by Matthew Holloway | Dec 12, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Rep. Eli Crane is highlighting a significant win for rural communities after the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025 on Dec. 9. The bill restores lapsed payments and guarantees new funding through 2026 for counties across Crane’s largely rural Second Congressional District; many of which rely heavily on federal forest-land payments to support schools, roads, and public safety services.
The House approved the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 399–5, marking the first standalone reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in recent years. The bill, passed by the Senate in June, now heads to President Trump’s desk for signature. It would restore missed 2024 payments while authorizing full funding for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, following a lapse that forced many rural counties nationwide to absorb steep budget shortfalls.
Created by Congress in 2000, the SRS program was designed to stabilize funding for counties with large shares of federally managed forest land as traditional timber receipts declined. Under the Act of May 23, 1908, 25 percent of national forest revenues were directed to states for public schools and roads in affected counties. As logging revenues fell over time, Congress established SRS to ensure more predictable funding for education and infrastructure in rural communities.
The U.S. Forest Service manages approximately 196 million acres of national forest land nationwide. SRS payments are distributed under three funding categories: Title I for county roads and schools, Title II for collaborative projects on federal lands, and Title III for additional county projects. Participating counties may elect between SRS payments or traditional 1908 Act payments and determine how funds are allocated among the three titles.
Crane, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, supported the reauthorization, which directly benefits rural counties across Arizona’s Second Congressional District, including Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, along with portions of Graham, Mohave, Maricopa, and Pinal counties.
“I’m proud to join my colleagues in reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools program to provide vital support for schools in rural Arizona,” Crane said in a statement. “This extension secures much-needed stability and funding. This is a positive outcome, and I will always fight for those I represent.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), who introduced the legislation and serves as chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, led the effort in the House alongside Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise. LaMalfa emphasized that SRS payments are often the difference between maintaining basic services and making deep cuts in rural communities.
“For rural counties, Secure Rural Schools funding is essential,” LaMalfa said. “These payments help keep schools open, keep roads maintained, and help ensure sheriff, fire, and emergency services remain in place when federal timber revenues fall short. When the program lapsed, rural schools and counties were cut short of the funding they rely on to provide basic services. This bill restores that funding and keeps future payments on schedule.”
The reauthorization follows a 2023 lapse that forced many counties to revert to traditional 1908 Act revenue-sharing, resulting in funding reductions of up to 80 percent in some areas. Counties reported teacher layoffs, school program cuts, and deferred road maintenance as a result. The restored 2024 payments under the amended 1908 Act were distributed in April 2025 with a 5.7 percent sequestration reduction.
Since its creation, the program has delivered roughly $7 billion to more than 700 counties and 4,400 school districts nationwide. With the House vote now complete, rural Arizona counties are preparing to factor restored SRS funding into upcoming budget planning as they await final action from the White House.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party is calling a recent court ruling a major victory for election integrity, but how much the decision will actually change voter roll maintenance remains an open question.
In a statement released this week, Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda announced that the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Petersen, et al. v. Fontes, upheld an Arizona law that requires counties to begin the cancellation process when a voter swears on a jury questionnaire that they no longer live in the county. Swoboda described the ruling as a necessary correction that will help ensure clean voter rolls ahead of future elections.
“This ruling is a major victory for our state and for every Arizona voter,” Swoboda said in the update, framing the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the state’s elections.
“Cleaner rolls protect voters. That’s the bottom line. No more dodging the law, no more loopholes, and no more games with Arizona’s voter rolls. Republicans in Arizona are fighting to ensure our elections are secure and stopping extreme leftist policies that would have thrown our elections into chaos. This is a huge step forward, but our work continues. We’ll keep working to restore trust, enforce the law, and deliver an election system every Arizonan can count on.”
In the AZGOP statement, the party referred to the ruling as “a significant defeat for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes,” noting that the state’s second-highest-ranking Democrat was “forced to abandon his extreme rule that would have allowed counties to toss out every vote cast if a canvass was submitted late,” describing the policy as “reckless,” and saying it “jeopardized lawful ballots and undermined public confidence.”
Republicans are celebrating the decision as a significant victory for structural reform; however, the ruling itself paints a more nuanced legal picture.
On the jury-questionnaire issue, the court held that federal law does not preempt Arizona’s statute, A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(9)(b), which directs county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the voter fails to respond to a mailed notice after telling a jury commissioner they no longer reside in the county. The opinion explains that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows removal when a voter “confirms in writing” that they have changed residence and does not require that confirmation go directly to the county recorder. Instead, the court found that a signed juror questionnaire can qualify as that written confirmation:
“Because the Seventh Circuit precedent does not conflict with A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9, the NVRA does not preempt that Arizona statute. … Here, the county recorder sends the notice only when a person signs (under penalty of perjury) a written juror questionnaire saying the person no longer resides in the county. A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9(b). That notice satisfies the NVRA.”
Under the statute, the juror form does not lead to automatic cancellation. Instead, it triggers a process: the recorder must send a notice by forwardable mail warning that, if the voter does not respond within 35 days, “the county recorder shall cancel the person’s registration.” The 2023 Elections Procedures Manual had directed counties to move such voters to an inactive list instead of canceling their registrations, but the court concluded that approach conflicted with the statute and therefore exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
Swoboda and other GOP leaders also highlighted language in the 2023 manual that would have instructed the Secretary of State to proceed with a statewide canvass without counting any county whose official canvass arrived late. The appeals court, however, declined to rule on that provision, finding the challenge moot because Fontes had already replaced it in the draft of the 2025 manual with language committing to use “all available legal remedies” to compel a county board of supervisors to complete its canvass and “protect voters’ right to have their votes counted.”
While the ruling clearly reinforces that the Secretary of State’s election manual authority is bounded by statute, the judges also sided with Fontes on a key question involving the active early voting list. Upholding the superior court, the panel agreed that a separate statute governing removal notices for the active early voting list, A.R.S. § 16-544(H)(4), is not retroactive and applies starting with the 2024 election cycle:
“The 2023 Manual thus has the removal notice statute process start with the 2024 election cycle. The 2024 election cycle started on January 1, 2023. The superior court agreed with the Secretary. We thus affirm.”
Arizona counties regularly maintain their voter rolls using multiple data sources, including death records, address changes, and federal databases. Several prominent Republicans have argued that those procedures remain insufficient. The jury-form issue addressed in this case represents a narrow slice of that broader process. The practical number of registrations affected by the ruling is not yet known.
Arizona GOP leaders, including Swoboda, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate President Warren Petersen, and former Speaker Ben Toma, have pursued multiple legal challenges over election procedures and voter-roll maintenance in recent years. Some of those efforts have succeeded in forcing procedural changes, while others have been dismissed on standing or jurisdictional grounds.
That track record makes this latest ruling politically significant even if its technical impact proves limited. For election integrity activists, it represents steady, gradual progress toward tightening controls. Critics, meanwhile, characterize them as partisan attempts to re-litigate election processes long after votes have been cast.
Swoboda’s update also criticized past election-related deadlines and procedures that Republicans argue undermined public trust, particularly citing disputes over ballot processing timelines and late canvassing.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores a basic principle: if a voter swears they’ve left a county, that sworn statement can be used, under existing law, to start the notice-and-cancellation process so the registration does not remain active indefinitely, akin to voters trying to leave “the Hotel California,” as Swoboda quipped in a video posted to X. Opponents counter that aggressive roll maintenance must be handled carefully to avoid mistakenly removing eligible voters.
For now, the ruling directs how counties must treat sworn jury-form declarations moving forward, reaffirming the statutory process: notice, a waiting period, and eventual cancellation if there is no response. Whether that translates into large-scale voter-roll changes or simply a modest administrative correction will depend on how often such declarations occur and how county recorders opt to implement the ruling.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 10, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs is pressing House Republican leadership to move quickly on a sweeping market-based overhaul of federal health-care policy, as enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies approach their scheduled expiration at the end of 2025.
In a letter co-signed by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) and Reps. Eric Burlison (R-MO), Clay Higgins (R-LA), and Eli Crane (R-AZ-02), Biggs wrote, “Republicans have solutions, and it’s time to implement them.”
The proposal outlined by Biggs is designed as a free-market alternative to Obamacare and reflects key elements of President Donald Trump’s healthcare agenda. Supporters argue the framework would shift federal policy away from government subsidies and toward consumer-driven healthcare.
“The time for half measures is over,” Biggs wrote to Speaker Johnson. “The American people deserve healthcare reform built on freedom, affordability, flexibility, and choice—not more subsidies, red tape, or handouts for insurance companies.”
Under the proposal, conservatives would allow the expanded ACA premium tax credits to expire, arguing the subsidies have inflated healthcare costs, expanded federal dependency, and funneled taxpayer dollars through insurance companies rather than directly to patients. As Breitbart News noted, the framework draws on nine Republican proposals, including those of Reps. Greg Steube (R-FL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Kevin Hern (R-OK), Bob Onder (R-MO), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Gary Palmer (R-AL), and Chip Roy (R-TX), as well as Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), and Rep. Andy Biggs’s own Health Savings Accounts for All Act.
The framework emphasizes expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), allowing individuals to use tax-advantaged dollars for insurance premiums, prescriptions, and other medical expenses. It also promotes interstate insurance competition and expanded access through Association Health Plans; reforms aimed at lowering costs through market competition.
Biggs and his fellow conservatives argue that Obamacare’s structure relies too heavily on mandates, subsidies, and centralized control, which they say have driven up premiums while limiting consumer choice, particularly for self-employed individuals and those in the gig economy.
The plan also includes provisions to codify restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortion and reinforce conscience protections for healthcare providers, aligning with longstanding conservative policy priorities.
For Arizona, the debate carries direct implications for large numbers of independent contractors, small-business owners, and self-employed workers who often face high ACA marketplace premiums and limited plan options. Expanded HSAs and portable insurance plans could offer greater flexibility for those groups.
“This is a clear blueprint,” Biggs added in his letter to Speaker Johnson, “Americans should be able to take cost-sharing reduction payments and underlying Obamacare subsidies straight into their pockets, giving them control instead of funneling money through insurers.”
At the same time, thousands of Arizonans currently rely on ACA subsidies to offset insurance costs. If Congress allows those enhanced credits to expire without a complete replacement, some households could see premiums rise sharply in the short term.
The framework is not a single bill, but a coordinated package of existing legislative proposals intended to serve as the backbone of a broader GOP healthcare overhaul. With subsidies set to sunset in 2025, and 2026 midterm elections looming, Republican lawmakers face growing pressure to either replace the current system or risk widespread premium increases ahead of the 2026 election cycle.
Fellow Arizona Congressman Eli Crane, who co-signed the letter, amplified the effort on X, writing, “Let’s get it done.”
Biggs concluded his call-to-action writing, “The House must act with clarity and conviction. These reforms should be brought to the floor without delay. If we plant our flag now, we can rebuild a healthcare system that reflects true conservative principles and puts power back where it belongs, in the hands of patients, not bureaucrats or insurance companies.”
Biggs’ push effectively forces the debate into the open. It will compel Congressional Republicans to publicly choose between pursuing a complete market-based reset of federal healthcare policy or seeking a more limited adjustment to the existing ACA structure.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 10, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
The University of Arizona’s (UA) newly implemented civics requirement, adopted under an Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) mandate, is intended to ensure every graduate receives instruction in American government and constitutional principles. But critics warn the university’s rushed structure may undermine the very purpose of the reform.
Under the proposed plan, UA students will fulfill the entire ABOR civics mandate through a single three-credit general education course. As mandated by the ABOR policy, the curriculum requires instruction in seven areas “at a minimum,” including U.S. history’s impact on the present, core principles of constitutional democracy, our major founding documents, landmark Supreme Court cases, practical civic participation, and basic economic literacy, material that peer institutions typically divide across multiple courses.
Mark Stegeman, an associate professor of economics at the University of Arizona and longtime member of the university-wide General Education Committee (UWGEC), recently described the policy proposal as “a car crash in the making” in an op-ed for the Tucson Sentinel. Stegeman cited both academic and procedural concerns with the program’s development and execution.
Stegeman noted that a former UWGEC chair admitted the committee was “just throwing stuff against the wall” during a previous breakneck approval process. He added that at the last meeting of the committee, no one present could answer his questions about seat capacity and course availability by spring 2027. He asked whether UA can reliably offer enough sections of the new civics course to accommodate all graduating students without creating scheduling bottlenecks that delay completion.
He warned that “thousands of students arriving in nine months will face a graduation requirement” built on courses that do not yet exist, with no completed development, approval process, or clear seat-capacity plan.
Those logistical concerns amplify the academic ones. Should the course become oversubscribed or rushed through, the civics requirement could devolve into a mere procedural hurdle rather than a meaningful educational foundation.
The Board of Regents’ directive was designed to restore structured instruction in American institutions across Arizona’s public universities. Other state universities interpreted the requirement differently. Arizona State University requires students to complete both an American institutions course and a civic engagement-focused course. Northern Arizona University has also implemented a two-course model.
As Stegeman summarized: “ABOR’s Civics mandate spans history, economics, landmark Supreme Cases and constitutional debates, information literacy, opportunities to practice civil disagreement and civic engagement, etc. Neither ASU nor NAU attempt to squeeze it all into a single 3-unit course, which would be nearly impossible to do well. UA’s proposal simply omits most of it.”
Beyond the academic criticism, Stegeman raised concerns about how the program was developed internally. According to his analysis, key committees lacked clear structure and broad representation, with significant influence coming from administrative offices rather than a balanced cross-section of departments.
At a time when national surveys consistently show declining civic knowledge among younger Americans, fewer than a third can name most of the First Amendment rights, and only 7% can name all five, according to Annenberg’s 2024 survey.
Many critics among the media and online have argued that universities should expand, not compress, serious instruction in American government.
In March, Fox News’ Jesse Watters shared a segment in which beachgoers in Fort Myers, Florida, failed basic American civics questions alarmingly, including naming the first President of the United States, the three branches of government, and the number of Supreme Court Justices.
In an August 2024 report on youth civics, News21 and the Associated Press noted that in the 2022 midterm elections, only about 1 in 10 voters nationwide was between 18 and 29, according to the Pew Research Center. A June Marist survey found that about 67% of registered Gen Z and Millennial voters said they intended to vote in 2024—compared with 94% of Baby Boomers. After the election, Tufts University’s CIRCLE program estimated that roughly 47% of young people ages 18–29 actually cast ballots in 2024, based on aggregated voter-file data from 40 states. Together, those numbers suggest a generation that is sizable, but still underrepresented and underprepared in the electorate.
When civic education is treated as a matter of efficiency rather than formation, the result can be accurately termed credentialed ignorance: students who pass a requirement but leave without the depth of understanding it was designed—and indeed legally mandated—to provide. The Board of Regents’ civics mandate was supposed to rebuild civic education with rigor and seriousness. Critics like Stegeman argue that UA’s one-course model risks missing that opportunity by prioritizing speed and administrative simplicity over depth.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 8, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
University of Arizona (UA) English professor Dr. Matthew Abraham has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was blacklisted from key faculty-governance committees after raising concerns about DEI-driven hiring practices within his department. The complaint, filed Nov. 25 in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, names the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) as the sole defendant and alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Abraham, a tenured faculty member, argues that the university systematically excluded him from participation in faculty oversight bodies, including the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) and the English Department’s Academic Program Review Committee (APR), after he questioned policies, which he believed to be rooted in racial preferences, through legally protected internal and administrative channels.
According to filings and documentation released by the Liberty Justice Center, Abraham’s concerns date back several years, culminating in multiple internal grievances, public records requests, and a 2022 complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC initially dismissed the complaint but later issued a right-to-sue letter in August 2025, clearing the way for the federal lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, Dr. Abraham alleges that UA administrators and faculty leaders applied “confidential” criteria when selecting committee members, criteria he argues were influenced by DEI ideology and were used to sideline dissenting faculty.
Slides and internal correspondence referenced in the lawsuit reportedly categorized certain faculty members as “problematic,” “not appropriate,” or otherwise unfavored for committee roles. Abraham says those labels stemmed directly from his vocal opposition to using race as a factor in hiring or governance.
“University officials cannot blacklist a professor because he dared to question race-based hiring practices,” said Ángel J. Valencia, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, in a press release. “Retaliation for speaking out about unlawful discrimination is itself illegal. We seek to restore lawful, transparent standards for committee service, to remove the stigma the University has placed on Dr. Abraham, and to hold the University accountable for their unlawful actions.”
Abraham’s lawsuit seeks several remedies, according to the Liberty Justice Center, including:
- Removal of “stigmatizing” labels placed in faculty records
- Clear, viewpoint-neutral criteria for determining eligibility for governance committees
- An injunction barring ABOR and UA from using race-based or DEI-based selection practices in committee assignments
- Restoration of Abraham’s participation rights within faculty governance
The University of Arizona declined comment, citing “what is an active legal matter,” according to The Center Square.
Dr. Abraham’s lawsuit comes as public universities nationwide face increasing scrutiny over the role of DEI in hiring, admissions, and internal governance. Arizona’s public higher-education system has been under heightened legal and political pressure in the past year, as previously reported by AZ Free News.
If Abraham prevails, even just by forcing broader disclosure of committee-selection records, the case could become a significant test of how DEI principles intersect with federal civil rights protections and the speech rights of public employees.
The Board of Regents has not yet filed a response in federal court as of this report.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
