Pinal County: Paul Babeu's Buddy, Cheryl Chase, Likely Secures Spot on Board of Supervisors

Categories: Election 2012
Cheryl Chase, left, and Sheriff Paul Babeu at a political fundraiser in May.

Cheryl Chase, a political ally of Sheriff Paul Babeu's, grabbed the most votes in the District 2 race for the Pinal County Board of Supervisors.

Republican voters chose Chase in the five-way race for that seat, giving her almost 46 percent of the vote, with her next closest competitor, John Acton, getting 23 percent.

Also in that race, Trisha Castillo received 14.75 percent, Michael McCord, 8.6 percent, and Carol Springer, a little more than 7 percent.

Because there is a write-in Democratic candidate running for the District 2 seat -- Margo Feldmiller -- Chase, who received 1,468 votes, can't claim outright victory.

As a write-in, Feldmiller has to received at least 38 write-in votes to advance to the November election to run against Chase. Those write-in votes haven't yet been counted, according to election officials.

Pinal County Elections Director Steve Kizer says there still are thousands of uncounted ballots  being processed. He anticipates that by Friday or Saturday, they will all be tallied.

In the Democratic primary, Pete Rios held on to his seat with nearly 56 percent of the vote in District 1 -- the Democrats' only contested race. His challenger, Mary Bateman Espinoza, received nearly 44 percent of the 3,309 votes cast.

The uncontested Democratic candidates in Districts 3, 4, and 5 -- David Snider, Henry Wade, and Maxine Brown -- will face off against the Republicans who emerged victorious on Tuesday.

Among those, it appears that Republican Gem Cox, who received 56.5 percent, or 948 votes, in the District 1 race will edge out Jim Montano, who ended the night with about 42 percent, or 710 votes.

There is an Independent candidate, Alicia Bristow, running for District 1. That pits her against Cox and Rios in the November 6 General Election.

Stephen Miller has an seven-point lead in the GOP race for District 3, with 53.66 percent, while his challenger Tom Hollenbach garnered 46 percent.

Miller probably will face Democrat David Snider and Independent Roberto Almaguer in November.

In District 4, it appears that Anthony Smith is in the lead with 33.17 percent of the votes, but Nancy Discher sits at an uncomfortably close second with 32.15 percent -- that's a 43 vote difference. And Fred Mackenzie isn't far behind with 29 percent of the vote. Raymond Petrulsky received only 5 percent.

Since the results are still unofficial -- and there could be outstanding ballots that remain to be counted -- it's unclear who will face off against Henry Wade, a Democrat for that spot on the Board of Supervisors.

The race for the District 5 seat was also a four-way race among Republican candidates, and Todd House emerged on top with 40 percent of the vote, or 1,830 votes. Trailing him were Pat Prince, who received 32 percent, Bill Dunbar, almost 19 percent, and John T. Enright, with just under 8 percent.

Looks like it's going to be Maxine Brown against Todd House for the District 5 seat.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Babeu has been wearing the same gay plaid long-sleeved shirt in almost all of his casual public appearances for several years. Watch for it.  Either it is good for trolling or Cheryl is still dressing her mentor for these events. At $100K+ a year you would think he could at least take in a stop at a Goodwill or Savers when he comes to town.  She changes her hair color regularly. Why can't he change shirts?


Posted: Aug 29, 2012 12:19 PM Updated: Aug 29, 2012 12:19 PM Posted by Steve Stout - email   Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio PHOENIX (AP) -

Two newspaper executives who were arrested by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office after a series of critical articles can sue the man who calls himself America's toughest sheriff.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a lower court ruling that Phoenix New Times co-owners Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin could not sue authorities for the 2007 arrest.

The men were arrested after revealing that Arpaio's allies in the Maricopa County attorney's office obtained a grand jury subpoena to identify sources for articles about the sheriff. Arpaio and the prosecutors eventually backed off.

The court ruled the executives could sue Arpaio for false arrest and violations of their First and 14th Amendment rights, among other claims.

New Times is an alternative weekly that is part of Village Voice Media.


I don't care for Paul Babeu as a sheriff. He has embarrassed the peace officers of the state of Arizona long enough. It's time for the folks in Pinal County to elect a professional sheriff who is most interested in taking care of business in Pinal County, rather than Washington, DC. Just because Babeu won the Republican ballot doesn't mean those same people will vote for him in November. He has experience at losing elections.


 @Tommy_Collins Did you hear the news Tommy? The Ninth Circuit has overturned a lower court ruling and now, New Times Execs can sue Arpaio for the bullshit the MCSO pulled on them.

Just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

 @shadeaux14  @Tommy_Collins they said he did violate due process and he will have to face the lawsuit.  i cant blame them and do support them in as how he shouldnt get away with it, but, im not happy that we all have to pay for YET ANOTHER joe arpaio fuck up pay out. i doubt it will slow him down , but at least people are starting to say enough is enough



 @ExpertShot  @Tommy_Collins  @danzigsdaddy  @shadeaux14

 They all seriously thought they were exempt from civil liability. This should shake a few nuts free from the MCSO tree. Once some of the goobers who were involved receive subpoenas to appear for depositions start to talk the falling will start at the top and trickle it's way down....



 @danzigsdaddy  @shadeaux14  @Tommy_Collins

 I'm not a lawyer but from what little I've been taught in civil law classes I believe what this ruling means it that the MCSO shurf is no longer protected from punitive damages. What that means is that Lacey and Larkin can go after him for having committed an intentional tort by abusing his position and authority as an elected law enforcement official. This also means that at some point it's likely the court will order the shurf to make FULL disclosure of all of his personal assets. Should that happen it likely will open a whole can of slimy worms from the shurf..... I can't imagine that Lacey and Larkin might be willing to settle the case without the shurf having been forced to make full disclosure...


Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault