by Matthew Holloway | Sep 2, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Responding to a letter issued by Arizona Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne issued a statement that Mayes is “misleading the public with claims she has leveled at the management of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.” In an 8-page letter with 12 pages of testimony from the Arizona Department of Education’s John Ward in the case of Velia Aguirre v. State of Arizona, Mayes outlined an investigation from her office, making allegations regarding the Department of Education’s use of a risk-based audit approach, which echoes a similar exchange between Horne and Governor Katie Hobbs in December 2024.
Mayes directly critiqued Horne and the ADE writing in part:
“Your failure to appropriately monitor ESA spending has created an untenable situation. Again, I do not want to disrupt the process for ESA holders who are following the law, but this cannot continue. Accordingly, you must act immediately to develop and implement appropriately rigorous purchase review standards and risk-based audit procedures so that ESA families may access their funds in a timely manner and public funds are not spent illegally. The Department’s purchase review and audit standards should employ appropriate controls to safeguard public funds. These controls, and any automatic payment thresholds, should consider the level of risk associated with different categories of expenses, vendors, methods of payment, and individual ESA holders.”
Mayes went on to cite a 12 News report that “the Department has automatically approved [$]1.2 million ESA purchases since the automatic approval policy took effect in December 2024.”
As Matt Beienburg wrote in an op-ed for AZ Free News, the Arizona Capitol Times issued a retraction of its initial report that “Education department under fire for approving $124M in improper ESA [education savings account] purchases,” clarifying with a formal correction that “an inaccurate dollar amount,” was reported. However, no similar retraction has been issued by 12 News as of this report.
Beienburg notes that blatantly inappropriate purchases such as iPhones, televisions, and other non-educational items “haven’t been approved, as the State Board of Education’s ESA Handbook—ratified by members appointed by both former Gov. Doug Ducey and Gov. Katie Hobbs—makes clear. The document expressly states that while families’ ESA purchases under $2,000 are promptly reimbursed by the state, these items ‘are not deemed ‘approved’ by the Department, until they are audited OR the timeframe to audit the orders has passed [2 fiscal years].’ Just like their tax returns filed with the IRS, these families’ ESA purchases are processed up front and subject to enforcement afterwards.”
In a lengthy statement, Horne addressed the allegations raised by Mayes and accused the AG of making false statements:
“In your letter today, and in a recent television interview, you misled the public by stating that improper ESA purchases had been approved, without any reference to the fact that under risk-based auditing dictated by the legislature the money has been recovered or is in the process of being recovered. We have collected or are in the process of collecting more than $600,000 that was paid out for improper purchases.
You also criticize risk-based auditing. Risk-based auditing is a very common and appropriate practice used by auditors, and the ESA Director has more than 16 years’ experience as an auditor. The risk-based approach involves not approving purchases prior to review, but paying amounts under $2,000 subject to later review, which is how we were able to collect or be in the process of collecting more than $600,000.”
He went on to chide Mayes writing, “You state that this is not partisan. That is disproved by all the false statements you made on the television interview.”
Horne continued, “Your argument is not with me but with the legislature. The legislature recently passed ARS section 15–2403B. It provides in part: ‘The department, in consultation with the office of the auditor general, shall develop risk-based auditing procedures for audits conducted pursuing to this subsection.’
“The statute was passed because the department is operating with the same number of people to check purchases as had been given by the legislature when the program was 1/7th as large. The most recent House budget included an appropriation for more people to check purchases, but it had to drop that provision when the governor said that if it did not do so, she would veto the entire budget. The limit on personnel had meant delays for reimbursement or more than two months, which was an unbearable burden for parents who had already paid the money and needed reimbursement. This explains why the legislature wanted to add more staff to serve parents.
“Again, you misled the public in your interview by stating that these improper items have been approved. They were not approved, and as to all the items you mentioned, the accounts have already been frozen. This is as egregious as ignoring the recovery of over $600,000, not to mention your failure to state that this procedure was dictated to us by the legislature and the ESA parent committee that you referred to set the limit at $2,000 pursuant to the legislative command to adopt risk-based auditing. It has been made clear to ESA users in multiple communications that payments of under $2,000 do not imply approval, which can be obtained only after the risk-based auditing dictated by the legislature.
“You referred to a July 21 meeting of the legislative audit committee. Within four days we consulted with the auditor general. Some have erroneously interpreted the word ‘consultation’ to mean that the auditor general has the right to dictate terms to us. That is incorrect. The normal English language use of the word consultation is that we have a discussion, which we have done, and then proceed. However, we have agreed to have further consultations with the auditor general and will do so.
“We will provide at a later date further responses to your long-winded letter of seven pages single space. We are responding now to the main points so you will have no further excuse to mislead the public.”
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 | Sep 2, 2025 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ02) and the U.S. Small Business Administration announced last week that low-interest federal disaster loans are now available. The aid applies to businesses, nonprofits, and tribal nations that suffered losses from the Dragon Bravo and White Sage fires on the Grand Canyon’s North Rim and Kaibab Plateau.
The SBA has since announced that a series of meetings will be held across Coconino County, with in-person mobile services available to assist with the application process.
According to a press release from Rep. Crane, “These loans are intended to cover working capital needs and operating expenses that could have been paid had the disasters not occurred.”
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) is available to eligible businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and PNPs with financial losses directly related to the disaster. However, the administration noted it is “unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.”
The purpose of the loans, as explained by the SBA, is “for working capital needs caused by the disaster, and are available even if the business did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.”
As of this report, the Dragon Bravo fire has burned 145,504 acres and is 64% contained. It has cut a smoldering path of destruction from the north rim of the Grand Canyon along both sides of Arizona State Route 67 reaching as far as House Rock Valley and then along the east side of the State Route for nearly another twenty miles, leaving a scar almost 16 miles wide at its widest point.
The White Sage fire burned nearly 59,000 acres and was completely contained as of August 21st after spreading in a widening eastward arc from White Sage flat through the Kaibab National Forest toward Coyote Valley.
For more information about the SBA EID loans or to apply, please click here, call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955, or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov.
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 | Sep 1, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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 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.”
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 | Aug 31, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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 motions filed 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.”
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.”
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.
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 | Aug 30, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona State University’s online component, ASU Online, has partnered with several California community colleges to launch a new pilot program. The initiative allows California online undergraduates and alumni to save 22% on tuition—about $130 less per credit hour than Arizona residents pay.
According to a press release issued by ASU Online, the special rate for California students comes “with no income requirements or special applications needed to receive the special tuition.”
The release added that “the pilot program helps break financial barriers and creates an accessible, seamless transfer pathway for California residents to complete a degree.”
“Our university is committed to enhancing access to high-quality education for all students capable of college-level work,” ASU President Michael Crow said in a statement. “Providing top online learning opportunities and making ASU’s world-class faculty available to the enthusiastic learners in our neighboring state will prepare more skilled graduates, strengthen our shared region and support a better future.”
In a post to X, ASU Online posted enthusiastically, “Big news! Students & alumni of our California Community College partners can now transfer to @ASUOnline and save 22% on tuition through the California Community College Achievement Plan! Who’s ready to finish their degree?”
The emphasis on the educational outcome of California students and the substantial discount being offered under the pilot program is striking given that the Arizona Board of Regents 2021 Financial Aid Report (the most recent available) found that 55 percent of undergraduates from ASU, 55 percent from NAU, and 47 percent from UArizona graduated in debt. The report explained that “the average debt load at graduation was $24,447 at ASU; $21,461 at NAU; and $25,343 at UArizona.” According to the Board, approximately 4.5% of ASU students are defaulting on their loans.
ASU reported in the release that it currently has approximately 15,000 California students enrolled online. Anecdotally, citing one alum’s story, they claim that these students are “making meaningful contributions to the state’s economy,” specifically California’s economy, not Arizona’s.
AZ Free News has reached out to Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Steve Montenegro, who sits ex officio on the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (JLAC), which has legislative oversight over ASU, the Arizona Board of Regents, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne. No comments were received before filing this story.
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.
