top of page
Search

Comparing Amish Shah and Jay Feely: Arizona's 1st Congressional District, 2026

Sep 18
13 min read

Executive Summary

Arizona's 1st Congressional District, covering the northeast Phoenix suburbs including Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, is an open seat in 2026 following the departure of Republican incumbent David Schweikert. The race pits Democrat Amish Shah, a former state legislator and emergency room physician, against Republican Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and political newcomer endorsed by Donald Trump.


Shah brings a documented legislative record from the Arizona House (2019 to his resignation in February 2024), including a pattern of siding with Democrats on core issues like healthcare and reproductive rights while occasionally crossing party lines on regulatory and law enforcement measures. Feely has no legislative voting record of any kind, so his platform must be evaluated through campaign statements, endorsements, financial ties, and public remarks rather than roll call votes.


Both candidates face pressure to appeal to the roughly 180,000 registered independent voters in the district, a bloc larger than either party's registered base. Shah is emphasizing affordability, healthcare access, and reproductive rights while defending his record against Republican attacks on immigration votes. Feely is emphasizing tax cuts, deregulation, and border enforcement while facing questions about how his socially conservative positions and close alignment with Kari Lake and the MAGA wing will play with moderate suburban voters.

This report separates verified legislative history from campaign promises and partisan claims, and flags unverified allegations from either side.



We Support Dr. Shah. Why? In his own words: AmishForArizona.com

Side-by-Side Comparison Table

Category

Amish Shah (D)

Jay Feely (R)

Background

Emergency room physician; Arizona House member, District 24/5, 2019 to February 2024

Former NFL kicker (Arizona Cardinals); political newcomer

Legislative record

Documented multi-year record in Arizona House

None; no prior elected office

Economy

Opposes Trump-era tariffs; frames them as a tax on families; supports middle-class tax relief

Supports expanding Trump-era tax cuts, deregulation, domestic manufacturing, and an "America First" energy agenda

Healthcare

Supports universal healthcare access; says he does not support a government-run "socialized" system; protect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

No detailed policy page; opposes what he calls "socialized" healthcare via attacks on Shah; favors free-market and deregulatory approach

Abortion

100 percent pro-choice voting record claimed; supports codifying Roe v. Wade protections; opposed bill that included funding for crisis pregnancy centers in state budget votes

Official site is silent on abortion; described by reporting as a social conservative; past social media posts reportedly supported defunding Planned Parenthood

Immigration/border

Supports fentanyl interdiction and law enforcement funding; voted for some border security funding bills in the legislature; voted against Proposition 314 support, a point of ongoing dispute

Supports finishing the border wall, mass deportation of violent offenders, and full backing for ICE and Border Patrol

Law enforcement

Endorsed by Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Arizona and a Maricopa County deputies' association; endorsements contested by conservative critics citing past ties to progressive groups

Positions himself as the "law and order" candidate; no reported law enforcement union endorsements identified in available sourcing

Democracy/government reform

Campaigns against gerrymandering and dark money; criticizes Trump administration for alleged defiance of court orders

Frames Democrats as extreme, citing claims they want to "abolish prisons, abolish borders, abolish the Senate"; no detailed institutional reform platform identified

Trump alignment

Opposes Trump administration policies on tariffs, healthcare cuts, and judicial defiance

Endorsed by Trump; states he will "advance the Trump agenda"; initially declined to say Trump lost 2020, later acknowledged it in August 2026

Key endorsements

Law enforcement unions; part of the Democratic primary field that overcame DCCC-backed opposition

Donald Trump; financial and rhetorical ties to Kari Lake; Jim Jordan-affiliated committees have donated to his campaign


Economy and Affordability


Shah's position: Shah's campaign centers on affordability, arguing that tariffs imposed under the Trump administration raise costs on groceries, gas, cars, and housing for Arizona families. He points to his legislative record of supporting middle-class tax relief and small business measures as evidence he prioritizes cost-of-living concerns. This is a campaign promise and a characterization of past legislative activity; it is not itself a voting record on federal tariff policy, since tariffs are set at the federal level and Shah has not held federal office.


Feely's position: Feely's official platform pledges to expand Trump-era tax cuts, reduce federal regulation, and pursue an "America First" energy policy that expands oil, gas, and coal production to lower costs. This is consistent with his broader alignment with Trump administration economic policy. Because Feely has no legislative record, this is a stated intention rather than a demonstrated voting pattern.


What supports fidelity: Both candidates have made the economy central and consistent across multiple statements and platform pages, which suggests genuine prioritization rather than a one-off talking point.


What complicates it: Shah's own legislative record shows a 2023 vote against HB 2003, which would have cut the corporate tax rate, indicating that his affordability framing does not extend to broad-based business tax cuts. This complicates any assumption that "affordability" messaging translates uniformly across tax policy. For Feely, there is no vote history to test whether his deregulation and tax-cut rhetoric would hold up against specific bill text in Congress, which limits verification either way.


Healthcare


Shah's position: Shah's platform, informed by his career as an ER physician, calls for expanded coverage, lower prescription drug prices, and protection of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He states explicitly that he does not support a fully government-run "socialized" healthcare system, a clarification made partly in response to Feely's attacks. His Arizona House record aligns with this: the Institute for Legislative Analysis scorecard (a limited-government advocacy metric) recorded a 0 percent alignment score with conservative healthcare deregulation positions in 2023, indicating consistent votes against Republican-backed healthcare deregulation bills. Because this scorecard is produced by an ideological advocacy organization, its framing should be read as a measure of alignment with a specific policy agenda, not a neutral assessment.


Feely's position: Feely has not published a detailed healthcare platform on his campaign site. His public healthcare messaging has come primarily through attacks on Shah, including a September 2026 speech at the Republican National Convention accusing Shah of supporting a "socialized" healthcare system. This is an attack line rather than an affirmative policy proposal, and it has not been matched with specific legislative proposals from Feely.


What supports fidelity: Shah's legislative record on healthcare deregulation votes is consistent with his campaign rhetoric, giving his healthcare platform more evidentiary weight than a promise alone.


Undermining or complicating evidence: Shah's campaign denies the "socialist" label, calling it "demonstrably false," but his opponent's attacks rely on the ambiguity between "universal healthcare access" and "government-run healthcare," terms Shah has not always distinguished with full specificity in public remarks. For Feely, the absence of a published healthcare plan means his position exists mainly as opposition to Shah rather than as an independent platform, which cannot establish what he would specifically vote for in Congress.


Abortion and Reproductive Rights


Shah's position: Shah describes his voting record as 100 percent pro-choice and points to bipartisan legislative work protecting access to the abortion medication mifepristone while in the Arizona House. He pledges to codify Roe v. Wade protections in Congress. His 2023 legislative record includes a vote against a state budget that included funding for crisis pregnancy centers, consistent with a pro-choice legislative posture.


Feely's position: Feely's official campaign site does not address abortion. Reporting from Copper Courier notes that reproductive rights advocacy groups have targeted him over past social media posts reportedly supporting defunding Planned Parenthood, though the specific posts were not independently reproduced in the sourcing reviewed for this report and should be treated as an allegation requiring further verification. Feely describes himself in press coverage as a social conservative generally, without detailed public commentary specifically on abortion policy in the 2026 race.


What supports fidelity: Shah's mifepristone-related legislative work is a matter of public record and aligns with his campaign statements, which strengthens confidence that his platform reflects established behavior. Feely's public silence on the issue, combined with reported past statements, suggests a conservative position exists but is being deliberately downplayed for the general election, a strategic choice rather than a change in underlying position.


Undermining or complicating evidence: Feely's silence makes it impossible to state with confidence what specific abortion policy he would support in Congress. Claims about his past Planned Parenthood-related posts come from advocacy-oriented reporting and should be flagged as unverified in the sourcing available here.


Immigration and Border Security


Shah's position: Shah's official platform calls for stopping fentanyl trafficking and fully funding law enforcement at the border. His legislative record shows a mixed pattern: he voted against the 2022 state budget along party lines (citing education funding and crisis pregnancy center provisions, not border policy specifically), then later crossed party lines to support a bill authorizing spending from the Border Security Fund, and voted for the 2023 bipartisan budget that included 200 million dollars in border funding.


Disputed messaging: Shah's 2024 campaign ad on border security was fact-checked by AZCentral, and the NRCC separately published a counterclaim accusing him of misrepresenting his voting record. These are competing characterizations from a nonpartisan fact-checking outlet and a Republican campaign committee, respectively, and readers should note that the NRCC is an advocacy source with a direct interest in the outcome. Republicans have also highlighted Shah's opposition to Proposition 314, a 2024 ballot measure on immigration enforcement that passed with substantial voter support; Shah's campaign has not fully clarified this vote in the sourcing reviewed here, and the underlying legislative reasoning behind his position on that specific measure could not be independently confirmed beyond the NRCC's characterization.


Feely's position: Feely's official platform blames the Biden administration for a border "crisis," pledges to finish the border wall, dismantle current border policies, and support mass deportation of violent offenders. He also states full support for ICE and Border Patrol. These are campaign commitments; because Feely has no legislative record, there is no historical vote to test them against.


What supports fidelity: Shah's votes for the Border Security Fund and the 2023 bipartisan budget suggest his public support for border funding is grounded in actual legislative behavior, not just rhetoric. Feely's consistent messaging on enforcement across his campaign and convention remarks suggests a stable position, though it remains untested against actual legislative text.


What complicates it: The unresolved dispute over Shah's Proposition 314 vote and the ad fact-check means voters cannot rely on a single, uncontested account of his full immigration record. For Feely, no complicating evidence exists yet because there is no voting record to examine, which itself is a limitation on verification rather than a mark against him.


Law Enforcement and Public Safety


Shah's position: Shah has secured endorsements from the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Arizona and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Deputies Law Enforcement Association, according to Phoenix New Times reporting. These endorsements are a form of third-party validation from law enforcement organizations, though they should be understood as endorsements reflecting those organizations' assessments and priorities, not as independent proof of Shah's overall record.


Countervailing claims: The Arizona Daily Independent, a conservative-leaning outlet, published reporting challenging Shah's "pro-police" framing, citing his past appearances alongside progressive organizations. This is a contested characterization from an outlet with an editorial point of view, and it has not been independently corroborated with primary source documentation in the material reviewed for this report.


Feely's position: Feely presents himself as the "law and order" candidate in campaign messaging and convention remarks, and his platform pledges full support for police and federal enforcement agencies. No law enforcement union endorsements for Feely were identified in the sourcing available for this report; this does not mean none exist, only that none were verified here.


Assessment: Shah has documentary evidence (endorsements) supporting his public safety claims, while Feely's law enforcement positioning currently rests on rhetorical commitment rather than third-party validation identified in this research. Both should be read cautiously given the partisan lean of the sources raising or defending these claims.



Government, Democracy, and Institutional Integrity


Shah's position: Shah campaigns on opposing partisan gerrymandering, reducing dark money in politics, and criticizing the Trump administration for what he describes as attacks on judges and defiance of court orders. These are campaign statements about federal-level conduct; Shah has not held federal office and so has no direct record on these specific issues at that level. His Arizona House record does include support for HB 2019, which increased oversight of local government permitting processes related to First Amendment activity, a data point relevant to his general posture on government accountability, though not directly tied to the federal claims in his current platform.


Feely's position: Feely has framed the race in stark terms, stating that Democrats want to "abolish prisons, abolish borders, abolish the U.S. Senate," a claim made in convention remarks reported by KJZZ. This is a rhetorical characterization of the opposing party rather than a documented policy position of Shah's, and it should be read as campaign rhetoric rather than a verified fact about Democratic Party positions generally or Shah's positions specifically. Feely has not published a detailed institutional reform platform addressing gerrymandering, campaign finance, or judicial independence.


Assessment: Neither candidate has an extensive, directly comparable record on federal governance and democracy issues, since neither has served in Congress. Shah's state-level record offers limited but relevant data points; Feely's public remarks on this topic have so far been aimed at characterizing his opponent rather than laying out his own institutional platform.


Party Alignment


Shah: Shah's Arizona House record shows a Democrat who reliably supported his party's position on healthcare, reproductive rights, and taxation (opposing corporate tax cuts, opposing school choice expansion via SB 1243, opposing SB 1305 on classroom instruction limits, opposing SB 1331 on firearms in schools). At the same time, he supported several Republican-aligned or bipartisan measures, including HB 2429 on occupational licensing, HB 2460 on school suspension authority, SB 1164 on workers' compensation fraud investigation, and border security funding bills. Coverage from AZCentral and other outlets has compared his independent streak to former Senator Kyrsten Sinema. This pattern suggests a legislator who aligned with his party on core social and economic issues while showing genuine willingness to cross the aisle on regulatory, licensing, and some law enforcement and budget matters.


Feely: Feely has no legislative record, so party alignment must be assessed through public statements and relationships. He has stated a direct commitment to "advance the Trump agenda," accepted Trump's endorsement, defended Trump's tariff and Iran policies in interviews, endorsed Kari Lake's 2024 Senate campaign and donated to her campaign under his legal name, and received financial support from committees associated with Jim Jordan. He also consulted with Representative Andy Biggs, a member of Congress with a very high Trump alignment voting percentage, before shifting into the AZ-1 race. Collectively, this network of endorsements and statements supports the conclusion that Feely intends to align closely with the national Republican and Trump-era platform, though it cannot establish with certainty how he would vote on any specific piece of legislation, since intentions expressed before entering office do not guarantee identical voting behavior once in office.


Concluding Assessment: Platform Fidelity


Amish Shah: Shah's documented legislative record provides genuine evidence, not just promises, for evaluating his likely conduct in Congress. His pattern of opposing conservative-backed tax, education, and firearms bills while supporting select bipartisan measures on licensing, workers' compensation fraud, and border funding suggests a legislator who holds firm on core Democratic priorities (healthcare, reproductive rights) while remaining flexible on regulatory and some law enforcement or budget issues. This record supports the idea that his general election platform, which blends progressive healthcare goals with border security funding and law enforcement endorsements, is a continuation of an established pattern rather than a new invention for the campaign. The unresolved dispute over his immigration ad and Proposition 314 vote is a legitimate complicating factor that voters should weigh, since it means his border security messaging is not fully settled by available documentation. His resignation from the state legislature in February 2024, more than two years before the 2026 general election, and his lack of any federal voting record mean there is no direct evidence of how he would vote on federal legislation, only how he voted on comparable state-level issues.


Jay Feely: Feely's lack of any legislative record means his platform must be evaluated entirely through statements, endorsements, and associations rather than votes. The volume and consistency of these signals, his own stated commitment to "advance the Trump agenda," his acceptance of Trump's endorsement, his financial and rhetorical ties to Kari Lake, and campaign contributions from Jim Jordan-affiliated committees, together support the conclusion that he intends to align closely with the national Trump-era Republican platform if elected. However, this consistency in messaging is not the same as a demonstrated voting record, and stated intentions before taking office do not guarantee identical behavior afterward. His August 2026 acknowledgment that Trump lost the 2020 election, after previously declining to answer the question, suggests some willingness to adjust rhetoric for a general election audience in a swing district, which complicates a simple narrative of unwavering alignment. This shift should be read as a documented change in public statement, not evidence of broader ideological flexibility, since it applies to one specific factual question rather than to policy positions. His campaign's own strategic silence on abortion, despite reported past statements supporting defunding Planned Parenthood, further suggests calculated positioning for the district's independent voters rather than a straightforward, fully transparent platform.


Overall: Shah's record offers more material for independent verification because it includes actual votes; Feely's platform rests more heavily on statements and endorsements that indicate intention but cannot be tested against a voting history. Neither circumstance should be treated as proof of future congressional conduct. Shah's past votes constrain but do not guarantee his future behavior in a different legislative body under different party control; Feely's absence of a record means voters are relying on public commitments and associations that have not yet been tested by an actual vote.


Source Notes

Official campaign sources:

Wire service and news reporting:

Reference and election data sources:

Official legislative records:

Advocacy and partisan sources (flagged as such throughout the report):

Note: Prediction market and forecast figures referenced in underlying research (Cook Political Report, Prediction Hunt, ElectionOdds, Kalshi, Polymarket) reflect probabilistic estimates as of early September 2026 and are subject to change; they are not included in the comparison table above because they measure electoral outcome expectations rather than candidate positions or records.


Methodology Note

This report reflects information publicly available as of September 10, 2026. It draws on official campaign websites, wire service and local news reporting (AP, AZCentral, KJZZ, KTAR, Tucson.com), Ballotpedia, official Arizona legislative records, and advocacy or partisan sources including the NRCC, ideological scorecards, and campaign press releases. Campaign websites and party committee materials are treated as advocacy sources that express a candidate's preferred message, not as neutral verification of fact or future conduct. Where a claim rests solely on a partisan source or could not be corroborated through independent reporting, this report flags it explicitly. Voting records are drawn from Arizona legislative records and cross-referenced against news coverage where possible; ideological scorecards (such as the Institute for Legislative Analysis) reflect a specific advocacy framework and are labeled accordingly. This report does not treat Jay Feely's lack of legislative experience as evidence of how he would or would not vote in Congress. Absence of a voting record is noted as a limitation on verification, not as a predictive judgment.


Compiled by John Nelson, PC LD2 Terravita, with assistance from CambrianEdige.ai

Comments

Post: Blog2_Post

LD3 Democrats

PO Box 72535
Phoenix, AZ 85050-1026

Contact Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

Get Involved

Donate

Photos on this website have been generously donated by our local community photographers and adventurers.

©2024 by LD3 Democrats. Paid for by District 3 Democrats. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

bottom of page