ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

26-001-CCE · Citizens Clean Elections Commission · 2026-05-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Hector Jaramillo

Plaintiff

vs.

Arizona Citizens for Clean Elections

Defendant

No. 26-001-CCE

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 23, 2026

APPEARANCES: Plaintiff Hector Jaramillo appeared on his own behalf. Defendant Arizona Citizens for Clean Elections was represented by Allie Karpurk.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Defendant’s Exhibits 1-13 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 23, 2026, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting this matter for hearing on April 23, 2026 before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which was adopted on the record as follows:

Plaintiff Hector Jaramillo was a candidate for State Representative, Legislative District 24, during the 2024 election cycle.

Defendant Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission is the state agency charged with enforcing the Citizens Clean Elections Act (the “Act”), A.R.S. §§ 16-940 through 16-961, and its implementing rules set forth at A.A.C. R2-20-101 et seq.

On June 24, 2024, Mr. Jaramillo applied for certification as a participating candidate under the Act by submitting a notarized Application for Certification to the Commission.

In his Application for Certification, Mr. Jaramillo agreed to: (a) comply with all requirements of the Act and Commission rules; (b) keep and furnish to the Commission all documentation relating to expenditures, receipts, funding, books, and records (including bank records for all accounts), and supporting documentation; (c) permit an audit and examination of all receipts and expenditures, and facilitate the audit and examination; (d) use all Clean Elections funding for direct campaign purposes only; (e) bear the burden of proving that expenditures made by or on behalf of the candidate were for direct campaign purposes; and (f) file all campaign finance reports with the Secretary of State in an electronic format in a timely manner.

On July 22, 2024, the Secretary of State notified Mr. Jaramillo that he had submitted a sufficient number of qualifying contributions to meet the statutory requirements to receive Clean Elections funding under A.R.S. § 16-950(D).

Mr. Jaramillo reallocated a portion of his Clean Elections funding to the primary election period pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-952.

On July 23, 2024, Mr. Jaramillo received $31,760 in Clean Elections funds for the 2024 primary election.

Mr. Jaramillo did not advance to the 2024 general election.

Mr. Jaramillo filed his 2024 Pre-Primary Election campaign finance report on July 23, 2024.

Following the July 23, 2024 Pre-Primary Election report, Mr. Jaramillo did not file any of the remaining reports due under A.R.S. § 16-927 and the Commission rules within the prescribed time periods.

As of January 8, 2025, Mr. Jaramillo had not filed five campaign finance reports required under A.R.S. § 16-927 and Commission rules.

Mr. Jaramillo’s receipt of the $31,760 in Clean Elections funds and the expenditure of those funds were reported in campaign finance reports filed after the applicable statutory deadlines.

Mr. Jaramillo reallocated a portion of his Clean Elections funding to the primary election period pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-952.

On July 23, 2024, Mr. Jaramillo received $31,760 in Clean Elections funds for the 2024 primary election.

Mr. Jaramillo did not advance to the 2024 general election.

Mr. Jaramillo filed his 2024 Pre-Primary Election campaign finance report on July 23, 2024.

As of January 8, 2025, Mr. Jaramillo had not filed five campaign finance reports required under A.R.S. § 16-927 and Commission rules.

Mr. Jaramillo’s receipt of the $31,760 in Clean Elections funds and the expenditure of those funds were reported in campaign finance reports filed after the applicable statutory deadlines.

Mr. Jaramillo did not file a written response to the October 5, 2025 Statement of Reasons of the Executive Director.

On October 7, 2025, during a public meeting, the Commission determined that there was reason to believe Mr. Jaramillo had violated the Act and Commission rules.

Mr. Jaramillo was informed of the October 7, 2025, Commission meeting.

Mr. Jaramillo did not appear at the October 7, 2025, Commission meeting.

On October 15, 2025, Executive Director Collins issued an Order of Compliance and Deadline to Comply, directing Mr. Jaramillo to comply within 14 days, by October 29, 2025.

Mr. Jaramillo did not file a written response to the October 15, 2025, Order of Compliance.

On December 3, 2025, Executive Director Collins issued a Brief of the Executive Director, Probable Cause Recommendation and Notice of Possible Penalties.

Mr. Jaramillo did not file a written response to the December 3, 2025, Brief of the Executive Director, Probable Cause Recommendation and Notice of Possible Penalties.

On December 11, 2025, during a public meeting, the Commission determined that there was probable cause to believe Mr. Jaramillo had violated the Act and Commission rules.

Mr. Jaramillo was informed of the December 11, 2025, Commission meeting.

Mr. Jaramillo did not appear at the December 11, 2025, Commission meeting.

On January 29, 2026, the Commission issued an Order and Notice of Appealable Agency Action, imposing a mitigated civil penalty of $16,000 against Mr. Jaramillo. The penalty consisted of $15,000 for reporting violations under A.R.S. § 16-942(B) and A.A.C. R2-20-110(A), and $1,000 for recordkeeping and audit violations under A.A.C. R2-20-222(A).

In its January 29, 2026 Order, the Commission found good cause under A.R.S. § 16-957(B) to reduce the penalty below the amount otherwise authorized by A.R.S. § 16-942(B) because “Respondent provided records and evidence to auditors allowing the determination that clean elections funds were used for direct campaign purposes,” and “Respondent did not intend to deceive or gain unfair advantage.”

On February 28, 2026, Mr. Jaramillo timely filed a Request for Administrative Appeal of the Commission’s January 29, 2026, Order.

At hearing, Mr. Jaramillo argued that the penalty should be further reduced because his income was variable and he worked as a behavioral health technician in a Peoria area school which was closing, therefore he did not have the funds to pay the same. However, Mr. Jaramillo would not provide an amount at which he was comfortable paying.

Defendant argued that the penalty had already been mitigated significantly, and that it was seeking payment of a $15,000 fine regarding the failure to file reports and the fact that the Respondent eventually provided records that demonstrated that his expenses were direct campaign expenses but reflected the seriousness of the failure to file timely reports. An additional $1,000 penalty was also sought for failure to provide records at the request of the Commission.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Mr. Jaramillo received funding as a Citizens Clean Elections candidate. This matter therefore lies within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The Commission bears the burden of proof to establish that Mr. Jaramillo violated the Act by a preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Jaramillo bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and matters in mitigation of the penalty by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

The Commission established, and Mr. Jaramillo so stipulated as mentioned above, that Mr. Jaramillo violated the requirements of the Act.

The Commission, through its arguments and pleadings filed in this matter, have determined that a total civil penalty of $16,000.00, pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-942 and R2-20-109(F)(3), and R2-20-222(A), a civil penalty is appropriate in this case. Mr. Jaramillo failed to provide any persuasive evidence to justify the tribunal to further reduce the penalty.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Commission shall affirm the January 29, 2026, Order in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, Mr. Jaramillo shall pay to the Commission a civil penalty under A.R.S. § 16-942(B) in the amount $52,290.60.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, May 8, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Thomas Collins, Executive Director

Citizens Clean Elections Commission

Allie Karpurk

Osborn Maledon, P.A.

2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000

[email redacted]

Hector Jaramillo

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff