8 Sept 11th-Sept 17th, 2025 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | Ortiz’(s) acts are an egregious violation of both the Arizona Constitution and the Oath of Office she took,” Hoffman wrote, “and therefore expulsion is indisputably warranted.” What happens next? Will Ortiz be expelled? Almost certainly not. Hoffman’s letter was addressed to Republican Sen. Shawnna Bolick, who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee. In a press release on Sept. 3, Bolick announced she’d referred Hoffman’s complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, noting that “the Arizona Senate Ethics Committee does not have jurisdiction to enforce federal law.” In her press release, Bolick wrote that “doxing federal ICE agents is not only reckless, it endangers lives and undermines the rule of law.” That Ortiz’s post doesn’t meet the definition of doxing should be particularly obvious to Bolick, who spon- sored Arizona’s anti-doxing law in 2021. Bolick did not respond to a request for comment. The status of the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation of Ortiz is unclear. Last week, agency spokesperson Esther Winne told New Times that the office had no addi- tional updates on the potential prosecution of Ortiz. It could be several months before anything happens. Unless a special session is called by the legislature — which is unlikely, as it requires support from two- thirds of members in each chamber — the Senate Ethics Committee won’t evaluate the complaint against Ortiz until the legis- lature begins its next session in January 2026. At that point, the committee must first “adopt its operating rules” and then “conduct a thorough review of the facts, strictly adhering to constitutional stan- dards, as well as applicable state and local laws,” Bolick said in her press release. After the committee completes its investigation, which generally takes around a month, it reports its full findings to the Senate and provides a recommenda- tion, such as dismissal, expulsion or disci- plinary action, such as censure. Hoffman wants Ortiz expelled from her position, but that requires a two-thirds vote. Republicans do not hold that big a majority in the chamber, and Democrats are unlikely to support Ortiz’s expulsion. However, other penalties do not require a supermajority to impose. If the votes aren’t there for expulsion, Hoffman suggested removing Ortiz from all commit- tees, taking away her office, parking spot, staff and keycard access, which he called “the bare minimum of punishment she should receive.” These administrative actions, as they relate to the building of the Arizona Capitol, can be passed by a simple majority, which Republicans possess. Law-breaking is not a prerequisite for imposing an ethics penalty. Anything that can be considered “unbecoming” of an elected official is fodder for a complaint, which can lead to some mudslinging. Last year, the Arizona House of Representatives’ ethics committee found that former Democratic Rep. Leezah Sun engaged in a pattern of “disorderly behavior,” including making a death threat against a lobbyist. She resigned before an expulsion vote was held. In 2023, Republican Rep. Liz Harris was expelled after she invited a speaker to a hearing who spouted unsubstantiated claims about judges, officials and legislators being bribed by a Mexican drug cartel. In 2021, a former legislative aide filed a complaint against Republican state Sen. Wendy Rogers — now, wouldn’t you know, the vice chair of the Senate Ethics Committee — alleging workplace abuse and verbal harassment. Another complaint was filed against Rogers the next year after she made comments about a mass shooting being a government conspiracy. Neither complaint led to an expulsion vote. Ortiz was also the subject of a complaint last year, when she was a state representa- tive, after she and Democratic Rep. Oscar De Los Santos yelled “Shame!” at Republican lawmakers on the Arizona House floor following a failed vote to repeal the state’s 1864 near-total abortion ban. The House Ethics Committee found that Ortiz committed “disorderly conduct,” but no penalty was levied. Ortiz could very well face some sort of punishment for her post, despite it being protected speech. A Senate ethics investi- gation is an inherently political process and not a criminal one. Still, punishing a state lawmaker for their speech could be a “troubling” slippery slope, Leslie said. “Anytime there’s government action to punish somebody for criticizing the government,” he said, “it definitely has a chilling effect on other people.” Despite the mounting opposition, Ortiz doesn’t plan to slow down or stop posting ICE alerts. “My community supports me,” she said. “I will continue to support them by being the best senator they need in this moment of authoritarianism.” Democratic state Sen. Analise Ortiz called efforts to expel her from the Arizona Legislature an “alarming escalation of authoritarian tactics.” (Gage Skidmore/ Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0) Witch Hunt from p 7
