Ballot Math / School districts / Littleton Elementary
School board race and measure: Littleton Elementary School District

Littleton Elementary: four candidates for two seats, and a $95 million bond

November 3, 2026 general election. Littleton Elementary School District No. 65 serves the Avondale and Tolleson area, one of the faster growing corridors in the west Valley. The board candidates have almost no public record beyond the county's official list, and we say so. The bond is documented below with a sourcing caveat voters should know.
How this race works: two board seats are up, both for four-year terms. Four candidates are on the ballot, all officially certified: Gwendalyn Johnston, Markus Ceniceros, Valeria Rodriguez (full name Valeria Guadalupe Rodriguez in the Arizona List voter guide), and Amy Soucinek. Vote for up to two; the top two win. Board service is unpaid. The county list does not mark incumbency and the Arizona Republic's October 2, 2026 guide does not profile this district, so no biography or incumbency is claimed for anyone here.

The bond: $95 million

In one sentence: Littleton Elementary asks to borrow $95,000,000 for facility upgrades, technology, transportation, and safety improvements, repaid through the secondary property tax.

The category list above comes from the campaign committee supporting the bond. Growth is the underlying story in this district: the Avondale and Tolleson corridor keeps adding subdivisions, and elementary districts there borrow to build and expand capacity ahead of enrollment.

The math for your household

The district's estimated tax rate for this bond was not verified

We could not open the official district informational pamphlet's bond figure and rate in the sources available to us; the $95 million amount itself comes from the supporting campaign committee's site, linked below. Rather than estimate a household cost from an unverified rate, we print none. The pamphlet mailed to district households contains the district's estimated average tax rate per $100 of assessed value; multiply that rate by your home's net assessed value divided by 100 to get your annual cost. If the district publishes its rate page, that is the figure to use.

A YES vote

The district may sell up to $95 million in bonds for the facility, technology, transportation, and safety program.

A NO vote

No new borrowing. Capacity and facility needs are handled from the regular capital budget, deferred, or the district returns with a different ask.

The strongest case for YES

  • Growth is not a projection here, it is a count. Supporters argue west Valley elementary districts that wait for students to arrive before building end up with portables and split schedules, and bonds are the only capital mechanism Arizona provides at this scale.

The strongest case for NO

  • Verify before you authorize. Opponents generally argue a nine-figure authorization deserves a published project list and rate estimate that voters can check, and a no tells the district to come back with one.

Verification notes

  • The $95 million figure is sourced to the campaign committee (yesforlittletonschoolsaz.com). The official pamphlet amount was not separately verified in this research, and no proposition number for the Littleton bond was found. Treat the amount as reported by the measure's supporters until checked against the pamphlet.
  • School board campaigns file finance reports with Maricopa County. No finance totals or campaign materials for these four candidates were found in the sources we reviewed.

How to vote without getting your ballot rejected

  • Mail it by Tuesday, October 27, 2026. After that day, do not mail it: use a drop box or a vote center instead.
  • It must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3. Postmarks do not count.
  • Sign and date the affidavit envelope, and write a current phone number on it.
  • Leaving any item blank is allowed. The board race and the bond are separate items; answer either, both, or none.

Sources

Ballot Math: analysis only, no endorsements. Every candidate in this race got the same template: background, stated priorities, the record that exists, and honest notes where the record is thin.