Amid allegations of election interference in the Pima County Sheriff campaign, who has oversight of the sheriff has become a central issue in the upcoming election and beyond. 

Democratic incumbent Sheriff Chris Nanos placed his Republican opponent, Heather Lappin, on leave from her department job in the final weeks of the campaign, along with union leader Sgt. Aaron Cross. In response, Pima County Board of Supervisor Matt Heinz took an unusual step Wednesday: Calling for the board to vote to censure and investigate Nanos.

To Heinz, Nanos’ move was an effort to manipulate the voting process in Pima County, because placing Lappin on leave confined her to her home during regular business hours which limited campaigning. 

“The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to hold Nanos accountable — we owe it to our constituents to censure him at our next meeting,” said Heinz, who represents District 2, in a press release. 

Heinz requests that the board ask the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona to investigate whether Nanos violated any state or federal laws in placing Lappin or Cross on leave on Oct. 14. 

He also requested censure against Nanos. The request for censure is a political act of the governing board to express displeasure, said county spokesperson Mark B. Evans in an email to Arizona Luminaria. 

In a response to Heinz and other board members shared by AZPM, Nanos said board members can contact him at any time to discuss concerns or issues they may have. “I will not endanger the integrity of a criminal investigation or prosecution by offering comments outside of the correct venue,” Nanos said in the four-page letter. “The timing of these events was not of my choosing, but the obligation to deal with it in a manner that protects the county, and the department is my obligation.” 

He defended his decision to place Cross and Lappin on leave, and noted concerns expressed by members of the public as contributing to the urgency around his action. “The decision to place two individuals on leave was driven by the report of behaviors that are suspected of falling under prohibited actions in a number of relevant places in law and policy,” he said.

Heinz’s request also highlights the limits of the board’s power over another elected position. 

The board of supervisors has authority defined by both state law and county policy. That includes financial oversight of county departments including the sheriff’s department, the ability to review selected activities of departments through an internal audit, and upholding the county’s  Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policy.  

Thomas Volgy, a political science professor at the University of Arizona and former mayor of Tucson, said unless there was some malfeasance in spending with the budget, the board of supervisors doesn’t have authority to take direct action to penalize the sheriff’s office. 

“Elected officials don’t get to supervise other elected officials” beyond overseeing the budget for their office, Volgy told Arizona Luminaria in a phone interview. “It puts the board of supervisors in just an untenable position.” 

While board members can suggest other agencies investigate alleged wrongdoing, the most power lies with the voters, Volgy said. Voters can start a recall against an officeholder or vote them out of office during an election. Elected officials “have one responsibility, and that is to the voters,” he said. 

Nanos did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Arizona Luminaria.  

A press release from the sheriff’s department shared Oct. 15 said that Lappin “colluded with a journalist to facilitate payment to an inmate in exchange for a news story.” The release said Cross was put on administrative leave for “participating in political activities while wearing tan BDU cargo pants, tan boots, a gray t-shirt, a weapon in a holster, and his magazine pouch with handcuffs.” 

Read more

In the memo to the board dated Oct. 23, Nanos shared a list of policies the department was examining in regard to alleged wrongdoing by Cross and Lappin, including using any official authority or influence to affect the result of any political election or nomination; a policy about news interviews; and a policy noting that even the appearance of impropriety could impact public trust. 

This is the second time Nanos has suspended a campaign opponent. When running for his first election as sheriff in 2016, he suspended his opponent Sgt. Terry Staten, citing county rules that at the time said someone could be suspended if an employee’s election activities prevented them from performing their duties or if the activities adversely affected department operations. Those rules have since been changed.

Nanos wrote that he was in contact with the Attorney General and FBI and “they have already agreed to assist us.” The Arizona Attorney General’s Office told Arizona Luminaria it has not agreed to assist in Sheriff Nanos’ investigation. The FBI didn’t respond to requests for comment.

If Heinz’s measure goes to the board for a vote, it would be at the next scheduled board meeting on Nov. 12 —  seven days after the Nov. 5 election. 

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on Heinz’s request. 

In recent years, Nanos has been named in more than two dozen lawsuits ranging from deaths in the jail to minor traffic accidents involving his deputies. Sgt. Cross filed a lawsuit Oct. 17 alleging that Nanos violated his constitutional rights when he was put on leave. 

Nanos was first appointed to run the sheriff’s department in 2015 and served for a year. He ran for election the following year and lost to Republican Mark Napier. Nanos ran again — again against Napier — and won in 2020, taking office in January of the following year. Napier has endorsed Lappin in this year’s election.

Heinz told Arizona Luminaria he wants to see the censure and investigation process through, regardless of whether Nanos is reelected, in part to ensure that representatives of the Democratic party act in accordance with the law. “We have even more obligation to keep our house clean,” he said. 

Four of the five county supervisors, including Heinz, are Democrats. Nanos is also a Democrat.

Board of supervisors scrutinize the sheriff 

With the responsibility to approve an annual budget for the sheriff’s department, the Pima County Board of Supervisors has the most regular oversight over the department. This year, that budget was more than $170 million, with the sheriff’s department receiving, by far, more funding than any other county department. 

The most recent dispute is not the first time the county board has tried to use its authority to scrutinize the sheriff. 

The supervisors asked the state attorney general to look into how the department conducted its internal affairs investigation into allegations that a Pima County Sheriff’s Department deputy sexually assaulted a fellow officer in December 2022. During this effort, Nanos threatened to pull security from board meetings. 

The state office found no criminal wrongdoing in the internal investigation, however, did note that the department possibly violated four rules. That prompted the supervisors to officially invite Nanos to come to a meeting to answer questions and address the public. Nanos officially declined the invitation on Oct. 11 via an email to the board. 

Following the incident with Lappin, several county board members spoke out. 

Heinz had previously said he was endorsing Lappin. “I can’t think of a better person to be sheriff,” Heinz said. “I want a competent person heading this law enforcement agency. I want someone I can trust. She ticks all the boxes.”

Rex Scott, of District 1, said he had grave concerns about the decision to put Lappin on leave. 

“I think she should be reinstated,” said Scott in a phone call to Arizona Luminaria. 

Supervisor Adelita Grijalva said at a county board meeting the week of Oct. 15 that the county administrator and attorney will be looking into the matter. 

County attorney Laura Conover’s office said they were still weighing next steps. “We are still analyzing the situation and will determine whether our office will investigate or forward it to another agency,” spokesperson Shawndrea Thomas said. 

Amidst the unfolding situation, Paul Cunningham, a Democratic Tucson city council member, also endorsed Lappin. “We worked together for Pima County,” said Cunningham in a statement to Arizona Luminaria. “I have come to know her as a very thoughtful person who understands our community.” 

Volgy, a longtime member of the Tucson city council and Democratic mayor from 1987-1991, said he wasn’t surprised to see Democratic politicians endorsing a Republican candidate. 

“Tucson is one of those places where people do cross over political lines sometimes,” Volgy said. 

Still, others said Nanos was the best person for the job. 

Dennis DeConcini, a former U.S. Senator and Pima County Attorney, endorsed Nanos for this upcoming election. Over two decades, DeConcini told Arizona Luminaria, he had heard positive things about Nanos’ professional work. 

“He has run a very good office and has kept Pima County residents safe as a sheriff can,” he said. “He is a man that goes to work and takes it very seriously.” 

Increased transparency, oversight

A broader community in Pima County concerned about issues in the jails or transparency in leadership has spent years using a range of tactics, from protests and lawsuits to op-eds and running for office to bring about the change they want to see. 

An August 2023 Arizona Luminaria investigation showed that, according to court records, plaintiffs had brought at least 40 federal and state suits involving the jail since 2021, alleging a range of abuses, from problems with access to mail to ignored medical issues. Most of the suits were dismissed on technical grounds. At least five lawsuits at the time focused on the deaths of incarcerated people.

Nanos is named in more than two dozen lawsuits ranging from deaths in the jail to minor traffic accidents involving his deputies; previous sheriffs have also faced lawsuits for alleged problems with the department. 

Ahead of the 2024 primary election, Arizona Luminaria asked Nanos how he thinks these cases would affect his responsibilities as sheriff. Nanos did not respond to the specific legal claims, however, he stressed that he inherited a “number of lawsuits” from the prior sheriff.

In addition to the October lawsuit by Cross, at least two recent cases have been filed naming Nanos and alleging violations of civil rights in the jail.

In a column about the latest dispute in the sheriff’s office, the Arizona Daily Star’s Tim Steller warned voters that Nanos’ behavior is part of a larger pattern. 

 “It’s an authoritarian effort to hobble opponents before they can even get to an election,” wrote Steller in a column dated Oct. 22.

Lappin, who remains on administrative leave, has promised a change to oversight of the office. If elected she would lobby the state legislature to bring more accountability to the sheriff’s office, she said. 

“In a Lappin administration, we need to be able to listen to people who do not love us,” she told Arizona Luminaria by phone.  

For Democrats who may be wary about voting for a Republican, Lappin pointed to her efforts to campaign to minority groups that have been historically disenfranchised by law enforcement. 

“I believe it is so important to give everybody a voice,” she said. One way to do that could be quarterly public forums, Lappin said. “We need to be understanding our communities better.” 

A group called the No New Jail Coalition, which included organizers who helped bring attention to a high death rate in the jail overseen by Nanos, and protested a proposal to open a new jail, put out an analysis in 2023 they shared with Luminaria where they suggested ways to strengthen accountability over the jail.. 

For example, a board to review jail deaths is convened at the discretion of the sheriff, while the Civilian Advisory Review Board does not have disciplinary power and all recommendations go to the sheriff, according to the report.

“The current oversight bodies accomplish nothing more than rubber-stamping the Sheriff’s brutality and placing him beyond reproach by proving a cover of accountability,” the report said. 

Instead, all current oversight bodies should be replaced with community-led alternatives, the report suggested. 

“True oversight mechanisms would create an opportunity for the people of Pima County to reduce the power of the jail or the Sheriff’s Department if those entities prove themselves to be deadly, unaccountable, dysfunctional, and expensive.” 

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

Yana Kunichoff is a reporter, documentary producer and Report For America corps member based in Tucson. She covers community resilience in Southern Arizona. Previously, she covered education for The Arizona...