Arizona Democratic Governor Vetoes Charlie Kirk License Plates
Arizona’s liberal governor vetoes license plate honoring Charlie Kirk in order to promote ‘nonpartisan’ government.
Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed legislation to create specialty license plates to honor the work of slain Turning Point USA CEO and founder Charlie Kirk.
The proposed legislation would allow Arizona residents the freedom to choose to buy specialty plates. A portion of the $32.00 fee would go to an unspecified pro-family, conservative group founded in 2012, presumably Turning Point.
Oddly, Hobbs, a liberal Democrat, framed her veto of the message as a way to remain “nonpartisan.”
She wrote in her veto letter:
Charlie Kirk’s assassination is tragic and a horrifying act of violence. In America, we resolve our political differences at the ballot box. No matter who it targets, political violence puts us all in harm’s way and damages our sacred democratic institutions.
I will continue working toward solutions that bring people together, but this bill falls short of that standard by inserting politics into a function of government that should remain nonpartisan.
A Democratic governor signing legislation to honor the work of a conservative Republican is, of course, a great way to promote the political peace Gov. Hobbs says she desires.
Her decision drew heavy backlash from Republican leaders and commentators.
The veto is “petty” and “callous,” according to Congressman Andy Biggs.
“Charlie Kirk was one of America’s most influential voices and leaders,” Rep. Biggs wrote on X.
“He made his home in Arizona, building a company and raising a family in this state before he was assassinated because of his political beliefs.”
Charlie Kirk was one of America’s most influential voices and leaders.
He made his home in Arizona, building a company and raising a family in this state before he was assassinated because of his political beliefs.
Katie Hobbs had a chance to honor Charlie and she vetoed it.… pic.twitter.com/vbbjQhRyrJ
— Andy Biggs (@andybiggs4az) March 7, 2026
Arizona state senator Jake Hoffman authored the bill. He is a former consultant to Turning Point USA and a friend of Kirk.
“Charlie Kirk was an incredible man,” Hoffman told Fox News recently.
“Hobbs’ true colors are exposed — rabid partisanship, gross incompetence, petulant political games, and a far-Left extremism that’s destroying our state,” he wrote on X.
Appreciate @FOXandFriends having me on to discuss Katie Hobbs’ disgusting veto of Arizona’s Charlie Kirk Memorial License Plate
Hobbs’ true colors are exposed — rabid partisanship, gross incompetence, petulant political games, and a far-Left extremism that’s destroying our state https://t.co/lfZFuXskz5 pic.twitter.com/JOVQ1l9X8R
— Jake Hoffman (@JakeHoffmanAZ) March 9, 2026
Others ripped into Hobbs.
“Purely petty politics and exactly the kind of partisan GARBAGE Americans are tired of,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote.
“Sick,” Senator Ted Cruz said.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m sorry but that first photo…
She looks like a poorly made bobble head given to the first 1,000 spectators at the Diamondbacks home opener.
What a stupid way to burn political capital. She could have said “Hey, didn’t agree with the guy, sorry he got murdered. Here’s your license plate. Remember me at reelection time!” but no. She has to be a bobble head.
Ruling by feeeelings.
There’s no class like no class, and the Dems have that sewn up.
I bet she was all over the worship of George “Fentanyl” Floyd and rainbow crosswalks….
When she was running for election I thought she was an empty headed nutcase. A definitely AWFUL and probably drugged up the wazzo. A typical democrat woman.
Funny it happened on the day the FBI seized Arizona ballots.
This woman is an absolute embarrassment. It is still fascinating that no one raises a stink that she didn’t resign as Secretary of State before running for governor. Secretary of State in AZ is not only the equivalent of a Lt Governor, the position also is responsible for vote counting for the entire state.
And yes, today the FBI raided the Maricopa County Recorder for vote irregularities for the 2020 election.
Katie Hobbs is a great example of why we don’t need women leading anything in politics.
That’s ridiculous and always was. There is always an elected official who is ultimately responsible for running elections; there has to be, in every state. Usually it is the secretary of state.
And that official will almost always be running themselves, either for reelection or for some other office. In no other election and in no other state has anyone ever demanded that the secretary of state resign before each election! For one thing, who would take over? Wouldn’t that person also be running for something?
None of that refutes anything I wrote. And simply because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean that it SHOULDN’T happened. And the fact that Arizona suffered from voting irregularities only heightens the fact Katie Hobbs should have at most refused herself from being involved in the vote count for 2020. The last two Secretaries of State who became governor, Jan Brewer and Rose Mofford, succeeded to governor and did not run for election as Secretary of State.
Brewer ran for reelection in 2006, as secretary of state. Ken Bennet ran for reelection in 2010. Betsey Bayless did the same in 1998.
And the only reason AZ hasn’t had a lot more secretaries of state running for governor is that the governors have tended to fall off the perch, and in AZ the SoS replaces them.
But you’re also forgetting every other state. In every state some elected official has to be responsible for elections. And in most states is the Secretary of State. But whoever it is, that person will naturally be expected to be a candidate in the next election, whether for the same office or a different one. And in most states secretaries of state don’t succeed the governor; that’s what the lieutenant governor is for. And in no state has anyone ever demanded that the official in charge of elections may not run for anything! It would be ridiculous.
It’s not as if Hobbs were personally involved in election administration There are boards of election for that, and the secretary of state’s office to supervise them. But in a democracy there has to be an elected official whose ultimately responsible for it. Otherwise you have the Deep State.
if your last paragraph is sarcasm I up vote you
(t’s not as if Hobbs were personally involved in election administration There are boards of election for that, and the secretary of state’s office to supervise them.)
Not sarcasm at all. Hobbs was no more involved in election administration than any other secretary of state, or attorney general, or whichever elected official has ultimate responsibility for elections in any given state.
true that women are mostlyyy leftists and are fcknup america
but they work and pay taxes etc so we dont have much choice except to make sure every male knows this and votes accordingly and with the women who are in fact patriots that would stop the lefty assaults
“And yes, today the FBI raided the Maricopa County Recorder for vote irregularities for the 2020 election.”
Justin probably had cookies and milk set out for them.
That office is in Republican hands this term.
And he’s been lambasting the “Republicans” on the County Board of Supervisors who are the ones who have constantly made a hash of county elections, either ignorantly or purposefully.
I’m okay with this decision.
How would people feel if there was a license plate “honoring” Nancy Pelosi? Obama? Al Sharpton? Bernie Sanders?
The list of available Arizona license plates can be found here:
https://azmvdnow.gov/plates
While perusing the choices, I fully expected to see a specialty plate for “The Democrat Party,” “The Republican Party.” “Proud to be Independent,” “Libertarians for Freedom,” or something like that.
There isn’t.
(There isn’t even a plate in support of Planned Parenthood.)
License plates convey a government endorsed message and I am not sure that one side of the political spectrum should be that message.
TPUSA should sell a thin license plate frame. Two of the sayings from their website that would be great would be “We Are All Charlie Kirk,” (or “I Am Charlie Kirk,”) and the great slogan “Never Surrender – Charlie Kirk.”
Both are on the TPUSA site as clothing and stickers.
(The frame would have to be thin as many states are banning frames that block any portion of the identifying information on the plate.)
I would prefer that rather than a state issued license plate.
Are Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Al Sharpton, or Bernie Sanders residents of Arizona? Charlie Kirk was. And at a very young age, he accomplished great things and lived a life worthy of honor. And now this disgrace of a governor is telling her state that they can’t honor his life. Because of politics.
Residents of Arizona?
Okay……you want to go with Gabby Giffords? Janet Napolitano? Sandra Day O’Connor? César Chávez?
Once again, license plates are government sponsored speech. (see Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.)
The plate should be apolitical, not political lest it appear that the government favors one party over another, one viewpoint over another.
Charlie Kirk is not like most of those other examples cited, for two reasons, (1) he’s not a living person, and (2) he’s not living because of a politically motivated assassination.
Depending upon the state, I would see no problem with someone’s home state honoring the life of a famous dead person – irregardless of party of record. Say, MLK, or Cesar Chavez (not to be confused with the California pol who brazonly changed his name to Caesar Chavez from his non-Latino birth name to run).
And….. “govt sponsored speech”? Really?
Does the govt force anyone to pay an extra $30 to get non-standard license plates?
That sounds more like (voluntary) personal sponsored speech to me.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
From the Supreme Court opinion in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Additionally, the fact that Texas vehicle owners pay annual fees in order to display specialty license plates does not imply that the plate designs are merely a forum for private speech.
. . . .
Here, too, we think it sufficiently clear that Texas is speaking through its specialty license plate designs, such that the existence of annual fees does not convince us that the specialty plates are a nonpublic forum.
– Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Specialty plates are government speech.
Oh stop. You know the reason this was vetoed was purely because Katie Hobbs like all nutcase Leftists hate Charlie Kirk because he said things they don’t like.
And your logic completely falls flat as politicians name shit after themselves all the time. Remember that when you fly into the John McCain wing of Sky Harbor International Airport.
Naming a building is not the same thing as a license plate which the state requires.
You have to have a license on the back of your car. The state controls every aspect of that plate. From the dimensions, the fonts, the information on the plate and any other message is controlled by the state and the state alone. .
This is not my logic. This is the opinion of the Supreme Court in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans where Texas declined to have a specialty plate with the Confederate Battle Flag. Certainly that decision was political as well.
Actually, YOU are the final arbiter of what appears on that plate.
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).
Henry, first of all Walker is later than Wooley, so if there’s any contradiction between them Walker prevails.
But really they’re not in conflict. Wooley explicitly acknowledged that the plate is the state’s ideological message, not the driver’s. It held that the state can’t compel you to turn your car into a mobile billboard for its message. In Walker the court gave the other side of that coin. The state can’t make you convey its message, but you can’t make the state say the things you want it to say.
So the state is the ultimate authority on what is on your plate; your authority is over what is not on it. You can veto the state’s message, but you can’t dictate a message in its place.
As a nod to Alanis M., isn’t it ironic that this (D) governor should veto the free speech rights of those who want to pay tribute to a free speech advocate famously murdered specifically for advocating free speech?
She did not veto anyone’s free speech rights. As gitarcarver pointed out, specialty license plates are NOT the driver’s speech, they’re the state’s speech. The Supreme Court says so. That’s why states don’t have to allow plates that they don’t approve of, such as confederate flag plates, or swastika plates.
Milhouse, “confederate flag plates, or swastika plates” are NOT something that is ever going to be A Thing.
So your worry is over the top, there.
Every blessed state has a process where either the legislature or a DMV department (with public input) ensures that any plate design is not obscene or otherwise objectionable.
If the governor is using a veto to stop there being an available memorial C Kirk plate for those who wish to choose (and pay) for it, that means the legislature has already decided it was NOOOO.
To veto an already vetted plate you should believe otherwise. From her actions here it appears the governor agrees with the scumbag who thought politics justifies murder – that Charlie was not a martyr but – as the (D)s like to claim – the Nazi Bigot Homophobe White Supremist they always label someone too capable of making them look like fools who can’t logically, and verbally justify their beliefs.
You don’t actually have to agree with this Charlie (or the “Charlie” folks murdered for free speech in France earlier) to be principled enuf to support the idea that someone murdered to suppress free speech IS a martyr and could / should be so honored.
On the contrary, that was precisely the case that came before the Supreme Court. The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued Texas to issue confederate flag plates, making exactly the same claim that you just did — that by refusing to issue such plates the state was depriving them of the freedom of speech.
The court rightly did not buy this argument, finding that specialty license plates are the state’s own speech, not the driver’s, and therefore the state has the right to say only the things it wants to, and not to say things it doesn’t want to.
So your argument has been considered and rejected.
And what right does it have to do that? If the plate is the driver’s speech then the state can’t censor it, and can’t refuse to issue plates with objectionable messages, just as the Patents and Trademarks office can’t refuse to register a trademark just because it’s offensive. The difference between trademarks and license plates is merely who is speaking. A trademark is the holder’s speech, while a license plate is the state’s speech.
The governor is entitled to a different opinion than the legislature. That’s why she has the veto power.
But in this case she didn’t claim it was OOOO; she vetoed it because it commemorates a political figure, and Arizona has no history of issuing plates to commemorate such people, and she doesn’t want to start one, because if it does one for Kirk then why not for César Chávez, or Giffords once she’s gone? And we don’t want that.
Personally if a Charlie Kirk plate were available in my state I would likely get one. And if I were an AZ legislator I would have voted for this bill. But the governor makes a reasonable argument against it. At any rate, your claim that it’s censorship and denies the freedom of speech is certainly invalid. If you think otherwise, find some Arizona drivers and sue the state.
As the 2020 election fraud proved, AZ is a garbage state.
There’s a “Choose Life” plate and other than that I couldn’t see anything really controversial. I expected at least a BLM plate, but no.
I wonder if MN has a George Floyd plate.
There’s a petition circulating for a Learing Center plate.
No it doesn’t,
License plates convey a government endorsed message and I am not sure that one side of the political spectrum should be that message.
Good thing you don’t live in NC or a myriad of other states where just this sort of thing occurs. NC has a “Right To Life” (Choose Life) or the NRA (pro gun). Frankly, I don’t get people that are all offended by license plates, bumper stickers etc. States do not tax church property, does that mean states are jamming religion down peoples throats? Some would argue yes.
Bumper stickers are the driver’s statement, not the state’s. According to the Supreme Court, license plates are the state’s statement, not the driver’s.
And I don’t understand your point about taxing church property. The state treats all religions equally in that regard, so it’s not endorsing any of them.
they should be taxed
otherwise favoritism is in fact be shown and that is whats wrong with them not being taxed
Favoritism to religion in general, as an enterprise to be encouraged and accommodated, is perfectly constitutional. That’s why while religious exemptions from generally applicable laws are not required (see Smith) they are permitted, and there is a centuries-long tradition of them in the USA. Hence RFRA for federal laws, and its equivalent in many states.
What the state can’t do is favor any one religion over others, endorse any religion, or endorse religion in general over non-religion. It can encourage religion in general, but not endorse it. (This is all assuming the establishment clause applies to the states, which is what everyone except Thomas believes.)
But this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech clause (which everyone agrees is incorporated against the states). The state is absolutely entitled to endorse one opinion over others. It just can’t discriminate against those who disagree with it.
So Arizona can issue a plate endorsing Charlie Kirk and his life’s work, if it wants to; and that would not require it to also issue plates endorsing contrary opinions. But it doesn’t have to, and it’s reasonable for the governor to say she doesn’t think it should.
re: millhouse march 10 9:36 post
favoring one over another ..be it religion or anything else gives an unfair advantage
so if they are exempt,,then I should be exempt etc
“favoritism TO religion” is in the context of not trying to control nor mandate a religion
but thats fine on its own merits
the argument is *favoritism* at all for any
and there should be none
the gov should be neutral
religious property etc should be taxed
no exceptions
Git, I still disagree with the veto – if the appropriate approving authority has given a vanity plate it’s approval I think her veto is what shows partisanship – but I think your idea for a (thin) license plate frame is a good one.
Charlie was all about free speech – and compromise.
What is this “appropriate approving authority” you speak of? What on earth do you mean by that? If you mean the legislature, the governor is part of the legislation process; her right to veto legislation is just as integral to it as is the legislature’s right to pass it. Effectively she is a third chamber of the legislature, just as the US president is effectively a third house of Congress.
You wouldn’t call Trump vetoing legislation “showing partisanship”. Especially if what he vetoed was a partisan intrusion into what had previously been an area free from that.
Milhouse, your “the US president is effectively a third house of Congress.” is quite a departure from the common understanding that in the US “there are three branches of govt”.
The federal chief executive (the President) is DEFINITELY not a part of Congress, you could argue the VP’s tie breaking vote in the House makes him/her personally a part of Congress, but “a separate (third) house”? Points for originality – if not for validity there.
At the state level in some states the lt. .governor serves a similar role, in some a tie vote just counts as a defeat I believe. Still, the governor is not a member of the legislative branch, he’s a member of the executive.
Three seperate (but supposedly equal) branches of govt was one of the best ideas of the FF’s imho. It serves as a barrier to vesting too much power in any one place. Blurring that separation even just in rhetoric has a danger of also blurring that separation in practice.
It’s why the current tendency of courts, especially lower courts, to casually assume executive (or legislative) powers upon themselves is (imho) an actual Danger to Democracy.
The excuse given is “it’s just opposition to tyranny” but even if you accept the underlying premise using tyranny to oppose tyranny IS tyranny, just with a different tyrant / set of tyrants.
That the president or governor is a third house of the legislature is clear and obvious. That is the model that the USA inherited from the UK, and went with. All legislation must be passed both houses of the legislature, and must then obtain the president/governor’s assent. That makes him a third house. That the first two houses can, by supermajorities, override the third house, doesn’t change that third house’s role.
This doesn’t affect the separation of powers. The president is the executive branch. But he is also part of the legislative branch. The separation of the branches doesn’t mean that the same person can’t be in two branches. For instance it’s established precedent that the same person can be Secretary of State and Chief Justice at the same time. And technically the president can also be a member of Congress; there’s nothing in the constitution that prevents it, but it would be insane for someone to try it.
By contrast the VP is not a member of the executive branch. He is a member of the legislative branch. This is what Sarah Palin got right in her debate with Biden, and he got spectacularly wrong, because she had read the constitution and he hadn’t. But he sounded more convincing because in his prime, before he lost his faculties, he was a master bullshitter.
At any rate, there can be no question that the governor’s veto power is a legislative function, not an executive function. It’s part of the process of making laws, not of executing them.
See also the Supreme Court’s decision that in Arizona, where the state constitution allows laws to be made by referendum, the people at large voting in a referendum are part of the legislature, and wherever the US constitution refers to a state legislature it includes the entire voting population of AZ.
Bob, I am still okay with her veto.
Two things of note: the proposed bill actually steps on the feet of the “approving authority.” That authority is actually the Arizona DMV. The proposed bill directed the DMV to make the plates.
Secondly, this is in the bill:
The only entity that meets that criteria is Turning Point USA.
But I am extremely uncomfortable with the State sponsoring speech of one viewpoint over another. The State, as an entity, should remain neutral.
I could see this opening the flood gates for specialty tags of “Black Lives Matter,” or “Support Diversity, Inclusion and Equity.” How about plates that support CRT in schools? What if there were plates that went to “anti-BLM” groups? What happens when an officer pulls over a car with a message with which he disagrees? Would his discretion to issue a ticket extend to basing his decision on the specialty plate?
My other issue would be that even the “Choose Life” plates disburse the fees to a multitude of pro-life groups. Here, the monies would go to only one specific group. That seems counter productive to the idea of “spreading values.” There should be more groups, not only one that is government aided.
I think there are other and better ways to support TPUSA and honor Kirk other than a license plate. But that is just me.
Once the flood gate is opened, you can’t stop the waters.
That’s not required by the constitution, and I’m not aware of any government that even aspires not to have opinions. The courts have been clear that the government is allowed to have opinions, and to compel its employees to express those opinions on its behalf and to forbid them from expressing any contrary opinion when speaking on its behalf. What it’s not allowed to do is discriminate against people who hold contrary opinions. It must treat them the same as it does those who agree with it.
Let me be clearer…..
I am extremely uncomfortable with allowing government plates that would say “Vote Democrat,” (Or vote Republican.)
I would be extremely uncomfortable with a City truck with either of those sentiments as well.
I would see that as no different than electioneering by government workers.
That’s what I am talking about.
Cat Lady placed into the Governor seat through stolen elections. You get that stench of a litter box every day as she followed the Joe Biden protocol to hide from campaigning and let the apparatus do its thing.
I’d rather see a Captain Kirk license plate.
Uncle Bill rocks!
I am saddened I could not get what I had on my Tennessee plate when I moved here (AZ) last year.
FURFACE
Someone already has it. Grr…
AZMVD says: FURF8CE is available!
How about “FURSHUR”
Ideas for new Supreme Leader’s plate:
A. MOJTABA1
B. NEWAYATOL
C. FATWA
D. DEATH2USA
E. ________________
strike me
lghtmeup
jhater
Ihavetds
Corpses don’t drive.
SemourButts could drive him around.
Typical demoncrap excrement.
There are better ways of honoring the legacy of Charlie Kirk than using a license plate as a political “gotcha”… and that’s exactly what this was.
Let the down voting commence.
On the other hand, perhaps some people do want to keep his memory alive and the license plate is one way of doing that. They should have done the same for 9/11 in NY, maybe Mamdani would’nt be Mayor right now.
True, but it *is* a way of showing how the Left hates the man and what he stood for. The Gov has a point, since there are only 15 or so specialty AZ plates now (azmvdnow.gov/plates) and none of them are for individuals, but she picked one of the most classless ways of saying it *because* she can’t admit he was right in any way.
15?
You obviously didn’t hit the “see all” button. It’s more like 60+.
Hmm. My computer isn’t displaying any.
Hate dwells in her heart, a standard stock Democrat.
if she and the rest were for non partisan Id back her up
but thats pure trash /bs as we all know
take a knee for thuggy rip george floyd and get back with us
What Hobbs really meant: “In
AmericaArizona, we resolve our political differencesatby stuffing the ballot box.”FIFH
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^