The recent Salt River Project (SRP) board elections have sparked competing narratives about what the results actually represent, particularly from Turning Point Action (TPA), which invested significant resources into a slate of preferred candidates.
TPA-backed candidates included Chris Dobson (President), Barry Paceley (Vice President), Rusty Kennedy (At-Large, District 12), and Kelly Cooper (At-Large, District 14). Following the election, TPA-aligned messaging characterized the outcome as a success, pointing to strong turnout and continued representation on the board.
Dobson and Paceley, both incumbents prior to the election, were elevated into leadership roles as President and Vice President. While those wins are being cited as evidence of success, both candidates already held positions on the board and were well-positioned going into the race. Their advancement, while notable, does not clearly demonstrate expanded influence attributable to Turning Point Action’s recent involvement.
By contrast, Kennedy and Cooper, the candidates most closely associated with broadening TPA’s footprint on the board, were both defeated.
Instead, candidates aligned with far-left Jane Fonda backed clean energy and consumer advocacy groups prevailed, maintaining and even strengthening their foothold. This outcome has led some observers to question whether the election represents another blunder for TPA rather than the breakthrough its leadership is trying to portray.
Turnout was significantly higher than in previous SRP elections, increasing more than fourfold by some estimates. TPA supporters argue that this surge demonstrates the effectiveness of TPA’s “Ballot Chasing” strategy. As Tyler Bowyer TPA CEO framed it, “Democrats had told donors this was the inevitable year they would win the President and Vice President of SRP and control the agenda. They failed massively with a huge turnout. (More than 4x the normal turnout). Ballot chasing works!”
However, others interpret the same data differently, noting that despite the elevated turnout and increased spending, the overall composition of the board did not shift in TPA’s favor. In particular, the failure to secure additional at-large seats has been cited as evidence that broader voter sentiment did not align with the organization’s push.
“For whatever reason, Turning Point made the election all about self promotion, putting the Turning Point logo on candidate signs, as if voters with concerns about utility issues would consider the Turning Point brand a meaningful endorsement. This was essentially a general election audience, and the Turning point brand is only somewhat valuable in a Republican primary. It is far more likely that making the race about Turning Point cost their candidates the very votes they needed to win,” said a Republican consultant.
“Ultimately, the disconnect between Turning Point Action’s public claims and the actual outcomes raises broader questions about the organization’s credibility under CEO Tyler Bowyer. By framing a mixed and in key respects unsuccessful result as a decisive victory, Bowyer risks reinforcing a pattern where messaging is prioritized over measurable results. For donors, activists, and candidates alike, that gap matters,” the consultant continued. “Political influence is not built on spin, but on demonstrable gains, and in this case, the results suggest that TPA’s strategy may have overreached its effectiveness while overstating its impact.”
Complete botch job by Turning Point Action, losing majority of SRP board seats to leftists. This follows TP defeats in PA & WI Supreme Ct races. TP Action, wasting donor money, went to desperate move on ballot harvesting. Losing statewide races & now SRP board seats. Incompetents https://t.co/g5awQ3eBG0
— Thomas Galvin: Maricopa County Brd of Supervisors (@ThomasGalvin) April 9, 2026
Be the first to comment