Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, a sprawling region stretching from the border towns of Douglas and Nogales through much of Tucson, out to Yuma, and even into the Phoenix suburb of Buckeye, has found itself at the center of a legal and political storm. On October 21, 2025, Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., against the U.S. House of Representatives, seeking to compel Grijalva’s swearing-in and restore representation to the district’s 813,000 residents.
The suit, which runs 17 pages, accuses Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of unlawfully refusing to seat Grijalva despite her decisive victory in the September 23 special election and the certification of those results by state officials. According to Capitol Media Services, the complaint argues that Johnson’s refusal is “arbitrary — and illegal,” and that it deprives Arizonans of their constitutional right to representation. “If the speaker were granted that authority, he could thwart the peoples’ choice of who should represent them in Congress by denying them representation for a significant portion of the two-year term provided by the Constitution,” the lawsuit states.
Grijalva’s win was a landslide, with nearly 69% of the vote, filling the seat left vacant by her late father, Raul Grijalva, a progressive Democrat who served the district for over two decades until his death in March. Yet, nearly a month later, Grijalva remains unseated. The reason, according to Speaker Johnson, is procedural: the House is not in session due to a government shutdown triggered by a standoff between the Republican-controlled House and Senate Democrats over a continuing resolution for federal funding. Johnson insists there’s no requirement to swear in new members while the House is out of session and has cited the so-called “Pelosi precedent” — referencing a 2022 delay when the House, then led by Nancy Pelosi, postponed swearing in two special election winners until after a recess.
But critics, including Grijalva and Mayes, say the comparison doesn’t hold water. “Speaker Mike Johnson is actively stripping the people of Arizona of one of their seats in Congress and disenfranchising the voters,” Mayes said in a statement reported by AS USA. She went further, calling the situation “taxation without representation” and vowing, “I will not allow Arizonans to be silenced or treated as second-class citizens in their own democracy.”
Grijalva herself has been outspoken about the impact of the delay. “Speaker Johnson’s obstruction has gone far beyond petty partisan politics – it’s an unlawful breach of our Constitution and the democratic process,” she told Capitol Media Services. She also accused Johnson of “suppress[ing] their representation to shield this administration from accountability and block justice for the Epstein survivors.”
The reference to Jeffrey Epstein is no accident. Grijalva’s swearing-in is crucial for a bipartisan discharge petition that would force a House floor vote to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to the convicted sex trafficker and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The petition currently has 217 signatures — one short of the 218 needed. Grijalva has pledged to be that final signature. Johnson has denied that the Epstein petition is a factor in the delay, telling reporters, “This has zero to do with Epstein.” Yet, as AS USA reports, this isn’t the first time Johnson has been accused of stalling votes on the Epstein files; in August, he ended the summer recess early to prevent a similar bipartisan effort from reaching the floor.
Johnson, for his part, has dismissed the lawsuit as “patently absurd” and accused Mayes of seeking publicity. “Good luck with that,” he remarked, according to the Associated Press. He has also publicly criticized Grijalva’s complaints, suggesting she could be serving her constituents in other ways. “Instead of doing TikTok videos, she can be serving her constituents,” Johnson told reporters. “She could be taking their calls. She can be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government.”
But Grijalva disputes these claims, saying the lack of formal swearing-in leaves her unable to access federal databases, set up a government email, or even perform basic constituent services. “I can’t do constituent services without being sworn in,” she explained. The administrative hurdles are real: she has no access to the federal system needed for privacy act waivers — crucial for helping constituents with sensitive issues — nor does she have a budget to rent office space, hire staff, or travel for official duties. “You’ve given me a car to drive with no engine, with no gas, with no tires,” she quipped to Capitol Media Services.
Indeed, the effects are tangible. As of October 21, anyone calling her Washington office hears a recorded message directing them elsewhere, and the Tucson office still uses her late father’s voicemail. Without a budget, Grijalva is unable to sign leases for district offices or obtain a travel card, forcing her to use personal resources for trips between Tucson and Washington. “These are the people who elected me to work,” she said, expressing frustration at her inability to help constituents during the shutdown.
Johnson maintains that Grijalva has access to 16 staffers and that her party should be helping her navigate the administrative process. However, Grijalva says her staff cannot be fully onboarded and that key systems remain inaccessible until she is formally sworn in. “What Johnson does not understand is there’s more involved for me and my staffers to actually do any work,” she said.
The lawsuit seeks a court order to have Grijalva “deemed a member of the House of Representatives once she has taken the oath prescribed by law,” and requests that, if Johnson refuses, any authorized official be permitted to administer the oath. Mayes emphasized that the suit is not just about Grijalva’s rights, but about the representation of all Arizonans in the district. “I’m representing the people of Arizona who are now down one representative and, more specifically, representing the 813,000 in CD 7 who are now being taxed without representation,” Mayes told Capitol Media Services.
Legal experts, like Christian Fong of the University of Michigan, suggest the lawsuit is more about making a political point than effecting immediate change, given the House’s broad latitude over its own procedures. Still, the case highlights the friction between procedural precedent and the practical needs of constituents. As Fong put it, “This is the usual litigiousness that characterizes the relationship between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to elections.”
While the courts may ultimately decide whether Grijalva’s swearing-in can be compelled, the episode has exposed the real-world consequences of procedural gridlock. For now, the people of southern Arizona remain without a voice in Congress — and the nation watches as the battle over representation, accountability, and transparency plays out in court and on Capitol Hill.
