In a move that has raised eyebrows across Arizona’s Legislative District 2, Democratic candidate Stephanie Simacek abruptly withdrew from the scheduled Clean Elections debate against Republican contender Ari Daniel Bradshaw. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission organized the debate. It aimed to give voters insights into the candidates’ platforms and policy positions.

After Simacek had already withdrawn from the debate, Bradshaw was canvassing her neighborhood. While knocking on doors in the neighborhood for campaign purposes, he knocked on her legal residence’s door. There, her ex-husband informed him that they had separated and Simacek was not present. Bradshaw later posted about it on social media, as reported by the Arizona Republic.

Throughout the campaign, Simacek has painted herself as a moderate pragmatist, but her record and rhetoric tell a different story. She’s gone to great lengths to mischaracterize Bradshaw — a small government constitutionalist with clear policy views and a calm, professional demeanor — as a “MAGA extremist.” The smear attempts fall flat when you look at Bradshaw’s actual positions: bipartisan allies, secure borders, school choice, and economic empowerment — hardly controversial in a state like Arizona.

An Authenticity Question

Meanwhile, Stephanie Simacek has repeatedly dodged questions about her actual stance on the border crisis and public safety. Behind closed doors, she tells activists she’s against border enforcement; in public, she is currently running a commercial claiming to be a border security stalwart. That kind of doublespeak exhausts voters—and refusing to face your opponent on the debate stage only emphasizes it.

Simacek’s campaign materials continue to feature images of her ex-husband, despite their separation. This raises questions about the authenticity of her campaign’s portrayal of family values and transparency.

As the election approaches, voters in LD2 must critically assess the integrity and consistency of their candidates. Stephanie Simacek’s recent actions suggest a pattern of avoidance and misrepresentation, leaving constituents to question her suitability for public office.