A record number of Arizona high school students have earned the prestigious Seal of Arts Proficiency for the 2024-25 school year. 2,366 students have received this honor, some earning more than one, indicating proficiency in more than one arts discipline.
There was a total of 2,400 awards, marking the highest number of recipients since the program launched in 2019. These students were recognized across multiple disciplines of Visual Arts, Theatre, Music, Media Arts, and Dance.
“I am a passionate supporter of the arts. Not only do disciplines such as music, theatre, art, and dance have intrinsic value, but studies have proven that students who pursue the arts often do better academically,” said State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne. “There is tremendous value in arts education, and I am extremely pleased to see the highest number of students in the history of this program receiving the Seal of Arts Proficiency. I also offer my congratulations to the Dysart district and its leadership for having the most students receiving this recognition.”
Out of the 2,400 seals and 2,366 participating students, the Dysart Unified School District was awarded 261 seals with 249 participating students.
The program was launched in the 2019-20 school year with hopes of recognizing students who demonstrate exceptional skills in the arts disciplines. Within the past 5 years, it has quickly grown from 585 participating students to 2,366. The total awards have also increased from 591 to 2,400, showing the state’s proficiency in high school arts. School involvement and support have also grown, with 58 schools participating in 2019 compared to 146 schools this year.
The Arizona Seal of Arts Proficiency honors students who demonstrate exceptional achievement in the arts, while also equipping them with essential life skills and preparing them for college. With nearly 80,000 jobs in Arizona’s arts and culture sector, the seal offers students a meaningful pathway into creative industries, allowing them to succeed both personally and professionally.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Governor Katie Hobbs is under fire from Republican lawmakers after vetoing a bill that aimed to block companies with ties to the People’s Republic of China from securing contracts with the State of Arizona.
The legislation, House Bill 2542, sponsored by Rep. Lupe Diaz (R-LD19), would have required companies bidding on state contracts to certify that they are not owned or controlled by the Chinese government. The bill included penalties of up to $100,000 and a five-year ban for false certifications.
Diaz, who chairs the House Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, expressed sharp disappointment with the veto, calling it “staggering hypocrisy.”
“The bill was simple,” Diaz said in a statement. “If a company wants a contract with the State of Arizona, it must certify that it is not owned or controlled by the People’s Republic of China. Lie about it, and you face consequences.”
He added that the legislation was crafted in response to ongoing concerns about Chinese government-linked companies undermining American industries and infiltrating U.S. supply chains through surveillance-capable technology, including drones, routers, and 5G equipment.
Diaz argued that the veto contradicts recent rhetoric from the Democratic governor, who had previously criticized the legislature for not doing enough to confront foreign threats. “You can’t issue press statements about ‘getting tough on China’ while vetoing a bill that actually would,” he said.
Supporters of the bill pointed to findings from the U.S. House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, which has warned about China’s economic and technological influence in the U.S. marketplace.
Diaz pledged to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session and urged Hobbs to reconsider her position. “Vetoing this bill sends a message that Arizona is still open for business with hostile regimes,” he said. “I will not let that slide.”
HB 2542 is one of several state-level attempts across the country to restrict economic ties with China amid broader geopolitical tensions and growing scrutiny of foreign influence in public procurement and infrastructure.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona State Representative and U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major (ret.) John Gillette (R-LD30) offered a public rebuke of Attorney General Kris Mayes in a July 2nd post to X. Gillette offered a stern correction to Mayes after the Democrat AG announced a lawsuit against the federal government and accused the Trump administration of “violating privacy protections with its decision to share Medicaid data with DHS, which houses ICE.” Mayes claimed the administrative data sharing is an “illegal transfer of Arizonans’ private, personally identifiable health data.”
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Mayes’ office wrote, “Arizonans accessing Medicaid services do so with the assurance that their data would be confidential. While administering AHCCCS and other healthcare programs, Arizona has relied on the federal government’s assurances that it will follow the law and protect confidentiality. It appears the federal government has broken their promise.”
Administrative data sharing with DHS, DOJ, HHS is lawful. The state agreed to the terms when they took the matching funds. 42CFR 431 privacy act, every service member knows this is only protected from non govt use. https://t.co/wKVfxalKCi
— Rep. John Gillette AZ House LD30 (@AzRepGillette) July 2, 2025
In his post to X Gillette wrote, “Administrative data sharing with DHS, DOJ, HHS is lawful. The state agreed to the terms when they took the matching funds. 42 CFR 431 privacy act, every service member knows this is only protected from non govt use.” According to 42 CFR §431.300 the law “requires agencies to exchange information to verify the income and eligibility of applicants and beneficiaries.” It further defines under § 431.302 that “Purposes directly related to plan administration include—
(a) Establishing eligibility;
(b) Determining the amount of medical assistance;
(c) Providing services for beneficiaries; and
(d) Conducting or assisting an investigation, prosecution, or civil or criminal proceeding related to the administration of the plan.”
Under these terms, the sharing of information between the State of Arizona and the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Health and Human Services aren’t merely lawful, but are mandatory. Any extrajudicial attempts to disrupt this information sharing by Arizona would likely be grounds for the Federal government to similarly take legal action against Arizona at the taxpayers’ expense.
Strict limitations are also placed on the federal agencies requiring that they safeguard the information shared regarding program participants, provide “conditions for release and use of information about applicants and beneficiaries,” and restrict access to the information “to persons or agency representatives who are subject to standards of confidentiality that are comparable to those of the agency.”
Governor Katie Hobbs signed legislation Wednesday creating a new Independent Correctional Oversight Office for Arizona’s prison system—but critics say the move rings hollow, as the Governor declined to provide any funding to make the office functional.
Senate Bill 1507, introduced by Senator Shawnna Bolick, was designed to increase accountability and transparency within the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR). The bill comes amid heightened scrutiny of the state’s prison system following recent inmate deaths and reports of systemic failures.
But while the bill was signed into law, supporters say its impact has been effectively neutralized by the Governor’s refusal to allocate funding to the new office. “I’m glad to see Senator Bolick’s SB 1507 signed into law. This is a long-overdue step toward accountability in our corrections system,” said Rep. Walt Blackman. “But a law without funding is just a press release.”
Senator Bolick, who chairs the Senate Regulatory Affairs & Government Efficiency Committee, expressed frustration with the Governor’s decision, accusing her of prioritizing appearances over action.
“Signing a bill and refusing to fund it is like buying a car and not putting anyone in the driver’s seat,” Bolick said. “The Governor is selling the illusion of progress while withholding the tools the office needs to function.”
The oversight office was envisioned as a neutral body to monitor Arizona’s prison system, investigate abuse, and ensure transparency—functions advocates say are urgently needed.
Supporters of the bill argue that the Governor’s rejection of all related budget requests undermines the very accountability the legislation was meant to establish. Without staff, resources, or operational funding, the office exists only on paper.
Bolick is now urging the Governor to take immediate steps to rectify the situation, suggesting Hobbs find funds either within her own office or by reallocating money from another agency.
“If she believes in this office,” Bolick said, “she needs to fund it.” For now, the Independent Correctional Oversight Office remains a concept without a functioning framework—leaving reform advocates wondering when, or if, oversight will become reality in Arizona’s prison system.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Before the Declaration of Independence, there was the Olive Branch Petition.
Written 250 years ago on July 5th, the Olive Branch Petition was Thomas Jefferson’s first attempt to explain to King George III why the American Colonies were rebelling and ask for reconciliation.
The “Shot heard ‘round the world” had been fired almost three months earlier, and the Battle of Bunker Hill had just ended. It was readily apparent to the Second Continental Congress that the situation was spinning out of control. In a last-ditch effort to stave off a rebellion and attempt a peaceful settlement, John Hancock authorized the drafting of a document to explain the colonies’ position, acknowledge their loyalty to the King and propose a solution to the conflict.
Everything the colonists knew about their government was that the King’s representative controlled most of the governing of their political subdivision, and the actions of the Royal Governor were generally respected as if the King himself was in residence. What the colonists could not appreciate was the emerging British constitutional government caused Parliament to become more powerful while the King’s authority gradually eroded. Most critical in this tug of war for authority was the power of the purse. The King and Parliament routinely argued over taxing and spending with Parliament eventually gaining the upper hand.
But during this time, while the role and responsibility of the King and Parliament were being established, the colonies were in the midst of creating their own unique political system. Initially, the colonies grew and developed with little, if any, input from the King. The customs as British subjects were transferred in a seamless manner, almost by osmosis, that accepted a local structure of self-government that was limited and almost invisible. The law and accompanying political organization were accepted by the colonies because they were familiar; but most importantly, they worked.
Always looking for new revenue to fund both the Crown and Parliament, the colonies became an untapped revenue stream. Under the excuse that the cost of protecting the colonies from foreign invasion should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries (the colonies), Parliament acted. Beginning in 1764, Parliament sought to impose various taxes on the colonies. The King benefited from these taxes as a portion of the generated revenue directly funded his royal court, but the numerous acts imposing taxes were not issued in the name of the sovereign, but in the name of Parliament.
So, with each successive tax, the colonists became more vexed and sought to avoid new levies in many ways; some benign, like smuggling or boycotting to avoid payment, or direct action, like the destruction of property to illustrate displeasure. But in all these aggressions against parliamentary acts, the colonists reasoned that if King George could understand the situation and reign in Parliament, then the colonial relationship could be restored. The colonists failed to appreciate the King’s complicity in the imposition of the various taxes.
When the relationship between the colonies further deteriorated and red coats were ordered to disarm colonial militias, the war of words turned into a hot war with the loss of life and destruction of property. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill were more than simple police actions — they were serious military conflicts with significant casualties. With the conflict escalating, the Continental Congress tried one last step and appealed to the King with the Olive Branch Petition, which almost begged for a restoration of their former relationship. Thomas Jefferson’s initial draft of the Olive Branch Petition was too strident and bellicose, so with input from other founding fathers, John Dickinson would tone it down, and his revision was sent to the King after being approved by Congress.
King George never read the conciliatory document and instead responded by issuing his own Proclamation of Rebellion authorizing force to restrain the rebellion and hang the leaders. The Olive Branch Petition was an attempt to avoid bloodshed and restore an amicable relationship between the crown and colonies, but in rejecting the petition, the King, to his eventual detriment, turned loyalists into rebels.
One year later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would set an inevitable course; Washington’s victory at Yorktown would conclude the matter.
Will Sellers is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, graduate of Hillsdale College, and was appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com
