⚠ POST-ELECTION ANALYSIS · APRIL 7, 2026 RESULTS

Acres flipped the only
races they couldn't win.

The 2026 SRP election ended April 7. In the two at-large races counted per person, Clean Energy candidates O'Brien and Mohr-Almeida won by roughly 2 to 1 (23,496 vs 12,251 / 23,054 vs 12,581). In the two at-large races counted per acre, the corporate slate took both: Dobson over Sandra Kennedy by 5,441 to 4,019; Paceley over Clowes and Woods. Same ballot. Same voters. Different math.

OFFICIAL SRP RESULTS · 04·10·2026 SOURCE: srpnet.com
Per-person At-Large Seat #12 - O'Brien (Clean Energy, won) 23,496 ballots
Per-person At-Large Seat #14 - Mohr-Almeida (Clean Energy, won) 23,054 ballots
Per-acre President - Dobson (corporate, won) 5,441.55 acres
Per-acre President - Sandra Kennedy (Clean Energy) 4,019.00 acres
Per-acre Vice President - Paceley (corporate, won) 4,567.88 acres
Clean Energy at-large win rate, per-person seats 2 of 2
Clean Energy at-large win rate, per-acre seats 0 of 2
Section 00 · What Just Happened

A 10% slice picked the leadership of a $4B utility.

SRP itself published this scoreboard on April 10. The same ballot ran two voting rules. The Clean Energy slate swept the per-person side and lost both per-acre races. The acre rule is the only thing that flipped Pres and VP.

Acre-weighted races (Board)

RaceWinnerWinner acresTotal race weight
PresidentDOBSON, CHRISTOPHER J.5,441.559,460.55
President (runner-up)KENNEDY, SANDRA4,019.00
Vice PresidentPACELEY, BARRY E.4,567.889,428.11
VP (runner-up)CLOWES, CASEY3,550.81
VP (3rd)WOODS, KEITH1,309.42

Per-person races (Council) - SRP already runs these

RaceWinnerWinner ballotsTotal ballots
At-Large Seat #12O'BRIEN, KRISTA H.23,49635,747
Seat #12 (runner-up)KENNEDY, RUSTY12,251
At-Large Seat #14MOHR-ALMEIDA, KATHY L.23,16535,746
Seat #14 (runner-up)COOPER, KELLY12,581
5.4%

Voter turnout among the 666,183 eligible landowners on file. The per-person Council seats counted 35,747 ballots. The acre-weighted Pres/VP races counted under 9,500 acre-votes. SRP runs both systems side by side. The reform is to extend the per-person side to Pres/VP and the District Board.

Paceley won Vice President with 4,567.88 acre-votes. Paceley Constructors is listed as a donor on the same PAC website that endorsed him. The PAC's footer reads "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's agent." Both facts are public record. Receipts here.
Section 01 · Turnout Cliff

Mega-holders voted at 9× the rate of regular homeowners.

The system is biased twice over. The rules give big landowners more weight per ballot. And big landowners return ballots at far higher rates than ordinary homeowners. Both effects compound. Here is the actual return rate by acre-bucket from the 2026 election.

Voter classVotersBallots returnedTurnout
10+ acre mega-holders733852.1%
5-10 acres1195142.9%
2-5 acres85321425.1%
1-2 acres4,17990721.7%
0.5-1 acre10,1341,88918.6%
0.25-0.5 acre38,2124,65512.2%
Under 0.25 acre (typical homeowners)612,59536,1565.9%
46.9%

Of the acre-vote weight returned in this election, 47% came from the top 10% of returners. Just 4,391 people cast nearly half of the votes that decided SRP's 2026 leadership. The top 1% (439 people) cast 20%.

Section 01b · The Mega-Voters

10 records. 4,000+ ordinary voters' worth of power.

Names redacted. The top 10 records by acre-weight. Each one outvotes hundreds of neighbors before counting begins.

#01
Mega-Holder A
District 5 · single parcel
67.32acre-votes
472×avg voter
#02
Mega-Holder A · related
District 5
61.94acre-votes
434×avg voter
#03
Mega-Holder A · 2nd parcel
District 5
49.44acre-votes
346×avg voter
#04
Mega-Holder A · related
District 5
49.44acre-votes
346×avg voter
#05
Mega-Holder B
District 3
39.36acre-votes
276×avg voter
#06
Mega-Holder B · 2nd parcel
District 3
36.85acre-votes
258×avg voter
#07
Mega-Holder A · 3rd parcel
District 5
33.05acre-votes
232×avg voter
#08
Mega-Holder C
District 5
30.17acre-votes
211×avg voter
#09
Mega-Holder C · spouse
District 5
30.17acre-votes
211×avg voter
#10
Mega-Holder D
District 5
29.65acre-votes
208×avg voter
Names redacted. The people on this list did not write these rules. The point is the rules.
200+

acre-votes held by one extended family in District 5. That total outweighs 666,165 of their fellow Arizonans. One family. One district.

Section 02 · District Math

D8 voters get half the representation of D3 voters.

Each of SRP's 10 districts elects one board seat. They are unequal by 2× or more. The U.S. Supreme Court banned this for legislative districts in 1964. Arizona courts give SRP a pass as a "special district."

District Voters Acre-votes vs. smallest
District 3 (Tempe area)42,8625,1311.00× baseline
District 451,4476,7261.20×
District 260,9647,3261.42×
District 763,7407,5191.49×
District 664,2619,4711.50×
District 567,65012,1241.58×
District 169,1749,5361.61×
District 1071,80511,7401.68×
District 983,12111,9991.94×
District 8 (Mesa/Gilbert)91,15913,5152.13×
2.13×

A District 3 voter has double the board representation of a District 8 voter. Same election. Same kind of seat.

Section 03 · Concentration of Power

22% of voters can win every acre-weighted at-large race. The other 78% cannot stop them.

In a one-person-one-vote system, you need 50% of voters to control 50% of the vote. At SRP, 22% wins the acre-weighted races: President, Vice President, and all 10 District Boards. (At-Large Council Seats #12 and #14 already use one person, one vote.)

0.75% of voters 10% of votes
4,992 people · the smallest fraction with veto-level power
5.22% of voters 25% of votes
34,767 people · enough to dictate the agenda
22% of voters 50% of votes
146,647 people · enough to win every acre-weighted race
Section 04 · A 1903 Time Capsule

These rules were written 62 years before the Voting Rights Act.

SRP wrote these rules in 1903 for a co-op of 200 farmers. The math fit then. It does not fit a utility that powers Intel, TSMC, ASU, and Sky Harbor.

1903
SRP founded as the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association. Acreage voting written into bylaws. Phoenix population: 5,544.
1912
Arizona becomes a state. SRP's voting rules already nine years old.
1920
19th Amendment grants women the right to vote. SRP's land-only rules predate it by 17 years.
1964
Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court establishes "one person, one vote" for legislative districts.
1965
Voting Rights Act passes. SRP exempt as a "special district." It still is.
1981
Ball v. James: U.S. Supreme Court upholds SRP's land-based voting in a 5–4 decision. Justice White's dissent: "It is unthinkable that a state could grant such disproportionate voting power on so unprincipled a basis."
2026
Today. SRP serves ~2 million customers including Intel, TSMC, ASU, and Sky Harbor. The same 1903 rules still pick its board.
Section 05 · The Fix

Six reforms. Three the SRP board can do tomorrow.

The SRP board can fix half of this on its own. The other half needs Arizona voters to act.

REFORM 01 · BOARD CAN ACT

Redraw the 10 districts to equal population.

D8 has 91,159 voters. D3 has 42,862. Both elect one board seat. Equalize them. The SRP board can do this without legislation.

REFORM 02 · BOARD CAN ACT

Cap per-parcel weight at 1.00 acre-vote.

A 67-acre vote was rounding error in 1903. In 2026 it picks the board. Cap any single parcel at one vote.

REFORM 03 · BOARD CAN ACT

Independent redistricting commission.

Modeled on Arizona's AIRC. Take map-drawing out of incumbent hands. The SRP board can establish this by resolution.

REFORM 04 · BALLOT MEASURE

Extend one-person-one-vote to President and VP.

SRP already uses one person, one vote for At-Large Council Seats #12 and #14. Those races counted 35,747 ballots. The President and VP races, still acre-weighted, counted under 9,500 acre-votes. Apply the same per-person rule to Pres/VP. Keep acreage on district board seats only, after equalization.

REFORM 05 · BALLOT MEASURE

Extend voting rights to ratepayers.

About 60% of SRP customers rent. They pay every bill. They get zero vote. End the property-only franchise. If you pay SRP, you vote SRP.

REFORM 06 · LEGISLATURE

Update the 1903 charter.

Arizona's "agricultural improvement district" statute was written for 200-farmer co-ops, not multi-billion-dollar utilities. Modernize it.