Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R) has sent a sharply worded letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), urging an investigation and possible license revocation for Arizona PBS, alleging the station “put its thumb on the scale” for Democrat Katie Hobbs and against Kari Lake in the 2022 Arizona Governor’s race.

Petersen’s letter, addressed to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, accuses the station, licensed as KAET Channel 8 in Phoenix and owned by the Arizona State University (ASU) Board of Regents, of violating its broadcast contract, legal requirements, and “long-standing traditions.” He alleges that Arizona PBS denied Lake the solo interview she was entitled to under Arizona Clean Elections Commission rules after Arizona PBS gave Hobbs a 30-minute televised interview despite her refusal to participate in the Clean Elections general election debate.

“For years, Arizona PBS has broadcast election debates sponsored by the Arizona Clean Elections Commission,” Petersen wrote, noting that state law requires participating candidates to attend debates and allows penalties for those who refuse. Under the Commission’s rules, if only one candidate agrees to appear, the debate “will consist of a 30-minute question and answer session for the single participating candidate.”

Petersen emphasized: “This is not just tradition — it is in the rules and in the contract Arizona PBS signed to air the debates.”

According to documents Petersen says were only released after “743 days” of delay, the decision to break from tradition came directly from ASU’s highest leadership. On the day Hobbs refused to debate, ASU President Michael Crow emailed ASU Media Enterprise head Mi-Ai Parrish, saying, “Whatever the format there remains the fact that it is our venue and brand. We need structure…and format… and… people who believe in elections as participants.”

The letter alleges that Parrish, who oversees Arizona PBS, told the Clean Elections Commission’s executive director that putting Kari Lake, whom she criticized for her election integrity positions, on television “was wrong.” Internal emails also show top ASU officials privately predicted that Hobbs would win regardless of the backlash.

Parrish reportedly wrote, “Katie is getting roasted hard, but I don’t think it will matter,” to which Crow’s chief of staff replied, “I don’t think it matters either.”

Despite Clean Elections procedures and PBS’s own stated guidance, Petersen says Arizona PBS refused to honor its contractual obligation to give Lake a solo forum, instead offering Hobbs a high-profile, 30-minute interview broadcast to an audience the station itself boasts reaches “nearly 2 million Arizona homes.” Petersen called this “an unprecedented and partisan programming decision” made “at the highest levels of Arizona State University.”

Quoting Supreme Court precedent, Petersen wrote, “‘A broadcaster cannot grant or deny access to a candidate debate on the basis of whether it agrees with a candidate’s views,’ because such viewpoint discrimination presents ‘an inevitability of skewing the electoral dialogue.'” He likened Arizona PBS’ actions to “political pressure from inside” the station that amounted to “an attempted manipulation of the political process.”

Petersen pointed to past FCC enforcement actions, noting the agency has said “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest — indeed, there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs.” He reminded Carr of his past statements that “[b]roadcast licenses are not sacred cows” and that “news distortion doesn’t cut it.”

Arizona PBS has defended its actions by claiming the Clean Elections tradition conflicted with its licensing requirements. Petersen rejected that argument, pointing to the fact that during the 2022 Democratic primary, Arizona PBS followed the same tradition when Hobbs refused to debate Democrat Marco López — giving López a solo interview. “Hobbs’ decision not to debate triggered a contractual next step: Lake would appear in a solo town hall on Arizona PBS,” Petersen quoted from PBS’ public editor. “But Arizona PBS refused to honor that contractual obligation.”

Petersen concluded: “Arizona PBS did not act in the public interest. It exhibited ‘broadcaster favoritism’ for Hobbs, acted ‘in a partisan, discriminatory fashion,’ and was ‘designed to serve the political advantage of a candidate.’ In an election decided by just 17,000 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast, Arizona PBS provided Hobbs with a crucial lifeline.”

He urged the FCC to “take appropriate enforcement action, including license revocation, to protect the public interest and ensure that Arizonans will not be subjected to biased media manipulation in future elections.”

You can read Petersen’s FCC complaint in its entirety here.