Backlash grows against police in Nancy Guthrie case after suspension revelation
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has headed the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance from her Arizona home since day one
Backlash has been steadily building against the lead investigator in the case of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance on February 1, with Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos coming under fire for past disciplinary issues as the investigation approaches its 12th week.
The sheriff's history at the El Paso Police Department in Texas has drawn criticism as he resigned from his position in 1982 in order to avoid disciplinary action. He addressed the allegations that he misrepresented himself when applying for a job at the Pima County Police Department in the '80s, after leaving his job in Texas.
Chris' lawyer responded to the probe into his past with a 22-page document that explained his conduct. "Sheriff Nanos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982. At the time of his resignation, he held the rank of corporal," the document read.
© Getty Images
Sheriff Chris Nanos has come under fire in recent weeks
"His resignation came in the wake of a dispute with a supervisor over the towing of vehicles. The supervisor wanted to impose a three-day suspension for insubordination. Sheriff Nanos appealed that recommended discipline to the Chief, who found in favor of the supervisor."
"Rather than accept a three-day suspension, Sheriff Nanos offered to resign in lieu of discipline. The Chief accepted his offer, and Sheriff Nanos resigned," he continued. The document added that he had not lied about his employment history, and wrote on his resume that he left the job in 1982, despite the Pima County Sheriff's Department website stating that he left in 1984.
Chris' lawyer also acknowledged the disciplinary actions he was subject to at El Paso, including "counselling, reprimands and suspensions". The letter then spoke on the sheriff's previous statement under oath that he had never been suspended as a result of disciplinary action.
© Getty Images
The sheriff has lead the Nancy Guthrie investigation since day one
"It is 100% correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff's Department," his lawyer wrote to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
"However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than forty years ago while employed by [the] El Paso Police Department. In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency not governed by the Arizona Peace Officers' Bill of Rights."
Social media users quickly shared their distaste for the sheriff after his past in El Paso came to light. "Everyone wants him gone," wrote one X user, while another added that "people are angry". A third chimed in that Chris had "botched this [case] from the start," while a fourth added: "My gut is telling me it was totally mishandled."
© Getty Images
Chris faced backlash from social media users
Chris did garner support from some social media users, with one writing: "Wasn't this decades ago? [In my opinion] he is working hard to find Nancy Guthrie," while another added that the focus on his past was "fueling a dishonest narrative" about Chris' competency.
© WireImage
Nancy went missing from her Arizona home in February
The Pima County Sheriff's Department has worked closely with the FBI since Nancy went missing in February. While several suspects have been questioned regarding her disappearance, no arrests have been made, and DNA evidence is still being examined by the authorities.
Nancy, the 84-year-old mother of Today show star Savannah Guthrie, was believed to have been taken by force from her home in Tucson, Arizona, after blood was found on the doorstep, and her personal effects were found inside the house.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
