moving my family out of state while asking Arizona voters to trust me to represent them in Congress.

But that’s what voters in Congressional District 5 are now hearing about Mark Lamb and his move to Tennessee.

Families make personal decisions for all kinds of reasons. People move. Life changes. That’s not really the point.

The point is this: If you want to represent a community, shouldn’t you actually be living in it?

Not technically. Not on paper. Actually living here.

Because the people in this district are dealing with real things every day: rising housing costs, overcrowded schools, expensive health care, brutal summers with climbing electric bills and growing concerns about Arizona’s future.

Representation is supposed to mean your life is tied to the same future as the people you’re asking to vote for you.

This goes beyond party politics. Most people — Republican, Democrat, or independent — probably agree that our elected officials should actually be invested in the communities they serve.

Congressional districts are communities, not mailing addresses.

And the people of CD5 deserve someone who is truly here.

Jennifer Kaupke, Mesa

Boyer was right about ‘jungle primary’ but wrong about open primaries

I concur with most of Paul Boyer’s May 10 column saying that what he calls California’s “jungle primary” is not right for Arizona, but I disagree with his conclusion.

I agree that redistricting California to favor Democrats is an undemocratic response to the undemocratic redistricting recently done in Texas.

I agree with Boyer that we want legislators who represent all their constituents rather than toe the party line. But I think open primaries actually help that cause rather than hurt it. His Adam Schiff example, in reality, illustrates this point. Schiff, a Democrat, spent millions to help the Republican in the open primary, rather than have to face a more centrist Democrat in November. This would not have been necessary with Arizona’s partisan primaries. As an Independent in Arizona, I must choose which party primary to vote in, and I know that my vote will be watered down by the party and won’t really determine who gets to November.

So yes, let’s elect representatives who want to work problems together, rather than being pinned right or left by party politics. But open primaries will actually help that cause, rather than hurt it.

Doug Metzger, Phoenix

Former Gov. Ducey needs a history lesson

I laughed out loud when I read former Gov. Doug Ducey’s May 17 column taking Katie Hobbs to task for opposing the federal government’s voucher plan.

I guess Ducey forgot a little history of vouchers in our state. But I do remember.

Initially, the voucher plan in Arizona was limited to special needs students, then expanded to children of military families and students in low-scoring public schools.

In other words, a relatively low number of kids with real needs.

But in 2018, the public had a chance to weigh in on Ducey’s desire to expand vouchers to all students. The election results spoke loudly: 65% voted against the expansion. As politicians like Ducey know, a 65% vote on anything is a landslide.

So, what did Ducey do? In 2022, he rammed through his universal voucher expansion in one of his last acts as governor. This despite the public’s overwhelming opposition.

And here we are today, with voucher scandals, zero academic accountability for voucher students, few low-income students accessing vouchers and an increasingly budget-busting cost to the program.

All while school districts have had to sue the state to get what the state constitution requires.

Hopefully, if Doug Ducey reads this letter, it will jar his memory and make him rethink what he wrote. But I doubt it.

Mike McClellan, Gilbert

Ending GCU volleyball hurts local high school players

As a current high school senior who plays boys’ volleyball, it is unfortunate to see the end of programs like Grand Canyon University’s men’s volleyball, especially considering it was a top 5 Division I program in the nation. This is very disheartening for all of the boys’ volleyball players in the state hoping to play locally, since there are not a lot of NCAA collegiate programs in the state, especially ones that were as competitive as GCU. This is not healthy for the sport or the future of men’s volleyball everywhere. Even though the sport is one of the most rapidly growing in the country, program closings are still happening. If newer sports are being shut down, how will the future of collegiate sports look? Will change never come? Will young people never have the chance to play competitively at the colligate level in the sports they grew up with and love?

Lincoln Jenkins, Peoria

Shouldn’t using my neighborhoods’ voting record also be illegal for redistricting?

It is illegal to use race as a criterion for defining legislative districts. It seems to me that using information on how my neighbors and I are likely to vote ought to be illegal as well. Do voters understand that we are essentially giving up our power at the ballot box and allowing political parties and their data to decide who will represent us? Where is the outrage?

David Sanderson, Phoenix