Attorney General Kris Mayes says her nearly two-year investigation into Gov. Katie Hobbs’ ties to Sunshine Residential Homes is “near the end” and expects to announce a result before the November election. But Mayes still will not say whether investigators will interview Hobbs before reaching that conclusion.

That unresolved question could determine whether an eventual decision not to bring charges settles the controversy—or deepens suspicions that the Democratic attorney general protected a fellow Democrat.

Mayes’ Criminal Division opened the investigation on June 6, 2024, after lawmakers asked the office to examine whether political contributions were connected to favorable treatment of Sunshine by the Arizona Department of Child Safety. It has announced no charges, formal findings or final investigative report.

The sequence that prompted the investigation is not in dispute.

Sunshine contributed $200,000 to the Arizona Democratic Party before the 2022 election and another $100,000 in 2023. The company also gave $100,000 to Hobbs’ inaugural fund.

In 2023, Sunshine sought a higher reimbursement rate for housing children in state care. An initial request was rejected under Matthew Stewart, Hobbs’ first DCS director. After David Lujan took over the agency, DCS increased Sunshine’s daily rate from $140 per bed to $195. A subsequent contract raised it to $234.

DCS said Sunshine had threatened to make more beds available to a federal program that paid higher rates, potentially leaving Arizona with fewer placements for foster children. Lujan has maintained that he approved the increase based on the agency’s needs and that Hobbs did not direct his decision.

But the circumstances remain politically damaging. Internal DCS records obtained by The Arizona Republic showed that agency employees were aware of Sunshine’s political support for Hobbs while considering the company’s request. Hobbs and her campaign manager also dined with Sunshine executives while the contract was being finalized.

What the public record has not established is equally important. No publicly disclosed evidence shows that Hobbs ordered the rate increases or entered an agreement to exchange government action for political contributions. The timing, access and favorable treatment justified an investigation, but they do not by themselves establish criminal conduct.

Based on the evidence now available to the public, a finding that prosecutors cannot connect Hobbs personally to the decision appears more likely than criminal charges against her.

That’s not the same as vindication. Acceptance of such a finding will depend heavily on how thoroughly Mayes explains the investigation—and what role, if any, Hobbs’ testimony played in it.

Mayes confirmed in April that investigators had asked to interview the governor. As of this week, her office had set no interview date, although both offices said they remained in communication.

Asked whether Hobbs was blowing off the investigation, Mayes rejected that characterization.

“You cannot blow off the Attorney General’s Office,” Mayes said. “Full stop. No one can.”

Mayes also said she was confident investigators would obtain the information necessary to complete their work. Hobbs said Tuesday that she was communicating with the attorney general and looked forward to a conclusion confirming that she did not participate in the DCS decision.

Neither official has explained whether Hobbs has agreed to an interview or whether investigators believe they can complete the case without one. She’s advised DCS to seek outside counsel.

The political complications extend beyond the interview. Mayes and Hobbs are both seeking reelection with support from Copper State Victory, the Arizona Democrats’ coordinated statewide campaign. Their shared party affiliation does not prove that Mayes interfered with the investigation, and she has said her office adopted measures to protect its integrity.

Nevertheless, a no-charges decision issued without an interview—or without a clear explanation of why one was unnecessary—would invite accusations of a partisan whitewash.

Mayes won’t have the final word. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and the state Auditor General have pursued a separate inquiry, while Arizona House Republicans retained outside counsel in February to investigate the Sunshine transactions.

If those inquiries also find no direct connection to Hobbs, the matter may remain a serious ethics and transparency controversy without becoming a criminal case. If they uncover evidence absent from Mayes’ findings, questions about her handling of the investigation will intensify.

The likeliest outcome on the currently available record is that Mayes will find insufficient evidence of Hobbs’ personal involvement. The more consequential question may be whether the attorney general can demonstrate that she conducted a complete investigation without ever publicly resolving whether the governor answered investigators’ questions.