GOP Candidates Shine in Pre-primary Clean Elections Debate

Four Republican candidates seeking Arizona’s highest office took the stage for a Clean Elections gubernatorial debate, offering voters a glimpse of their competing visions for the state’s future. The debate featured businessman Scott Neely, businessman Ken Miceli, U.S. Congressman David Schweikert, and U.S. Congressman Andy Biggs. The candidates addressed a range of issues facing Arizona, including border security, public safety, education, economic development, water policy, and who is best suited to face Governor Katie Hobbs in the general election.

While all four candidates made their case to voters, Schweikert and Biggs are widely viewed as the frontrunners in the GOP primary. Recent polling has consistently shown Biggs holding a significant lead, while Schweikert remains the only other candidate viewed by many political observers as having a viable path to securing the nomination.

Each candidate was asked a variation of the same question: Why should Arizona voters elect you governor?

Scott Neely, who ran for governor in 2022 against Kari Lake and Karrin Taylor Robson, was introduced by the moderator with a reminder that he received roughly 3% of the vote in that race and later lost a bid for Mesa mayor. Neely described himself as “a man for the people” and compared his candidacy to that of President Donald Trump, arguing that voters should not view a lack of political experience as a disadvantage. Like Trump, Neely said, he comes from a background in building and business rather than government.

Congressman David Schweikert emphasized his electoral record and ability to withstand tough political challenges. “I’m the Democrats’ most expensive loss,” Schweikert said, arguing that he has been battle-tested in competitive races. He also stressed that Republicans must appeal to independent voters if they hope to win statewide elections in Arizona.

Businessman Ken Miceli positioned himself as an outsider candidate, telling moderators that many Arizonans are looking for leadership from outside the political establishment.

Congressman Andy Biggs highlighted his legislative experience and ability to work across political lines when necessary. As an example, Biggs pointed to an instance in which he partnered with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, arguing that he is the Republican best positioned to defeat Governor Katie Hobbs. Throughout the debate, Biggs repeatedly cited examples of bipartisan cooperation that he said benefited Arizona.

Unlike the recent Attorney General debate, the gubernatorial candidates remained largely respectful and focused on policy differences rather than personal attacks. At one point, Schweikert, who is well known for his detailed command of fiscal policy and budget issues, said, “Can people start reading budgets?” He then complained about some of the facts people on the stage were using.

Education savings accounts (ESAs) emerged as one of the few issues where all four candidates found common ground. Each expressed support for protecting and expanding Arizona’s ESA program.

Neely insisted on greater transparency and accountability within the program, while also advocating for expanding ESAs to include trade schools.

Schweikert told moderators he has long supported educational choice, noting that he sponsored one of Arizona’s early charter school bills.

“Education choice is the future, and it is one of our attractions for economic growth,” he said. Schweikert also argued that when parents choose homeschooling, they reduce costs to taxpayers while creating more educational options for families.

Biggs called for further expansion of the ESA program and frequently contrasted his vision with Hobbs’s throughout the debate. He argued that reports of fraud demonstrate the system is working because improper activity is being identified and addressed. Biggs added that public school systems also experience fraud and require similar oversight.

The debate’s closing statements featured some of the sharpest exchanges of the evening.

Neely highlighted that he was the only Clean Elections-compliant candidate on the stage and announced that his campaign would begin running advertisements the following week. Neely has frequently criticized Biggs on social media, suggesting that contrasts between the two candidates are likely to intensify as the campaign progresses.

Biggs largely reserved his criticism for Hobbs, repeatedly asking voters, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Schweikert challenged Republican voters with a different question: “Are you tired of losing?” He argued that repeated electoral defeats could put Republican priorities at risk in future elections. In the sharpest attack of the night, Schweikert said that Biggs was wholly beholden to Turning Point, which had lost recent elections.

Miceli used his closing remarks to draw contrasts with both frontrunners, referencing Schweikert’s past ethics cases and raising questions about Biggs’ connection to efforts surrounding January 6.

The debate largely succeeded in providing Arizona voters with an opportunity to compare the GOP primary candidates’ priorities, leadership styles, and governing philosophies before selecting a nominee to challenge Governor Katie Hobbs in the November 2026 general election.