Pima County board backs Sheriff Chris Nanos for now after ethics and perjury allegations spark political fallout

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday not to remove Sheriff Chris Nanos from office but referred allegations of possible perjury to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office. The board’s action followed scrutiny over Nanos’ work history and accusations that he provided false information under oath about past suspensions, which Nanos and his attorney denied, according to board members and local news reports.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday, May 13, 2026, to retain Sheriff Chris Nanos in office while referring allegations of possible perjury to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office. The decision followed a lengthy public discussion about Nanos’ employment history and leadership of the sheriff’s department.

Supervisor Rex Scott, who made the motion to take no action toward removal or declaring the sheriff’s office vacant, cited concerns about Nanos’ leadership but said the board lacked the legal grounds to remove him at this time, according to reports from KJZZ, KGUN 9, and 12 News.

The allegations centered on whether Nanos provided false information under oath regarding his past suspensions during his law enforcement career, which dates back to the 1980s with the El Paso Police Department. Board members reviewed records indicating that Nanos had been suspended in the past, contradicting his testimony before the board. One report said that despite the records, Nanos and his attorney disputed the accuracy of the allegations, maintaining that any discrepancies arose from a misunderstanding about the scope of the questions asked. Nanos’ attorney told the board that the sheriff had been “truthful and forthcoming” and argued that Nanos believed the questions referred only to suspensions during his time in Arizona.

Supervisor Scott expressed that it was “apparent” Nanos had demonstrated poor leadership during his tenure, citing the unanimous no-confidence vote by the Pima County Deputies organization as a significant indicator of lost trust within the department. Scott and other supervisors described a pervasive distrust in the sheriff’s leadership and noted a lack of meaningful efforts by Nanos to repair internal relationships and restore confidence among deputies. The board’s concerns extended beyond the perjury allegations to include broader issues with Nanos’ conduct and management of the department, according to public comments and news coverage.

Nanos publicly denied any falsehoods before the board. In remarks reported by local media, he stated, “Absolutely have not lied to the Board of Supervisors ever.” His attorney reinforced this position, framing the issue as a misunderstanding rather than intentional deception. The board’s decision to refer the matter to Attorney General Mayes’ office reflected a distinction between the board’s limited authority to pursue removal and the legal process for investigating potential criminal conduct, as outlined in state law.

The supervisors considered their options under legal advice and determined that the framework for removing an elected sheriff was constrained. Instead, they opted to forward the perjury allegations for criminal review. According to 12 News, the board’s action followed a state law that permits supervisors to require the sheriff to answer questions under oath but does not necessarily authorize removal based solely on the information obtained.

Beyond the perjury allegations, the board also addressed wider criticisms of Nanos’ handling of personnel matters and departmental finances. Local reporting by KJZZ highlighted concerns related to the disappearance of 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie, which drew scrutiny to the sheriff’s office. Additionally, KGUN 9 reported on Nanos’ interactions with federal immigration officials, adding to the broader debate over his leadership. These issues contributed to significant political fallout within Pima County government, as documented by multiple local news outlets including AZPM and the Tucson Sentinel.

The Pima County Deputies organization’s unanimous no-confidence vote against Nanos was a focal point during the board’s deliberations, underscoring internal dissatisfaction within the sheriff’s department. The board’s referral of the perjury allegations to Attorney General Mayes initiates a separate legal review that could result in further action depending on the findings.

The board’s vote and referral on May 13 concluded the immediate political process available to the supervisors, leaving the investigation and any potential legal proceedings in the hands of the state attorney general’s office. The controversy surrounding Sheriff Nanos remains a subject of local media coverage and public interest as the legal review proceeds.