LD15: one real Senate race on the ballot, and a House race with no opponent at all

State Senate: Hoffman vs. Accalia

Jake Hoffman (Republican, incumbent)

Record in office, from the coverage and his own statement:

• Nominations gatekeeper: as nominations chair he made headlines blocking many of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' nominees, which is real power over how the executive branch gets staffed, exercised from a safe seat.
• Election legislation: his own voter guide statement lists authoring legislation to ban private funding of elections, prohibit mass mailing of ballots to voters who did not request one, and require proof of citizenship to vote, plus a 2026 law banning any Arizona government from requiring a COVID vaccine.
• Prop 320: Hoffman is the sponsor of the legislative referral that became Proposition 320, the measure requiring larger school districts to raise direct instructional spending toward 60 percent, with a Classroom Site Fund penalty for districts that fall short. Supporters say it boosts teacher pay and cuts administrative bloat; critics note it does not guarantee raises and leaves the key definition to the auditor general. That measure has its own page on this site.
• HB 2677 (2024), repeal of the 1864 near total abortion ban: NO. Verified via the Freedom Index scorecard of Senate votes (the bill passed the Senate 16 to 14). State Affairs' account of that floor fight adds the color: Hoffman tried and failed to amend the bill to require rape or incest cases be reported immediately to law enforcement, and called the repeal losing "one of the best, strongest pro-life measures in the country."

Money, and a distinction this page will not blur: no campaign finance totals for Hoffman's own Senate campaign were located in the sources retrieved, so none are printed. What azcentral has reported is different money: companies owned by Hoffman received more than $1 million in campaign spending during the 2026 election cycle, much of it from Turning Point's campaign operation. That is income to his businesses from other campaigns, not donations to his, and it becomes a controversy below, on those terms.

Controversies, with responses where they exist:

• The fake electors case. Hoffman was one of the 11 Arizona Republicans who submitted a document to Congress declaring Donald Trump the winner of Arizona's 2020 election, and one of 18 defendants charged by Attorney General Kris Mayes with forgery, fraud, and conspiracy. The merits were never decided: a judge sent the case back to a grand jury in May 2025 over how the grand jury was instructed, the state Supreme Court remanded it, and Mayes's office then had the charges dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, while saying it intends to return the case to a grand jury. Hoffman and the other defendants have asked the appeals court to bar refiling. Hoffman has consistently treated the prosecution as political; azcentral's summary is that he "pushed discredited theories about widespread fraud in recent U.S. elections and served as one of Arizona's fake electors," which is the factual core both sides are arguing about.
• The Hobbs investigation and his companies' client. In September 2026 Hoffman announced a Senate investigation of Gov. Hobbs over a group home rate increase that benefited a donor company; Attorney General Mayes's office had already found no evidence to support a bribery charge, per azcentral. Days later Hoffman exited the probe after conflict of interest questions: Turning Point PAC had paid his advertising companies more than $350,000 to help Andy Biggs, the Republican running against Hobbs, in the two days before he announced the investigation, and his companies had been paid more than $1.5 million this year to help Biggs, per state disclosures reported by azcentral. The Hobbs campaign called the probe a stunt by "a political consultant profiting from these shameless attacks on behalf of the Biggs campaign"; Mayes's spokesperson called it a taxpayer funded political grudge match and "performative political nonsense." Hoffman did not withdraw the allegation itself; the investigation continued under other hands after his exit.

Jayme Accalia (Democrat)

• Stated priorities (her campaign site, in her words): strengthen education by "turning schools back into community hubs"; support local farmers and small businesses; protect Arizona's water future; expand workforce development and career opportunities; improve affordability for families "by pushing back against corporate domination"; and build communities where families can thrive. Her framing: "an economy that works for working families, not just the corporations and special interests."
• Money: no campaign finance totals located in the sources retrieved. Controversies: none found.
• The math, plainly: her path would require cutting a 2024 margin of roughly 32 points in a district whose registration is 46 percent Republican and 19 percent Democratic. No source retrieved for this page treats the seat as competitive. She is on the ballot, she is campaigning on a stated platform, and those two facts are what this entry can verify.

State House: two seats, two candidates, no contest

Neal Carter (Republican, incumbent)

Key votes (verified individually via Vote Smart):

• HB 2677 (2024), repeal of the 1864 near total abortion ban: NO (name level House vote list, FastDemocracy).
• HCR 2001 (2026), the referral that became Prop 144 (the FAST Election Results Act): YES. His yes vote was on sending the ballot measure to you; Prop 144 itself is covered on its own page.
• HCR 2016 (2026), a ballot referral to require precinct based voting: YES. HCR 2056 (2026), a constitutional right to refuse medical mandates: YES.
• HB 2133 (2026), age and consent verification for sexual material published online: YES (conference report). HB 2223 (2026), disclosure when a registered sex offender requests a legal name change: YES.

Stated priorities and ratings, attributed: his public summaries describe a conservative Republican who believes in "faith, family, and a free economy." Endorsed by NFIB Arizona PAC and, per Vote Smart's ratings page, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; NFIB rated him 71 percent and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter 0 percent in the listings retrieved.

Money: no campaign finance totals located in the sources retrieved. In an uncontested race, that absence costs voters less than it would elsewhere, but it is still a gap, stated as one. Controversies: none of significance found.

Michael Way (Republican, incumbent)

• The residency case, which is his record's central controversy: Way's 2024 candidacy was challenged in court by Deborah Kirkland, a Republican precinct committeewoman in LD15 who had supported his primary rival Peter Anello, on the claim that he did not meet Arizona's residency requirements, having lived and voted in North Carolina in 2021 and 2022 (the Arizona Agenda dates the North Carolina votes to 2021 and 2022; azcentral describes records showing he was registered to vote in North Carolina leading up to the election). A Maricopa County Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that determining a legislator's qualifications is a job the constitution assigns to the Legislature, not the courts, and did not rule on the residency facts themselves. The Arizona GOP celebrated the dismissal and called the attacks baseless. Way said he believed the challenge was organized by Freedom Caucus figures, a claim he later clarified referred to a single North Carolina Freedom Caucus member. The ruling means the factual question was never adjudicated; both halves of that sentence matter.
• Scorecard, attributed: the Freedom Index's 2026 Arizona scorecard rated Way 67 percent. A comparable set of name level 2026 key votes for Way was not retrieved in this pass (see verification notes), so none are printed rather than inferred from his party or his seatmate.
• Money: no campaign finance totals located in the sources retrieved. Other controversies: none found beyond the residency case above.