Snap Benefits Still in Limbo
Hours before the Supreme Court issued its stay siding with Trump, Hobbs told Arizona families that SNAP benefits would be loaded this weekend — Maricopa’s ballot fiasco — Liberty School Board chaos
While Hobbs’s reassurance of SNAP benefits, that may or may not come, will make headlines, chaos unfolded elsewhere in Arizona politics. Maricopa County elections officials scrambled to explain how 2,288 ballots were discovered in a sealed container after Election Day, prompting questions about transparency and accountability. And in the West Valley, the Liberty Elementary School District was rocked by a lawsuit from board member Kellie Zimmerman, who accused her colleagues of violating state law and her constitutional rights.
Governor Katie Hobbs announced Friday afternoon that Arizona families would receive their full November SNAP benefits, just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency stay temporarily siding with the Trump administration in a national funding dispute.
In a press release posted earlier in the day on the Governor’s website — Hobbs said the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) had transmitted benefit payment files to ensure that recipients received their full monthly allotments.
“It is shameful that the Trump administration delayed lifesaving food assistance payments to Arizonans for weeks,” Hobbs stated. “We are taking action so families can put food on the table without worrying whether Washington politics will stand in the way.”
The governor’s statement reassuring families came before the Supreme Court’s late-evening decision, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a lower-court order requiring full federal payments.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. (Rhode Island) ordered the Trump administration to fund SNAP in full, rejecting its plan to pay only about 65 percent of normal benefit levels during the ongoing government funding lapse. McConnell called the partial-payment policy “arbitrary and capricious” and gave the administration until Friday to comply.
That ruling prompted an immediate appeal. Late Friday, Justice Jackson issued an administrative stay on behalf of the Supreme Court, allowing the Trump administration to delay full benefit payments while the First Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case.
The stay does not resolve the issue permanently, but it temporarily blocks the lower-court’s order. The administration argues that without new congressional appropriations, it lacks legal authority to issue full benefits.
In lieu of the Supreme Court’s action, Arizona families are left to wonder if they will see partial, full or no benefits loaded to their cards this weekend. Before the Supreme Court stay, DES confirmed Friday night that full payments had been sent to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) accounts and should appear for recipients over the weekend.
Nearly 900,000 Arizonans rely on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, to help buy groceries. Hobbs’ administration has emphasized that ensuring continuity of those payments is a moral imperative.
“This is about families being able to eat,” Hobbs said. “No one should go hungry because of political gamesmanship in Washington.”
The case underscores a larger constitutional question: whether the federal government must continue fully funding entitlement programs during a shutdown. Legal scholars say the outcome could set a precedent for future lapses affecting not only food assistance but also housing and healthcare programs.
Critics of the Trump administration accuse it of using the shutdown to gain leverage over Congress, while supporters contend the White House is simply following the law by limiting expenditures without an approved budget.
For Arizona families, the fight is less about federal precedent and more about groceries on the table. As one Phoenix mother told State 48 News, “I don’t care who wins in court — I just need to feed my family.”
For families that need food assistance here is a link to food pantries throughout Arizona.
The Maricopa County Elections Department issued its first public statement Friday, confirming, “poll workers had mistakenly placed the sealed boxes inside a blue drop box rather than returning them on Election Night.”
Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap issued his own statement saying “the mistake is deeply disappointing.”
The County Elections Department fired back with subsequent updates, political insiders claim that their updates shifted the story from “poll workers had mistakenly placed the sealed boxes inside a blue drop box rather than returning them on Election Night” to the ballots were delivered to “MCTEC on Election Night and remained in our secure warehouse the entire time.”
State 48 News has requested clarification from election officials regarding whether their initial statement was inaccurate and which specific West Valley polling locations the 2,288 ballots originated from. So far, officials have not responded to our inquiry.
We have also asked the County Recorder to confirm who informed him that the ballots came from Fountain Hills rather than the West Valley. This story will be updated once responses are received.
Recorder Heap and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that controls the Elections Department have been engaged in both courtroom battles and a heated social media back-and-forth. Late into the night, Recorder Heap made the following post:
To add to the confusion, Supervisor Mark Stewart made a video post where he mentions “Paradise Valley” which is not in the West Valley. He clarified to State 48 News that he “misspoke.” You can find his video here. We appreciate his late-night correction on a Friday
This is a developing story.
Last week, our coverage of the Liberty School Board story was limited to a simple graphic, rather than a full article. After the meeting, former Board Chair Michael Todd informed us that he had participated via Zoom because he “was traveling for work.” We have not independently verified this claim. Meanwhile, the Board remained deadlocked on who would serve as president, so Kris Kenyon who is vice chair, stepped in as acting president in the interim.
The board is entangled in new trouble. Board member Kellie Zimmerman was at the center of an independent investigation into her conduct. The probe found Zimmerman repeatedly violated the district’s own operating standards — described as creating a “toxic work environment” through unprofessional and hostile behavior toward employees. While the investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that her actions amounted to unlawful harassment under federal law (e.g., tied to race or a protected class), it did find numerous breaches of board-conduct policy.
As a result of the findings, the Board publicly released the report, issued a formal apology to staff and the community, and directed Zimmerman to issue a public apology and undergo sensitivity training. She’s been barred from direct contact with district staff and legal counsel, with communications routed through the board president instead.
Zimmerman Files Lawsuit Against Liberty Board
Zimmerman has filed a lawsuit against the district and its four fellow board members, alleging that they acted outside their legal authority, violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and infringed on her constitutional rights to free speech.
According to the 17-page complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, Zimmerman argues that the board had no statutory power to investigate or censure one of its own members and that the July 14, 2025 actions taken against her—including mandatory sensitivity training, a required public apology, and restrictions on speaking with staff or legal counsel without going through the board president—were unlawful and unconstitutional.
The suit lays out six counts:
Exceeding Legal Authority under Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-321;
Violation of the Arizona Open Meeting Law;
Arbitrary and Capricious Action and Abuse of Discretion;
Prior Restraint of Speech;
Free Speech Retaliation; and
Compelled Speech, claiming the board’s order that she issue a public apology forces her to “convey government speech she does not agree with.”
Zimmerman contends these directives “materially limited” her ability to perform official duties and chilled her constitutionally protected speech as an elected official. She is asking the court to declare the board’s actions null and void, prohibit enforcement of the restrictions, and reaffirm her right to communicate freely with staff and counsel.
The complaint also recounts board correspondence showing that Vice President Kris Kenyon sought to “enlarge” the restrictions by warning then Superintendent Trevor McDonald not to communicate with Zimmerman outside the presence of the board president. Two weeks later, the board voted to terminate McDonald’s contract with Zimmerman casting the lone dissenting vote.
In a public statement accompanying the filing, Zimmerman wrote that the board’s actions “were not in accordance with the law and infringed upon my freedom of speech,” adding that after six weeks without engagement from the district, she and her attorney “had no choice but to seek legal intervention.” She said her goal is to “ensure that these laws are followed” and to “restore the community’s trust in the district by upholding integrity, accountability, and transparency.”