Goldwater Institute attorneys and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould are set to argue against Proposition 211 at the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11th. The Goldwater attorneys and Justice Gould argue that Prop 211, which requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the personal information, including names and addresses, of all their donors, violates the Arizona State Constitution’s guarantee of privacy.
According to Goldwater, “Under that law, donors to organizations that spend money on initiative campaigns must have their names, addresses, phone numbers, and employment information placed on a publicly accessible government list—thereby inviting retaliation, ostracism, and even violence.”
Goldwater Vice President of Litigation Jon Riches told AZ Free News, “Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in. The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution.”
He continued, “That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211 and offer the first clear roadmap for mounting state constitutional challenges to donor-disclosure laws across the country.”
The legal challenge was brought by Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, working on the basis that “Arizona’s constitution forbids the state from stripping people of their confidentiality as the price of supporting or opposing a political view.”
The AZ Supreme Court will hear @GoldwaterInst’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop 211, a 2022 law that strips donors & nonprofits of their privacy rights if they support or oppose ballot initiatives. https://t.co/aUU8E40rK1
The Arizona State Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, offers explicit protections for privacy in Article 2, Section 8, which reads, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Likewise, under Article 2 Section 6, the right for all Arizonans to “freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,” when coupled with the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would seem to overwhelmingly uphold the right of Arizonans to donate privately to support or oppose a political cause.
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed, “The dissent says that ‘speech’ refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the freedom of the press.”
In May, Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, echoed that sentiment writing, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
Two Arizona lawmakers are criticizing recent safety reforms announced by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADCRR), arguing that the measures come too late to address a crisis that has already cost dozens of lives inside state prisons.
State Senator Shawnna Bolick and Representative Walt Blackman said last week that while steps such as deploying body cameras and forming a Violence Reduction Workgroup mark progress, they fall short of the urgent changes needed to prevent further loss of life.
According to ADCRR, 57 people have died in state prisons so far this year, including at least 11 homicides. Senator Bolick, who chairs the Senate Committee on Regulatory Affairs & Government Efficiency, said those numbers underscore the urgency of reform.
“The department’s announcement, which appears to have been driven by the threat of federal oversight, comes far too late for many,” Bolick said. “Body cameras are a positive development, but they should have been implemented long before legislative scrutiny forced the issue.”
Representative Blackman, chair of the House Committee on Government, pointed to what he described as inadequate support for the Independent Correctional Oversight Office created under SB 1507. He argued that the office cannot fulfill its role without proper funding from Governor Katie Hobbs’ administration.
“A press release is not a substitute for the resources and accountability this office needs to function,” Blackman said. “Transparency and oversight are essential if we want to prevent violent incidents like the recent inmate murders in Tucson.”
Both lawmakers also criticized what they view as a reactive approach by ADCRR Director Ryan Thornell. While acknowledging the department’s new training and workforce development programs, they said those initiatives should have been prioritized earlier.
“Director Thornell must demonstrate that safety within prison walls is a priority from day one, not a response to external pressure,” Bolick said.
Blackman added that measurable improvements are needed before lawmakers and the public can have confidence in the reforms. “Announcements alone won’t keep staff or inmates safe,” he said. “We need proof that violence is being reduced, reentry is safer, and the culture inside Arizona prisons is truly changing.”
The debate comes amid heightened scrutiny of Arizona’s correctional system, which has faced criticism in recent years over safety, staffing shortages, and inmate conditions.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The legal fight between Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the County Board of Supervisors escalated Monday. America First Legal filed two motions on Heap’s behalf, and Arizona’s legislative leaders submitted an amicus brief supporting him.
In a press release, the County Recorder’s Office stated that the motionsfiled by America First Legal “reveal how the County Board of Supervisors and County Attorney Rachel Mitchell have weaponized county government against duly-elected Recorder Justin Heap simply because he dared to fulfill his statutory duties and protect the sanctity of Arizona elections.”
Heap said in a statement, “It’s unfortunate that the Board’s unprofessional and bad faith actions have forced us to litigate this issue; however, it’s significantly more unfortunate that the Board continues to deny the voters of Maricopa County the positive, common sense election integrity reforms that they voted for last November when they elected me. As I’ve promised from day one, I am working to ensure honest, secure, and transparent elections for every voter in Maricopa County. I am not, and will not, waiver in my commitment to executing on this promise. I’m grateful to America First Legal for standing by my side in this battle.”
Recorder Justin Heap Refuses to Back Down in the Face of Unprecedented Attack on Election Integrity in Maricopa County ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/p9db5ODufm
— Maricopa County Recorder's Office (@RecordersOffice) August 25, 2025
America First Legal detailed Heap’s allegations in the first filing: “The Defendants — the members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (‘BOS’) — have crossed from fiscal oversight into outright sabotage. Ignoring [state law] and decades of precedent, the BOS has refused to fund the Recorder’s ‘necessary expenses’ — from modern ballot-processing equipment to indispensable IT staff — while simultaneously seizing control of the very election functions its stonewalling endangers. The BOS’s obstruction is not mere bureaucratic foot-dragging; it is a calculated power grab that throttles the Recorder’s constitutional duty to administer secure, timely elections.”
🚨Arizona voters deserve elections run according to the law—not confusion or overreach.
Today Senate President @votewarren filed a brief in Heap v. Galvin making it clear: only the Legislature sets election duties, and they must be carried out by the officials elected for the… pic.twitter.com/CRGOFYIb34
In an amici filing in support of Heap, Arizona House Speaker Steven Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen’s legal representation call for a strict interpretation of state statutes which govern the responsibilities of the county recorder and board of supervisors. They argue that the “court should narrowly conclude that, based on the statutes’ plain language, when the statute authorizes ‘the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections’ to act, it is the recorder’s duty to ensure the statute is complied with unless the recorder expressly agrees to delegate that duty to another ‘officer in charge of elections.’”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the months-long negotiations between Heap and the Board, led by Chairman Thomas Galvin, devolved steadily since Heap’s election and the replacement of Stephen Richer in January until finally collapsing into litigation in June.
The crux of the disagreement between the Board of Supervisors and County Recorder Heap rests upon a Shared Services Agreement (SSA) agreed to by Heap’s predecessor, Richer, who ardently opposed the election integrity efforts that Heap ran for office to enact. For nearly six months, the two county offices negotiated; however, Heap and the Supervisors were unable to reach an agreement, culminating in a lawsuit filed by Heap.
Since then, Heap has alleged that the Supervisors have “taken retaliatory actions” describing a series of measures that “make it impossible for him to do his job, including removing nearly all his election-related IT staff; seizing the servers, databases, and websites necessary to fulfill his duties; and restricting access to necessary facilities and equipment,” as reported by The Federalist.
In a second filing, Heap and America First Legal introduced allegations involving Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, bringing a third County office into the fray in a dispute over who may represent the County Recorder, an attorney chosen by Heap or Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. In the legal brief, they allege, “Attorney Mitchell originally appointed a criminal defense attorney to advise the Recorder; however, in April, America First Legal agreed to represent Heap pro bono, a move that Mitchell objected to.”
“When the Recorder complained that the original attorney appointed for him lacked sufficient subject matter expertise, County Attorney Mitchell appointed former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould to advise the Recorder only during negotiations with the Board. However, County Attorney Mitchell and the Board did not allow Justice Gould to litigate on the Recorder’s behalf,” the filing revealed.
But according to AFL, that wasn’t the end of it. “In May of 2025, Justice Gould specifically asked the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for permission to litigate on Recorder Heap’s behalf but was not allowed to do so because the scope of his representation was limited to negotiation of the SSA and did not include litigation, and, accordingly, the County would not compensate him for litigation-related work.”
Mitchell responded by penning a letter to the AFL attorneys, writing in part, “This letter is to inform you that I am the Recorder’s attorney and that you do not represent the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office or Recorder Heap in his official capacity.”
Per The Federalist, AFL attorney James Rogers retorted that the “County Recorder is allowed to pick his own lawyer in litigation,” adding that Heap “is not subject to the whims of the county attorney.”
In the midst of the complex legal battle between the Recorder’s Office and the Board of Supervisors, which has drawn the attention of legislative leaders, the dispute with Mitchell adds yet another layer of infighting within the already divided county government, with the calendar counting down to the 2026 elections.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne criticized the lenient sentencing of Daniel Hollander. Hollander was arrested in January 2025 after breaking into Legacy Traditional School–East Tucson with a gun and knife, threatening to kill children and “make them famous.”
Hollander faced charges of attempted terrorism, interfering with an educational institution, weapons misconduct on school grounds, and burglary. He was sentenced to only 18 months in prison followed by probation, a punishment Horne deems inadequate to protect Arizona’s students.
Hollander’s arrest was made possible by the swift and courageous actions of Tucson police officer William Bonanno, a school safety officer funded through the Arizona Department of Education’s school safety program.
“We avoided that tragedy by the skin of our teeth,” said Superintendent Horne. “Tucson Police Officer William Bonanno was the safety officer on campus. He was hired just two weeks before the incident. He is experienced and brave, and after being alerted to a problem on campus, he checked an open door and found the would-be perpetrator with a gun and a knife. Because of his experience and courage, he did not wait for backup but immediately arrested the individual.”
In a statement following the sentencing in Pima County Superior Court, Horne expressed outrage at the prosecutor’s recommendation of just one year in prison and 10 years’ probation.
“As a former Attorney General, I know that the public is entitled to be protected from people like this defendant,” Horne stated. “The judge increased it to 18 months, but could not do more in view of the prosecutor’s recommendation. Probation is not perfect. If this individual has a bad day, he could go into a school and kill students. In my opinion, the prosecutor’s recommendation should have been at least 20 years in prison to protect our children.”
Horne emphasized his administration’s commitment to school safety, noting that the number of police officers in Arizona schools has risen from 190 to 585 over the past two years.
Just before the incident, the Arizona Department of Education identified unused funds and reopened grant opportunities, enabling the hiring of Officer Bonanno.
“I urge the schools to consider that a maniac could invade a school and kill 20 students, as has happened in other states, and could happen here. This is my worst nightmare,” said Horne.
Horne’s administration remains dedicated to strengthening school safety measures to protect Arizona’s students from threats like these.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
If Peoria Unified residents were skeptical about students being brainwashed with diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologies, rewatching the August 28, 2025, school board meeting should remove all remaining doubts. Current students delivered a majority of the 63 public comments against the cancellation of DEI-infused performing arts programs. The only problem is that these programs were never slated to be eliminated. Listen to PUSD school board members’ comments here.
A passionately misinformed parent created a Change.org petition claiming that the PUSD school board planned to cut ties with the Educational Theatre Association (EdTA), the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), and the National Dance Education Organization (NDEO). Unfortunately, this parent took no initiative in contacting the board before circulating the petition. The parent also failed to direct activism efforts toward those organizations that practice discrimination against white students. It would have been great for the kids to bombard them with calls, emails, and demands to remove the racist policies from their websites.
Oh, well. Maybe next time…
Those who have actually followed the 2025 PUSD school board meetings understand that a majority of the board is working to eradicate DEI from school programs in compliance with President Trump’s Executive Order. Since the Department of Education prioritized the order, why wouldn’t school districts follow suit to protect federal resources? PUSD board members did their due diligence in contacting the Arizona Department of Education and consulting their lawyer in a closed session to ensure they weren’t jeopardizing Title II funding by renewing the agreements.
Not surprisingly, AZ State Superintendent Tom Horne and PUSD Superintendent K.C. Somers were in favor of keeping the programs despite these organizations’ defiance of federal mandates. The following screenshots are sourced directly from their websites. It only takes one or two clicks to find this information.
NDEO’s racial equity statements are currently parked behind information walls. Internet archives from 2020 reveal that the Advisory Board Director and CEO both met with equity consultants and agreed that NDEO should undergo a diversity audit to “help provide a roadmap for organizational and programmatic changes over the next few years, as NDEO embodies its commitment to becoming an anti-racist organization.” Their statement on social justice can be viewed below.
One leftist who instigated the PUSD protest was Washington Elementary School District (WESD) Board President Kyle Clayton. In 2023, Clayton was one of five board members who voted to terminate an 11-year relationship with Arizona Christian University due to the college’s stance on traditional marriage. At that time, Clayton—who identifies as an LGBT community member—said he was worried that Christian student-teachers would proselytize his children and make them feel bad about having two dads. It didn’t matter that ACU had never received a single complaint like this in 11 years.
Past board members in Clayton’s district signed anti-racism and LGBTQ+ affirming resolutions. The youngest WESD students are barely potty-trained. Let that sink in. Clayton willingly discriminates against people who believe in God and disagree with his lifestyle choices. This is the definition of bigotry. Clayton is not the kind of person who should be leading an elementary school district. WESD residents should be asking how and why radical, anti-Christian activists are sitting on their school board.
Ultimately, the PUSD school board protest made the adult activists look a bit foolish. Board Member Becky Proudfit—who historically supported DEI for students—clarified that the programs were “not in danger of being cut” but that the district endeavored to operate “in the bounds of legality.” She also reiterated that Title II funding is not a permanent solution and encouraged every speaker to contact the noncompliant organizations (as the petition starter should have done). Board Member Janelle Bowles—who is strongly against DEI— wholeheartedly agreed with Proudfit’s sentiments.
Although the students performed well during public comments, it was sad and exhausting to see so much misguided passion and wasted energy coming against leaders who are all working in their favor. Even conservative board members voted to keep programs with DEI components—albeit Board President Heather Rooks vehemently denounced EdTA’s racist ideologies, and another board member motioned to approve the programs with an attestation as part of their agreement with PUSD.
It’s a shame that the adults who gaslighted the children and influenced this demonstration lacked the foresight to protest the culprits causing the federal funding dilemma. If you’re going to encourage students to engage in activism, at least point them in the right direction. Of course, theatre, dance, music, and other artistic expressions provide students with an enriching experience and some lucrative post-secondary school opportunities.
Nevertheless, K-12 students don’t need to learn how to be “anti-racist” while playing a wind instrument. Gender identity is not a prerequisite for memorizing and delivering well-executed lines. And although the good Lord graced His black and brown people with more rhythm, white students shouldn’t be cut from recitals just because they’re born with melanin deficiency. Why any board member, superintendent, parent, or educator would advocate for DEI is beyond the comprehension of those who love all children the same, regardless of their ethnic background.
A final word to DEI champions: You would do best to listen to conservative black people instead of emotionally inserting yourselves into historical civil rights conflicts that don’t concern you. No one asked white liberals to fight battles or take on identity-based issues that didn’t affect their community 250 years ago. If leftists want to protest something, there is plenty of hatred directed at white, heterosexual, Christian conservatives today. People like me are doing just fine. We don’t need any handouts. The world would be a better, safer, more sane place if the adults on the self-righteous left took some time to study the true definition of diversity.
