Hobbs preemptively nixes debates while Arizona’s official organizers still finalize the stage

Gov. Katie Hobbs has ruled out participating in this fall’s gubernatorial debates even as Arizona’s debate organizers are still deciding whom to invite, according to reporting by the Arizona Globe. Thomas Collins, executive director of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, told the Globe that “the commission and the Arizona Media Association are still finalizing their plans on gubernatorial invitations.”

That puts Arizona’s voter-created debate sponsor in the unusual position of designing an “official” forum around the likely absence of the incumbent. The Globe reports that Hobbs has not rejected a finalized Clean Elections invitation, but instead issued a blanket refusal before organizers settled whom to invite or what the final format would be.

The consequence is straightforward: unless something changes, the state’s marquee debate could proceed without the sitting governor, limiting voters’ chance to see the top candidates answer the same questions under the same rules. Collins acknowledged the planning challenge, saying, “I’m not pretending like Gov. Hobbs would come,” while also noting, “She has to be considered an invitee even if she’s going to decline.”

Hobbs’ campaign says she will stick with her “Arizona First Tour,” citing more than 100 open-press appearances and interviews this year. “Face-to-face engagement with Arizonans is more effective than a stage designed for short soundbites and political theater,” campaign manager Nicole DeMont said in a statement to the Globe. Her team also points out that Republican opponent Rep. Andy Biggs has skipped previous debates and forums. We cannot independently verify the campaign’s event count or Biggs’ prior attendance record based on the Globe’s report, and the debate organizers have not released an invitation list yet.

The Biggs campaign told the Globe that he will participate in a Clean Elections event expected to be held Oct. 6, though organizers have not finalized invitations or format. “The independent and persuadable voters up for grabs in Arizona deserve to hear from statewide candidates in a traditional debate setting,” adviser Drew Sexton said. He added, “There’s a difference between congressional and statewide debates in terms of the ability to reach out and actually connect with voters.” Any claimed date should be treated as tentative until the commission and media partners publish their plan.

Republican consultant Jaime Molera argued that declining to face an experienced officeholder carries higher political risk than Hobbs’ 2022 calculation. “There’s a big difference when you’re talking about a sitting congressman,” Molera told the Globe. “He’s a credible candidate. To not have a debate, to me, it’s crazy.” Molera predicted the refusal could yield weeks of earned media for Biggs rather than one uncomfortable night for Hobbs: “They’re going to turn this into a much bigger story. For the Biggs team, this is going to be a gift that keeps on giving.”

The Globe notes that Hobbs made a similar choice in 2022 by refusing to debate Republican Kari Lake and still won. The context is different this cycle. Biggs is a sitting member of Congress and a former Arizona Senate president, giving Republicans a clearer opening to argue that the governor is avoiding a seasoned opponent. Whether voters view the choice as prudence or avoidance will depend on what alternative, comparably unscripted formats the campaigns accept and how many undecided voters actually see them.

For the organizers, the accountability test is procedural. According to the Globe, the Clean Elections Commission sponsors Arizona’s official candidate debates in partnership with the Arizona Media Association. If the incumbent sits out, the commission still needs to answer three basic questions in public: who qualifies for the stage, what the format and topics will cover, and how they will handle an empty lectern or declined invitation. Collins’ comments indicate those decisions are in progress. Publishing criteria and the final format soon would reduce speculation and let campaigns make verifiable commitments.

For the campaigns, the accountability test is measurable transparency. If Hobbs’ team cites “more than 100” open-press events, they should post the full list with dates, locations, and whether audience or press Q&A occurred, so voters can assess how those appearances compare to a shared-stage debate. If Biggs says he will attend the Clean Elections event, he should confirm acceptance once an invitation is issued and disclose any conditions. Both campaigns can also commit to a set number of joint, live, unscreened interviews with independent outlets to provide side-by-side answers even if a formal debate does not happen.

Policy stakes are not hypothetical. On the same day as the Globe’s report, an Arizona Mirror opinion column by a physician argued that Republicans cut healthcare spending and that Arizonans are now paying the price. That is an opinion piece, not a data analysis in this file, but it illustrates how major budget and health tradeoffs are being contested in op-eds while shared-stage scrutiny remains uncertain. A verified, televised forum where each candidate is asked the same budget, health care, and public safety questions would give voters clearer denominators than dueling statements.

Bottom line: the organizing partners are “still finalizing” invitations and format. Hobbs says she will not debate and will continue retail campaigning. Biggs’ team says he will participate in a Clean Elections event tentatively eyed for Oct. 6. We will track three verifiable outcomes in the coming weeks: when the commission publishes its invitation criteria and format, who is actually invited, and who accepts on the record. Voters cannot compare answers that are never asked on the same night, under the same rules. The sooner those rules are public, the better for accountability.

See an error? Email corrections@saguarosignal.com. We append material corrections to the article.