UPDATED 7/15: The Case Against Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Robert Branscomb: A Letter to State Committee Members

Mr. Branscomb cannot effectively lead the ADP forward, under any circumstances.

UPDATE: Branscomb has drawn Unfair Labor Practices charges.

I resolved several weeks ago to write something to try to assist our AZ State Committee Members (SCMs) to understand what has transpired over the past several months under the Chairmanship of Robert Branscomb, and how it has come to pass that he finds himself facing a vote to remove him from office. I intended to lay out the cases both for and against recall – given my career experience as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney , it was the natural way for me to think about the controversy. But I find myself unable to mount any defense case – I no longer believe there is a viable defense for Branscomb that is founded in truth.

I am willing to post – unedited – anything in his defense that Branscomb and/or his remaining allies wish to respond with, but I can no longer pretend that I can write a reasonable case for his defense myself. I simply can’t do justice to a case that I don’t believe exists. I personally have knowledge of many other instances of misconduct and unfitness by Branscomb that I have not included here, but this article is already much longer than most will care to read, and many of those anecdotes cannot be revealed without also making the identity of protected confidential sources too obvious.

Should you understandably lack the time or patience to read the entirety of this post, I offer a summary of my main reasons why Branscomb should either resign or be removed from the Chairmanship:

1. Loss of Trust and Coalition Breakdown

• Alienation of Party Factions: Branscomb’s actions have alienated significant segments of the Democratic coalition, including elected government officials, ADP staff, major Party donors, and Party members.
• Failure to Reconcile Interests: The ADP Chair’s core duty is to harmonize party interests and set unified priorities. Branscomb’s conduct has made this impossible.

2. Financial Mismanagement and Lack of Transparency

• Imminent Financial Crisis: The Party is reportedly on track for bankruptcy by the end of 2025 due to Branscomb’s failure to raise funds and reckless spending.
• Distrust from Party Leaders: Major stakeholders have rerouted the 2026 coordinated campaign away from the ADP, indicating a total lack of trust in Branscomb’s financial stewardship.
• Treasurer’s Public Rebuke: Greg Freeman, the Party’s own Treasurer, publicly called for Branscomb’s removal after presenting the dire financial outlook.

3. Dysfunctional Leadership and Stakeholder Relations

• Hostility Toward Staff: Branscomb’s abrupt and hostile firing of the ADP Executive Director, followed by the rejection of qualified candidates in favor of an unqualified ally, led to a mass staff exodus and deepened rifts with elected officials.
• Breakdown with Electeds: Public disputes and accusations have destroyed working relationships at multiple levels, undermining the party’s ability to function effectively during a critical election cycle.

4. Abuse of Power and Unethical Conduct

• Unilateral and Unauthorized Actions: Branscomb has been accused of exceeding his authority, particularly in his treatment of First Vice Chair Kim Khoury, conductng secret investigations and imposing disciplinary actions without proper authorization.
• Censure and Code of Conduct Violations: He has been censured by the Executive Board for unethical behavior, and multiple code of conduct violations are under investigation.

5. Obstruction and Dishonesty

• Pattern of Misinformation: Branscomb has misled Party members, the Executive Board, and the public, including making demonstrably false and misleading statements, including about a public official, and the status of union negotiations.
• Obstruction of Democratic Processes: He has attempted to delay or obstruct meetings and processes intended to hold him accountable, further eroding confidence in his leadership.

6. Labor Relations and Union Busting (UPDATE: Branscomb Draws Unfair Labor Practices Charges)

• Bad-Faith Negotiations: Branscomb has been accused of disrespecting union negotiators, dragging out contract talks, and attempting to exclude his personal hires from union protections.
• Policy Contradictions: His resistance to paid parental leave, cost-of-living adjustments, and reproductive care coverage for staff stands in direct conflict with Democratic Party values.
• Risk of Staff Walk-Out: Ongoing labor disputes and union-busting behavior threaten to damage the Party’s reputation and operational capacity.

7. Irreparable Damage to Party Effectiveness

• Loss of Confidence: Without the support of elected officials, donors, staff, and Party members, Branscomb is unable to lead the Party toward its goals.
• Calls for Resignation: There is a clear consensus within the Executive Board and Executive Committee and among a majority of well-informed SCMs that Branscomb should either resign or be removed to restore the party’s effectiveness and unity.

I hope that you will take the time to explore my reasons and evidence for the removal or resignation of Branscomb to follow.

My problem in making any case in favor of Branscomb’s defense comes down to this: Branscomb has by his own actions so alienated significant factions of the Democratic coalition that he can no longer effectively lead it. The purpose of the ADP Chair is to reconcile and harmonize the interests of the various Party factions, to raise funds for the shared purposes of the Party and its candidates in election contests, and to set out spending and programming priorities to best pursue those shared purposes. With his own actions and behavior toward our elected officials, ADP staff, the Membership of the Party, and the public, Branscomb has made it impossible for him to carry forward the Party’s purposes.

Branscomb can no longer effectively lead the Party, even should he retain the Chairmanship for now. Therefore, should he wish to help the Party achieve its electoral aims, the only thing he can helpfully do is resign. If he insists on remaining Chair, he will serve only his own self interest.

Branscomb’s Financial Mismanagement and Nonfeasance

Already, the Party – in the form of our elected officials, our major donors, and many, many of our Members in the State Committee, Executive Committee, Executive Board, and the County Parties are routing around his failed Chairmanship by running the 2026 coordinated campaign through Navajo County.

Branscomb has brushed this move off as meaningless or as complimentary to the efforts of the ADP, but the true powers within the Party have already cut him out of the chain of command with this move. The only thing he can accomplish by continuing his Chairmanship at this point is to bankrupt the ADP, which he is on track to do by the end of 2025, according to Treasurer Greg Freeman. The simple fact is that our Party leaders do not trust Branscomb with control over the substantial sums of money it takes to run the coordinated state campaign. As I will discuss later, they have good reasons for that distrust.

Branscomb’s own Treasurer, Greg Freeman, has publicly urged the Chairman’s removal after laying out the ineluctable facts of the current financial trajectory under Branscomb’s leadership at the last SCM Meeting.

Branscomb has proven unwilling or unable to effectively raise money for the Party. He has continually tried to lay off responsibility for this on others and made excuses as to his ongoing failure to fund the Party’s basic functions and staffing, but the buck should stop with him.

According to insiders, Branscomb continues to habitually shirk call time, attempt to deprioritize and delegate fundraising, and lie to his own Executive Board about the extent of his efforts and successes. He has represented inflated fundraising results to his own Board, only to be proven a liar by the actual reported results.

The trajectory of the Party’s finances remain dire, and Branscomb remains in complete denial about this reality. It is mainly due to his demonstrated inability to fund his own proposed budget plans that the Executive Board and Committee continue to reject his fantasy budgets, unanimously (now 4 times in a row). They have no confidence that he can or will deliver funding for his proposed budgetary outlays. The Arizona Democratic Party’s financial position thus remains in free fall without a plan to resolve the coming crisis. Branscomb has had half a year to turn this situation around and has utterly failed. Excuses cannot excuse his nonfeasance.

Why Did Branscomb Become Our ADP Chair?

There is only one reason that Robert Branscomb became Chairman: distrust and suspicion that Chairperson Yolanda Bejarano and Treasurer Rich McGuire were somehow “self-dealing” and perhaps enriching themselves at the expense of the Party. The suspicions were flimsily predicated upon vague allegations of impropriety leveled by ADP Board Member Will Knight. Chair Yolanda Bejarano deemed any allegation of “self-dealing” to be “defamatory” and called the concerns outlined in a letter “misplaced,” given public reporting of party finances.

Enough SCMs were suspicious – and enough were angered by our electoral losses in 2024 – that a bare majority of less than 60% ousted Bejarano and McGuire and elected untested newcomer Branscomb, who at that point in time only had about a year in a minor leadership role in of one of our Legislative Districts – not the significant record of Party leadership appropriate to the level of responsibility to which he was elected.

In his campaign to oust Bejarano, Branscomb touched on election losses in 2024, calling for “bold and transformative change.”  He said he was committed “to rebuilding trust and respect, by not just listening to your concerns, but by returning your phone calls and advocating for everyday people.”  “If you believe in bold leadership, if you see the need for change, if you’re ready to fight to turn Arizona blue, vote for me,” Branscomb said. In my estimation, he has failed to deliver on those promises.

Following his election, Branscomb told the Arizona Capitol Times that he believed the party did need an audit and emphasized his focus on transparency and party unity as Chair. 

“I want to, number one, get the party together and make sure we come together and make sure we’re solid. It’s hard after a loss,” Branscomb said. “But I don’t want that despair to turn into inaction.”

Branscomb has not delivered on those promises and aspirations except in one important respect: he did authorize an independent audit of the Party’s finances. As he announced at the last SCM Meeting, no evidence was found of any wrongdoing by Chair Bejarano or Treasurer McGuire. In short, they were ousted for no other reason than baseless suspicions, a too-confidential handling of Party finances (which allowed such baseless allegations to gain traction), and bad vibes from the 2024 cycle results. The SCMs who voted out the prior leadership, in my view, owe Mr. McGuire an apology for the calumny they baselessly heaped upon him – especially Mr. Knight.

The financial transparency and accountability that accounted for Branscomb’s ‘mandate’ was achieved by an independent audit (now required to be performed biannually) and by internal reforms. That same financial transparency standard has been resisted under Branscomb’s leadership; he has attacked his own Treasurer for providing the financial transparency that revealed Bransomb’s failure to raise funds and his showed that his administration’s reckless burn rate is leading the ADP toward bankruptcy by the end of this year.

Branscomb’s Feud with our Arizona Elected Officials

Branscomb’s troubled relationship with elected officials and ADP staff began just days following his taking over the ADP. He immediately made moves that indicated a deep distrust and hostility toward the top staff who served under the prior leadership, as if he actually believed the spurious allegations of impropriety were true, and the senior staff were part of the problem.

Just days after taking office, Branscomb summarily fired the ADP Executive Director Morgan Dick. This would have been troubling to many, regardless of circumstances: Morgan enjoyed the confidence of all the state elected officals and many senior leaders in the Party Membership. He terminated Dick with great hosiity and immediately locked her out of ADP computer systems. Then, after effectively banishing her, he complained of a lack of transition assistance – which would have required her cooperation and assistance.

Now, I think it reasonable that a new Chairman has the right and ability to appoint a new Executive Director. I do not fault Branscomb for that. What was problematic in the view of many I’ve spoken with is the manner in which that transition to new professional staff leadership was carried out. Morgan’s sudden, and seemingly baseless, termination unsettled many. However, many were soothed by Branscomb then agreeing to create an executive search committee including staff from many stakeholders to gather, review, and interview applicants for a new Executive Director in a nationwide search.

Many, many staff and volunteer hours were expended in search of appropriate candidates for the Arizona Executive Director position. Eventually, two solid applicants were selected who were well qualified and interested in coming to Arizona for the job. Branscomb, however, rejected both finalists on very thin pretenses. In the initial search, he insisted that Mike Ruff, an ADP staff member who had Branscomb’s confidence, be considered for the position; Ruff was – and he was eliminated in the initial round as unqualified for the position. Despite the existence of two candidates considered by the committee to be excellent and well-qualified, Branscomb overruled the search committee and unilaterally selected Ruff to be Executive Director without Executive Board consultation.

This action was a tremendous slap in the face of all the stakeholders who had in good faith invested many hours and resources into the executive search, only for that process to be summarily rejected by Branscomb in favor of his in-house candidate, whom the committee had already rejected as unqualified for the position. It was a major breaking point in the relationship between Branscomb and our Arizona elected officials and his own Board, who felt deeply disrespected by this move. Branscomb’s unilateral actions also precipitated a mass exodus by many of the ADP staff.

Soon after, this conflict between Branscomb and the elected officials erupted into public view. In a now infamous letter that Branscomb apparently leaked to the press, he alleged that a senator’s staff member had made racist statements. The elected officials responded by making it clear they had lost confidence in Branscomb’s leadership, and questioned his honesty, saying, “[u]nfortunately, his statement today includes many false claims and is the kind of bad-faith response we’ve come to expect from the new leadership over the last several weeks.”

In case it is lost in the rather too-diplomatic language used, they are calling Branscomb a liar who cannot be trusted to negotiate with counter-parties in good faith.

Nor was this series of unfortunate judgments the only sign of Branscomb’s cack-handed treatment of important stakeholders. I know of other instances in which Branscomb has asserted his power as Chairman in an attempt to overreach. Perhaps the most egregious example is Branscomb’s ongoing attempt to assert spending control over the substantial sums raised statewide by the legislative candidates and staff (funds vital to flipping the Arizona legislature in 2026) and even to control their staffing decisions. Problematically, this impasse remains unresolved, despite the clear precedence of past practice within the Party.

Six months into Chair Branscomb’s term, his relationship with our elected officials at multiple levels remains completely dysfunctional, as demonstrated by the aforementioned routing the 2026 coordinated campaign around the ADP. I do not believe that Branscomb can effectively work with our incumbents to get them re-elected or to work with candidates to expand our control over state and local offices. Without the confidence of our elected officials and candidates, the ADP cannot be fully effective in the coming 2026 election cycle, which is crucial to Arizona’s and America’s future.

Branscomb’s Abuses of Power and Bad Faith

Over the past six months I have noted, in myriad ways, Branscomb’s tendencies to try to trick and misinform our Members, sideline and silence critics, and obfuscate the simple truth about his leadership: his Chairmanship has already failed, and he refuses to recognize his ineffectiveness. There has already been a formal call for his voluntary resignation from within the Party, and a clear majority of those within the Executive Board, the Executive Committee, and the SCMs favor Branscomb’s voluntary resignation (and likely also his forced removal by the SCMs). Without broad support among the Members, the governing bodies of the Party, and our elected officials, any Chairperson would be completely ineffectual and unable to lead the Party, whatever their intentions or hopes.

An example of Branscomb’s many lies and gaslighting, see his appearance on July 12th, in which he lied repeatedly, according to my fellow writer at BlogForArizona, Larry Bodine, including falsely claiming that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes wants him to remain Chair. Mayes has denied this, clarifying that she has taken no position on the matter. This blatant and easily disproven lie about a public official is an especially egregious, but by no means the only, example of his behavior. Such public disrespect for the truth in itself disqualifies him from continued leadership of the Party.

Of all the abuses of power I have noted, large and small, over the past months, perhaps the most troubling are those directed at members of his own leadership team, especially – but certainly not limited to – First Vice Chair (and thus his de jure temporary successor as Chair) Kim Khoury. Branscomb clearly exceeded and arrogated powers not enumerated by the ADP bylaws in his actions toward Khoury. You can read his letter announcing his actions against Khoury here. The letter was obviously leaked to Mary Jo Pitzl by somebody. Many believe that Branscomb himelf (or his staff at his direction) leaked the letter. Although Branscomb continues to deny leaking internal communications to the press and others, he is currently under investigation for similar actions in furtherance of his political struggle against his perceived ‘enemies’ within the Party.

Disciplinary issues such as those for code of conduct violations (which are, so far as I can determine, baseless regarding Khoury) alleged by Branscomb are matters for the Board and Committee, not secret investigations by staff, nor unilateral disciplinary actions by the Chair. Branscomb seems to have run a brutal whisper campaign and a secret investigation of Khoury, and taken disciplinary actions against her without any authorization. In sum, I believe that Branscomb has abused his position to carry out what is essentially a political persecution of Khoury over her perceived disloyalty to himself.

Currently, the Executive Board is reviewing at least 3 code of conduct violations alleged against Branscomb, including some related to his campaign against Khoury.

Branscomb’s ongoing misconduct is not behavior befitting a party official, and he has now been censured by his own Executive Board for some of that unethical behavior and rules violations. According to my sources inside the ADP leadership and staff, it is partly his behavior toward Khoury, and the subterfuge he has used in pursuing that vendetta, that has resulted in Branscomb’s recent fairly anodyne and vaguely worded censure 2 weeks ago by his own Executive Board. A second censure was passed regarding his failure to notify SCMs of the upcoming special meeting in a timely manner, but was not published when Branscomb finally notified the SCMs (a few days late).

Branscomb is at war with many who he would need to facilitate his success as Chair. His own unethical behavior, suspicious nature, incompetence, impolitic public statements, and paranoid accusations have led his administration to this ultimate failure. He continues to bemoan the fact that so many now refuse to work with him, even as he continues to lie and impugn their motives. When everyone seems to have a problem working with you, perhaps the problem lies in the common denominator: you.

Some have suggested that these complaints about Branscomb’s behavior are the result of structural racism. But holding people accountable for bad and unacceptable behavior is not racism – failing to uphold ethical standards of behavior because of a person’s race is racism. I would remind everyone who might worry that rejecting Branscomb’s continuation as Chair would be racist that we are also many of the very same people who nominated and elected him in the first place. Such allegations are baseless, desperate, unbecoming, and offensive.

The problems do not stop with the many important stakeholders in the Party; Branscomb continues to have trouble with staffing issues at ADP. Although he continues to claim to support the unionization of ADP staff, he continues to drag out negotiations and has been repeatedly accused of union busting and personally obstreperous behavior, most importantly his insisting on carving out his personal hires to ADP staff from inclusion in the union contract.

For months now, the staff has been seriously considering a walk-out as a direct result of Branscomb’s intransigence and disrespect toward the negotiators. The reputational damage that a unionization walkout by the ADP staff would cause to the Democratic brand in Arizona (and nationally!) cannot be overstated.

The Union has expressed several concerns about the negotiation and proposed terms:

• Branscomb has been disrespectful toward negotiators and engaged in bad-faith negotiations: The ADP headquarters union staff stated that management’s actions do not reflect a party rooted in respect, democracy, and worker dignity.
• Branscomb continues to reject paid parental leave: The union alleges that the party rejects paid parental leave for its unionized staff, conflicting with Democratic Party positions on this issue.
• Branscomb continues to insist on unreasonably capped sick leave: Leadership has reportedly proposed limiting sick leave to 5 days per year.
• Branscomb continues to deny cost-of-living adjustments supported by the union.
• Branscomb continues to reject reproductive care coverage: The union claims that coverage for reproductive care, previously provided, has been denied.

Branscomb has even lied to his own Executive Board about the union negotiations. According to insiders, Branscomb claimed to the Executive Board that he could not finalize a contract with the union without an approved budget. He was immediately contrdicted by the Party’s own counsel. His statement was categorically untrue. It is clearly an attempt to strong-arm the Board into passing Branscomb’s budget. In fact, the uncertainly around the union contract is a major contributing factor to the multiple unanimous rejections (now numbering 4) of Branscomb’s budget proposals.

In my prior post regarding the recall meeting on the 16th, I led by highlighting a few of the minor ways that Branscomb has directed staff to try to thwart the scheduling of the petitioned meeting to consider his retention. I now believe that these petty ministerial maneuvers are intended to mislead and obstruct the democratic process, and are not mere mistakes, nor oversights, nor incompetence. Resorting to such low obstructionist methods has been a defining characteristic of Branscomb’s tenure.

The most recent allegation against Branscomb that I believe has sufficient evidence for credence is that he has recruited a Republican candidate for office to solicit non-participation by SCMs in the recall meeting. This instance may not be a major reason to support his removal, but it is another bit of evidence about his character. By his own actions, he has brought himself such contempt from so many stakeholders within the Party that few are surprised by this latest allegation of his deceptive behavior.

The fact that Branscomb remains unable to extricate himself from the consequences of his past behavior is due entirely to his personal comportment, lack of any remorse or behavioral reform, and continual lies and meaningless blandishments about working cooperatively. He simply has proven to any who have tried to work with him that he simply cannot operate in good faith, nor be trusted to tell the truth, just as our electeds alleged.

I believe that the Executive Board and Executive Committee would both vote to remove Branscomb at this point had they the power to do so. But only the SCMs have that power under our bylaws. SCMs, it is now in your hands to do what ONLY you can do: end Branscombs’ reign of misrule. Be assured that even if Branscomb manages to survive this meeting without a binding vote of removal, this issue will persist until a sufficient number of SCMs participate in a special meeting to achieve a determinative result.

At some point, if the pending investigations were to substantiate the allegations of code of conduct violations alleged against Branscomb, the Board and Committee could revoke Branscomb’s SCM status, and thus disqualify him from the Chairmanship. Obviously, a vote by the SCMs is a much more democratic process. Removal by disqualification would be an extended process, with multiple checkpoints and an appeals process. Following that extended process would undoubtedly bring further disrepute upon the Democratic Party, and news of continued internal dissension over the coming months while we should be focused on future elections would be damaging to our candidates. Yet it is exactly this agonizing, long, and contentious process to which his remaining supporters refer when they insist that Branscomb enjoy ‘due process’ in order to be removed. But the Chairmanship is a political post, and a political process should determine the Chair’s tenure, not a quasi-criminal, bureaucratic, and process-intensive inquiry as to specific actions and behaviors that would then become part of the public record to everyone’s dismay… other than the Republicans’, of course.

I reiterate: the best service Branscomb can provide to the Arizona Democratic Party at this point is to tender his resignation in advance of, or at, the July 16th Special SCM Meeting and save the Party the agony of further removal proceedings. He has proven himself unable to lead the Party effectively; hanging on to a role he can no longer fulfill serves only his personal interest and ambition.

Please share this widely to any and all interested SCMs. I am prepared to stand behind everything I have written here and welcome any feedback or rebuttal by Mr. Branscomb or by others on his behalf. I remain committed to post any response or defense of Mr. Branscomb that any Democratically aligned party cares to offer. Likewise, if others wish to come forward with their own experiences and conclusions as to his fitness, I am happy to publish your letters as well.