Christine Dargon

As a college professor and retired counseling psychologist with a Ph.D., I have spent nearly three decades trained to weigh evidence before drawing conclusions. That discipline will define how I legislate.

First, I will establish a nonpartisan Science and Data Advisory Council for LD1, drawing on university researchers (including from the U of A system, NAU, and Yavapai College), public health professionals, water and land management experts, and healthcare providers, to review proposed legislation with a direct impact on public health, water security, education, or the environment.

Second, I will require that any bill I sponsor affecting water policy, healthcare, education, or environmental regulation include a cited evidence summary, peer-reviewed research, agency data, or expert testimony, attached to the bill file for public review, not just committee testimony.

Third, I will hold regular open office hours and town halls specifically inviting scientists, educators, healthcare workers, and researchers in LD1 to bring concerns and data directly to me, ensuring rural voices in STEM and healthcare fields aren’t drowned out by Phoenix-centric lobbying.

Fourth, I will support restoring and strengthening legislative staff capacity for independent research and fiscal/scientific analysis, rather than relying solely on industry-funded studies.

Finally, I commit to transparency: when evidence conflicts with political convenience, I will say so publicly and explain my reasoning. Arizona’s water crisis, wildfire risk, and public health challenges are too urgent for policymaking driven by ideology over evidence. My professional life has been built on evaluating evidence rigorously and honestly and that’s exactly the standard I will bring to the Senate.

As a state senator, I won’t control federal appropriations directly, but Arizona’s state government plays a critical role in positioning our universities, research institutions, and workforce to compete for, and make full use of, federal science funding, and I intend to use every lever available.

First, I will champion state matching-fund programs that make Arizona institutions more competitive for federal grants (NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD), particularly for water security, semiconductor research, solar and renewable energy, and public health, sectors where Arizona already leads and where federal dollars can be transformative for rural districts like LD1.

Second, I will advocate for state-level infrastructure investment, broadband, lab facilities, and STEM workforce pipelines at community colleges like Yavapai College, that make our region ready for federal research partnerships instead of leaving that capacity concentrated in Phoenix and Tucson.

Third, I will work to protect and expand technical and community college pathways into STEM careers, ensuring rural students in LD1 aren’t cut off from the innovation economy.

Fourth, I will use my voice in the legislature and in coalition with Arizona’s congressional delegation to publicly oppose federal cuts to NSF, NIH, and other basic research funding, and to advocate for restoring funding where it has been slashed, because basic research is the foundation innovation is built on.

Finally, as someone who has spent my career in higher education, I understand firsthand how fragile research funding pipelines are, and I will be a consistent, informed voice for protecting them at every level of government.

Arizona’s environmental future depends on treating water, heat, and mining as connected problems with shared root causes: outdated regulation and a lack of independent scientific oversight.

On water, my focus is rural equity: expanding meaningful groundwater accountability tools to areas like the Verde Valley that remain outside Active Management Areas, so rural aquifers aren’t quietly drained while attention stays on Phoenix and Tucson. For large new water users, especially AI data centers, I support requiring public disclosure of projected water and energy draw before permitting, giving local communities a real say rather than facing decisions after infrastructure is already built.

On extreme heat, I support directing state resources toward the communities with the least capacity to adapt, funding cooling centers, weatherization assistance, and enforceable heat-safety protections for agricultural and outdoor workers, based on tracked heat-illness and mortality data rather than statewide averages that obscure who’s actually at risk.

On mining, I support requiring independent, third-party water-quality monitoring near extraction sites, not self-reported industry data, and holding companies financially accountable for reclamation before permits are approved, not after damage occurs.

What ties this together is process: I don’t believe Arizonans should be told to trust that industry or agencies are managing these risks responsibly. I believe in independent verification, public transparency, and giving rural communities like LD1 a seat at the table before major water or land decisions are made, not after.

Yes. The Mohave County measles outbreak was preventable, and it’s a warning sign for LD1 and rural Arizona more broadly. As someone with a background in psychology and human behavior, I understand that public health failures are rarely about access alone. They’re about trust, communication, and outreach failing to meet communities where they are.

First, I support restoring and protecting state funding for county health department vaccination outreach, particularly in rural and tight-knit communities where distrust of state institutions runs deep and messaging must come from trusted local messengers, not just state press releases.

Second, I support strengthening real-time public health data reporting between county, state, and federal health agencies, so outbreaks are identified and contained before they spread across county and state lines, as this one did between Arizona and Utah.

Third, I support protecting reasonable school vaccination requirements while ensuring legitimate medical exemptions remain accessible, paired with transparent public data on vaccination rates by school and county so parents and health officials can identify gaps early.

Fourth, I support funding mobile and school-based vaccination clinics for rural communities where distance and cost are real barriers, not just hesitancy.

Public health policy has to be built on epidemiological evidence and delivered with cultural competence, not top-down mandates disconnected from community trust. That combination is where real outbreak prevention happens.

Yes. As a psychologist who has spent nearly three decades studying human development and behavior, I take the impact of social media on young people seriously, both the mental health effects and the way platforms can spread misinformation about science, health, and civic matters faster than accurate information can catch up.

I support age-appropriate design and safety standards for platforms accessible to minors, including limits on manipulative engagement features, like infinite scroll and autoplay, that are specifically engineered to maximize compulsive use in developing brains, based on research these companies’ own internal studies have confirmed.

I support requiring greater transparency from platforms about how content is algorithmically promoted to minors, particularly around health and science misinformation, so parents, schools, and regulators can understand what’s actually being amplified to kids.

I support funding media literacy and scientific literacy education in Arizona schools, so students are equipped to critically evaluate what they encounter online rather than relying solely on platform-side fixes.

I support stronger data privacy protections for minors, limiting what platforms can collect and monetize from young users.

At the same time, any regulation must be written carefully to withstand First Amendment scrutiny and avoid outright bans that push kids toward less regulated corners of the internet or cut off legitimate access to information. My approach is evidence-based: age-appropriate design and transparency requirements, not blanket prohibition, paired with genuinely investing in kids’ ability to think critically about what they see.

This question was not asked of this candidate.