Steven Spain

Meet the Candidate

Running For:
Board of Supervisors
District 1
Political Affiliation:
Information Technology Consultant
University of Arizona, Bachelor's Degree, Dual in Management Information Systems and Operations Management
Wife and son at home; Mother and brother in Pima County; Various aunts, uncles, and cousins in District 1 and Pima County
Roman Catholic
I'm not running to hold office; I'm running to hold off those who hold office. For years, I've written for the Arizona Daily Independent, mostly targeting the waste and abuse of the Board of Supervisors. Now, rather than allowing a vacuum of conservatism, I have chosen to lead as the grassroots candidate, the antidote to the establishment candidates vying for the seat. I will ardently fight against road neglect, taxes, waste, misuse of resources, pet projects, and cronyism. I come from a long and successful career in IT, with analytical and leadership experience that will benefit Pima County. My record of conservatism is published and clear. We need strength to continue to fight; I am the steadfast conservative candidate. Decisive action. Keep the heat on.


Response Legend

  • SSupports
  • OOpposes
  • *Comment
  • Declined to respond
  • Declined to respond, Position based on citation

Question Response Comments/Notes
1. Denying federal funding to “sanctuary cities” that do not comply with federal immigration laws S* Federal issue: The federal government is entitled to control immigration. Our taxes should never fund local governments that deliberately undermine our nation's hard-won sovereignty.
2. Allowing all parents to use tax credits, vouchers, or education savings accounts to enable children to attend any public, charter, private, homeschool, or online academy S* Parents' rights: A child’s parents know better than a distant bureaucrat how that child will best learn, grow, develop, and thrive. Parents deserve the discretion.
3. Expanding background checks to include guns purchased from private individuals O* Excessive regulation: Enforce existing laws, don't create ineffective new regulations. A 2019 study shows "null findings in California," proving these checks pointless, ineffective, and unnecessary.
4. Using taxpayer funds to support any organization that provides, promotes, or provides referrals for abortion O* Government overreach: It is absolutely not the purpose or obligation of any government, nor just, to fund abortions with taxes taken from our personal earnings.
5. Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother -* Government overreach: A government that can prevent abortion can compel abortion (e.g. China). Actively promote adoption and prevention and work toward rendering this issue moot.
6. Providing tax breaks to certain industries over others S* National security: Especially as China besets us with the coronavirus, incent domestic manufacturers' American ingenuity to replace China quickly with scalable, efficient, clean manufacturing technology.
7. Adding “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression” to the protected classes of race, religion, age, sex, and ancestry in nondiscrimination ordinances -* Excessive regulation, Free markets: Government should define nondiscrimination policies for itself. Businesses should define nondiscrimination policies for themselves, and let markets decide which policies survive.
8. Protecting a parent's right to seek professional counseling for their minor child with same-sex attraction or gender identity issues to help them reach their desired outcome S* Parents' rights: Again, parents are the natural guardians of their children and bear responsibility for raising those children. Get the government out of the family.
9. Setting minimum wages above the state minimum wage O* Free markets: It is not any government's purpose/right to compel a business to pay an employee more than that employee's worth to the business.
10. Protecting individuals and businesses from being required to use their artistic expression in a manner that violates their conscience S* Free markets: No government has the right to violate an entrepreneur’s conscience; a differently-valued business owner, in a free market, can earn that income instead.