Branscomb’s short tenure has been roiled by scandal and division, marred by public conflicts with others in the party and dwindling finances at a time the party should be gearing up for a crucial 2026 election, when the governorship is on the line. All five Democrats elected in statewide races — Gov. Katie Hobbs, Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes — have said Branscomb has lost their confidence.
Wednesday evening, after 180 committee members signed a petition calling for his removal, some 700 Arizona Democrats will decide just that issue, voting virtually on whether to oust Branscomb as party chair. It takes a two-thirds majority to remove him.
But as pressure mounts from within the party, Branscomb is standing firm. In a conversation with Phoenix New Times ahead of the vote Wednesday morning, Branscomb doubled down on his previously expressed claim that he is being targeted not because of his mismanagement but because he is Black.
“The electeds said I can’t be trusted, but they never said why,” Branscomb said. “I haven’t done anything for them not to trust me. I think it’s a way for them to try to frame me as someone who is unworthy of their trust and disparage my credibility. I take it that — I don’t know — it could be profiling me thinking that because I’m a Black man, I’m unsavory. I was barely in office before they said they couldn’t trust me.”
Several groups within the party do not see it that way. Tuesday, two of them signaled that Branscomb’s days may be numbered.
During an emergency meeting on Sunday, the party’s Progressive Council — the largest caucus in the party, with more than 100 members — voted in favor of removing Branscomb with 69% support. The Veterans and Military Families Caucus, a much smaller and more recently formed group, also released a statement Tuesday noting that 80% of the dozen or so members who voted during a Monday meeting support the removal of Branscomb. The two groups have some overlap, including veterans caucus co-chair Derek Duba.
In a statement about the vote provided to New Times, the Progressive Council cited Branscomb’s “sustained pattern of poor management decisions and actions” and his financial mismanagement.
“Under Chair Branscomb’s leadership, our party has struggled to function in basic ways, failing to approve a budget to this day and suffering such a severe reduction in fundraising — combined with increased spending, sometimes without board approval — that we face insolvency within months,” the statement read.
Duba and fellow veterans caucus co-chair Manny Hernandez wrote that Branscomb’s failure to present or pass a functional budget and the rapid deterioration of the party’s finances have taken the party “from a debt-free, million-dollar war chest to a party now on track for insolvency before year's end.”
“This decision was not made lightly,” Duba and Hernandez wrote. “We weighed the concerns raised by Democratic Party leaders across Arizona, including allegations of mismanagement, disregard for staff, and failure to deliver on promises to build a more inclusive, strategic, and functional party. We also took seriously our responsibility to model the kind of integrity, accountability, and collective decision-making we hope to see in all leaders.”
Gov. Katie Hobbs is one of several prominent Democrats who have moved their reelection efforts away from the state party, which has been rocked by turmoil under party chair Robert Branscomb II.
Matt Hennie
A lot of bad headlines
Branscomb’s short tenure certainly has been rocky.A Laveen businessman, Branscomb rose to power after winning a surprising victory over the previous chair, Yolanda Bejarano, in January. Bejarano had helped the party to record fundraising in 2024, but that money hadn’t translated to wins in the state. Donald Trump carried the state comfortably in 2024, and Democrats lost seats in the state legislature.
On April 19, Branscomb distributed among party committee members a flame-throwing report on his first 90 days in office in which he accused Kelly and Gallego of withholding fundraising because Branscomb made personnel decisions without consulting them. The letter predictably became public, making the party look bumbling and divided at a time when it needed to be plotting a course forward.
Afterward, the two senators joined Hobbs, Mayes and Fontes in issuing a statement declaring that Branscomb had lost their confidence as chair. All five have since routed their fundraising efforts through the Navajo County Democratic Party to avoid the discord within the state party. Hobbs, Mayes and Fontes are all running for reelection next year.
The five officials abandoned the state party fundraising infrastructure because many say it is in shambles. In late June, state party treasurer Greg Freeman posted a YouTube message urging committee members to oust Branscomb, noting that the party’s fundraising had tanked and that it would run out of money soon without a major change. Freeman said he begged Branscomb to stop spending money, only for Branscomb to turn around and commit large sums that the party doesn’t have.
Speaking to New Times, Branscomb said the notion that the party is “in financial chaos is not true.” He added that the party had raised $45,000 this month and is on track to raise $100,000 before August.
“Traditionally in the past, there’s been a lull in donations coming in after election,” he said. “That is the same across the nation with all Democratic parties that donations have been down.”
Federal Elections Commission data shows the Arizona Democratic Party raised about $533,000 from January through May of this year. Four years ago, when Arizona was also gearing up for a big governor election cycle, the party raised $650,000 in that same span, FEC data shows. The data also shows the party spent nearly twice as much as it took in over the first five months of 2025, decreasing its war chest by more than half a million dollars. Financial figures for June and July are not yet available.
Branscomb is also facing opposition from state party employees. Unionized staff members at the party’s headquarters plan to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board after bargaining sessions with the party’s leadership stalled. They accused Branscomb and party leadership of violating an agreement not to discuss the bargaining publicly, retaliating against bargaining unit employees, initiating “chargeless investigations and disciplinary action” and offering quid pro quo exchanges related to disciplinary actions and bargaining.
“Instead of seizing opportunities to negotiate in good faith, Chairman Branscomb chooses to misrepresent the negotiation process for his own political gain,” the union’s statement read. "For months now, we have hoped that management would come to the table ready to negotiate and live by democratic values; instead, we've experienced indications of union animus. Staff and Arizonans deserve better from a party and chair that are supposed to champion the working class."
Branscomb provided a written statement pushing back on every one of the union’s allegations.
“We are disappointed by the recent public statement from the ADP HQ Union Staff, which misrepresents the facts and nature of our negotiations,” the statement read. “Contrary to the claims made, the Party has not engaged in any unlawful or retaliatory actions, nor has it violated the terms of our voluntary recognition agreement.”
The Arizona Democratic Party could oust its chair Wednesday night — or it could be stuck with him.
Katya Schwenk
Rallying support (by a Republican)
One of the few openly supporting Branscomb is, oddly, a Republican.Over the weekend, several outlets reported, some committee members received a voicemail from some Branscomb supporters urging them to skip the virtual vote over his ouster to deny the meeting a quorum. One of those supporters was Stephen Neal Jr., who is running for state schools superintendent in the 2026 GOP primary.
Branscomb said he had no involvement or knowledge of Neal making calls to try to keep him in power. But he didn’t seem put off in the slightest by a Republican working the phones for him.
“That’s what we’re trying to do in this state, get Republicans to join us to repel what this MAGA president is doing, then I don’t see a problem with it,” Branscomb said. “I think that’s what we’re trying to do as Democrats — get the Republicans and some Independents to join with us to put people in office or do the things we need to do to push back and retain our democracy.”
That’s a notable change in tone from May, when Branscomb was much more suspicious of Republicans. In response to criticism that he had not outlined his plan for the party to influential Democrats, Branscomb told the Arizona Republic that he couldn’t discuss his plan because “it would let out the secret sauce to the Republican Party.”
Just how the vote will play out on Wednesday is uncertain. One unpalatable possible outcome is that Branscomb survives but a majority of committee members, rather than the required supermajority, vote for his removal.
“We could find ourselves in a situation where a majority of the party does not want to keep this chair or does not have confidence in his ability to function,” Duba told New Times, “but we may still be bound by by-laws that insulate him from removal.”
Both the Progressive Council and Duba said that they will still support Branscomb if he remains in power. Whatever the outcome, progressive leadership said the caucus will continue to “build a people-powered party that puts the working class first, and defeat Trump and MAGA Republicans’ drive to turn our nation into an authoritarian oligarchy.”
Branscomb seems bent on staying at the helm even if a majority of committee members decide they’d rather not have him there.
“We have to unite as one and move forward as a party, and we will do that,” he said. “And I’m more than willing to make that happen, extend the olive branch after to make that happen. This is not a civil war. This is a disagreement.”
