The closely watched race for Arizona’s Legislative District 10 House seat has erupted into controversy after Republican candidate Ciara Anderson’s military record came to light. It centers on whether voters were given sufficient information about her adverse military record before casting their ballots.

Maricopa Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, who endorsed Anderson, told the Arizona Globe, “I was not aware of those things in her background” when asked about Anderson’s court-martial, military confinement, reduction in rank, and Bad Conduct Discharge.

The comment stands in contrast to a letter Anderson later circulated to supporters, in which she argued that her military history had not been hidden from voters. Anderson wrote that her Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was disclosed on her campaign website, referenced in campaign materials, and was “a regular part of her life story that she shares on the campaign trail.”

Numerous people contacted the Globe, confirming that Anderson never told anyone she had served in the military. Diane Anderson (not related) said that Ciara Anderson spoke at the Leisure World Republican Club several times, but never detailed her military history. The club leader told the Globe that she was unaware of her Bad Conduct Discharge.

The issue first gained attention after reports highlighted Anderson’s military service and the circumstances surrounding its conclusion. Public military records show Anderson served in the United States Air Force, but her service ended following a court-martial that resulted in a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), four months of military confinement, and a reduction in rank.

Retired Master Sergeant Jack Dona told the Globe, “According to Ms. Anderson’s LinkedIn profile, she served in the United States Air Force as a Security Forces Airman assigned to the 790th Missile Security Forces Squadron. In civilian terms, Security Forces are the Air Force’s police officers. Members of missile security units are entrusted with protecting nuclear missile facilities, launch sites, and other strategic assets critical to our nation’s defense. If accurate, this was not a routine assignment but one involving some of the Air Force’s most sensitive national security responsibilities.”

Anderson (Ciara) has spoken publicly about addiction struggles during her youth and military service, describing her life as a story of redemption, faith, family, and personal transformation. However, she did not respond to a request for comment when asked about the precise charges that led to her BCD.

Supporters argue that Anderson had disclosed the information on her website and has never attempted to hide her past. Critics counter that a brief reference to a court-martial and separation from the military buried on a website does not adequately convey the seriousness of a BCD and military confinement. Further, voters receiving voter guides will only see her veteran status and not that it ended negatively.

Sheridan’s statement will become a focal point down the stretch, as critics argue that if a prominent law enforcement official and endorser was unaware of key details of Anderson’s military record, voters may have been unaware as well.

Another endorser, Representative Quang Nguyen, wrote on social media that he was unaware of her military background before endorsing her.

The controversy expanded further this week when retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Ken Berger publicly disputed the use of his name on a pro-Anderson letter circulated by the campaign.

The original letter, which defended Anderson and criticized reporting on her military record, listed Berger among several veterans supporting Anderson’s candidacy. The letter accused critics of launching a “dishonest political hit job”. It stated that Anderson’s Bad Conduct Discharge had already been disclosed on her website, in campaign materials, and through her personal testimony on the campaign trail.

However, in a July 15 statement, Berger said he never authorized the letter. “I absolutely did not sign, permit, or approve any letter or take a position on anything that was in that letter for use to imply I supported the letter,” Berger wrote. He further stated that it was “unethical and unfair” to attribute support for the contents of a letter to an individual who did not authorize its publication. He said he requested that his name be removed from the document.

“The controversy after the letter was published arose strictly from words written by the candidate alone,” Berger added.

The discussion also drew attention from Rep. Walt Blackman (R-LD7), sponsor of Arizona’s Master Sergeant Orlando Dona Stolen Valor Act.

Following publication of the initial report, Blackman issued a statement emphasizing that military service should never be exploited for personal or political gain and that the allegations warranted a fair review.

“I sponsored Arizona’s Master Sergeant Orlando Dona Stolen Valor Act because military service is earned through sacrifice—not used for personal or political gain,” Blackman said.

“The allegations are serious and deserve a fair, thorough, and impartial investigation. Everyone is entitled to due process. However, if the evidence establishes that Arizona law was violated, it should be enforced equally. No one is above the law.”

Blackman further stated that veterans earn their status through service and sacrifice and that anyone who knowingly exploits military service for personal or political gain should be held accountable if supported by the facts and the law.”

Anderson is facing incumbent Rep. Justin Olson and attorney James Rogers in the Republican primary. Olson and Rogers are running together on a slate backed by Turning Point Action, while Anderson has received support from Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro and other Republican leaders.

With two House seats available, the outcome could reshape the political landscape of one of the East Valley’s most important legislative districts.

As early voting continues, the central question facing voters may be a simple one: Did they receive enough information to make an informed decision, or did key details remain unknown until the closing weeks of the campaign?

Ultimately, that decision now rests with the voters of District 10.