The Goldwater Institute has filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to intervene on behalf of two Air Force veterans in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect certain scholarship funds for children of military families.
The motion was filed on behalf of Nickolas Kupper and Robert Figueroa, whom Goldwater identified as Air Force veterans whose children currently participate in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The proposed intervenors are seeking to defend House Concurrent Resolution 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which the Legislature recently referred to the November 2026 ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona, and voter Linda May Lyon against the State of Arizona and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. According to Goldwater’s motion to intervene, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block HCR 2048 from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona's military families don't deserve to have their children's educational opportunities ripped from their hands. That's why we're stepping up to defend them. https://t.co/ayRcX5JbBE
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 2, 2026
Goldwater said in a July 2 announcement that Kupper and Figueroa are seeking to defend the measure because their families have used ESA funds for years and have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
“Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as Defendants to defend the constitutionality of House Concurrent Resolution 2048 (‘HCR 2048’), the ‘Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,’ which is a legislative referral passed to protect the educational stability of military families,” the motion states.
HCR 2048 proposes adding a new section to Article XI of the Arizona Constitution. Under the measure, the state could not confiscate funds from the scholarship account of a child of a military family if the account is maintained under a state program that designates such students as eligible and allows the funds to be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student who is the child of a person serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, who was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or who was killed in the line of duty.
The proposed amendment also contains a nonseverability provision. If a future law or voter-approved measure violates the military-family scholarship protection, the entire conflicting law or measure would be void, and a court could not sever only the offending portion.
The House passed HCR 2048 initially on March 2, the Senate passed it on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote, and the House passed the final reading on June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
Goldwater’s motion argues that Kupper and Figueroa have a right to intervene because the lawsuit directly threatens their ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s education funding.
“By seeking to keep HCR 2048 off the ballot, Plaintiffs directly threaten to block Proposed Intervenors’ ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s educational funding,” the motion states.
The filing also argues that the existing government defendants cannot adequately represent the families’ specific interests. Goldwater said Fontes is defending the measure as a neutral election administrator, while Kupper and Figueroa are defending the substantive validity of the proposed amendment because their children rely on ESA funds.
In its July 2 statement, the Goldwater Institute said, “The Arizona Constitution is clear: Arizona voters have the right to amend the state constitution, and the Military Families Protection Act would trump the activists’ efforts to cripple the scholarship opportunities currently afforded to Arizona military families and others.”
The lawsuit comes as ESA opponents are also seeking to place the Protect Education Act on the ballot. Save Our Schools Arizona says the proposal is intended to “reform Arizona’s universal ESA voucher program” and increase transparency and accountability.
The Protect Education Campaign announced last week that it submitted 421,451 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The Protect Education Act proposal would require unused ESA money to revert to the state and be directed to public schools, and it would bar families making more than $150,000 annually from joining the program. It would also ban ESA spending on non-educational or luxury items and require the Arizona Department of Education to report how much voucher funding each school receives.
HCR 2048 could conflict with the Protect Education Act because the proposed constitutional amendment would block future laws or ballot measures from changing the protected scholarship-account funds for military families.
Goldwater argued in its motion that the litigation is directly tied to that conflict, saying an adverse ruling could remove HCR 2048 from the ballot and leave the families’ ESA accounts vulnerable to “regulatory and financial rollbacks” under the competing Protect Education Act.
“Without HCR 2048, Proposed Intervenors’ educational accounts will remain highly vulnerable to systemic legislative and political volatility, including the exact regulatory and financial rollbacks slated under Plaintiffs’ competing ‘Protect Education Act,’” the motion states.
Kupper and Figueroa are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants, either as a matter of right or by permission. They also said they intend to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim rather than expand the litigation with counterclaims.
The case is assigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer.
One year after President Donald Trump signed the Working Families Tax Cut Bill into law, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ05) defended the legislation as a cornerstone of the nation’s economic recovery, arguing it prevented what he described as a massive tax increase while expanding tax relief for families, workers, and small businesses.
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News earlier this week, Biggs, who is also running for Arizona Governor, said the legislation’s most immediate accomplishment was preserving tax relief that otherwise would have expired.
“I think what you’re seeing is, the biggest success, is you stopped a $4 trillion tax increase,” Biggs said. “That would have been economically really, really bad for the country—maybe the death knell.”
Biggs said extending the 20 percent deduction for qualifying small businesses and preserving immediate business expensing provisions were among the bill’s most significant accomplishments. He also pointed to Treasury Department estimates indicating many families could see larger tax savings.
“According to the Treasury Department, the average family is going to see somewhere north of $2,000,” Biggs said, adding that other estimates range between $1,500 and $2,000. “That provides money to the economy and stimulus to the economy and helps the working men and women of this country.”
The congressman said some provisions are only beginning to show their long-term effects, particularly expanded domestic energy and natural resource development.
“I think people are getting… that a lot more federal land is being opened up for oil, gas, coal, minerals, whatever those natural resources are,” Biggs said. “Years from now, looking back, people will say, ‘Man, that really was one of the most critical things that could have happened for us.'”
Biggs also cited provisions eliminating federal taxes on tips, reducing taxes on overtime income, and providing tax relief for seniors receiving Social Security benefits as measures designed to increase disposable income while stimulating economic activity.
Critics of the legislation, such as Arizona Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18), have argued it disproportionately benefits higher-income Americans and could increase the federal deficit, as reported by The Center Square. Biggs rejected both claims.
“The problem that we have is not a revenue problem in Washington, D.C.,” Biggs said. “It is a spending problem.”
He argued that economic growth generated by lower taxes ultimately produces additional federal revenue.
“What you do get is more economic activity,” Biggs said. “More taxes ultimately get paid and go into the federal government.”
Looking ahead, Biggs said a future Republican Congress should consider additional tax reductions for businesses while encouraging domestic manufacturing and development of critical mineral resources.
“If you want to stimulate jobs,” he said, “you’d find a way to reduce some of the corporate tax policy… and pass those along to sole proprietors and small firms as well.”
Although Biggs described the legislation as comprehensive, he said one area he wished Congress had addressed more aggressively was healthcare policy.
“One thing that we didn’t take care of, in my opinion… is we did nothing really on healthcare costs in the One Big Beautiful Bill,” Biggs said.
He said he had introduced legislation to expand Health Savings Accounts and increase their portability, adding that Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri had proposed similar but broader reforms.
“I would have liked to see us do more on tax policy related directly to healthcare as well,” Biggs said.
Speaking with KTAR’s Mike Broomhead Monday, Biggs also discussed fraud in Medicaid and the Indian Health Services program. In a post to X sharing a clip he wrote, “When we root this waste out, we’ll get taxpayer dollars back in the pockets of Arizonans so families and businesses can thrive.”
There’s still billions of fraud in Arizona, especially in Medicaid and our Indian Health Services program.
When we root this waste out, we’ll get taxpayer dollars back in the pockets of Arizonans so families and businesses can thrive.
Looking ahead to a possible Biggs administration, he said future state tax policy should continue focusing on healthcare affordability and higher education while complementing the broader economic approach established by the federal legislation.
“The affordability of housing” remains Arizona’s largest economic challenge, Biggs said, arguing that utility costs, water policy, and management of state trust lands all play significant roles in addressing long-term affordability.
Biggs, who declined to seek another term in Congress to run for Governor, said Arizona has already incorporated many of the federal tax provisions into state law, though he criticized Gov. Katie Hobbs for initially vetoing related legislation before later signing it.
Arizona families using the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program will no longer be required to submit curriculum documentation when purchasing general educational supplemental materials, such as basic school supplies, under a settlement agreement announced by the Goldwater Institute.
The agreement resolves a lawsuit brought by ESA parent Velia Aguirre against the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), and Superintendent Tom Horne over the documentation requirements.
The settlement, which took effect July 1, states that ESA families “shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document” when purchasing items identified as “general educational supplemental materials” in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook.
After pushing this bureaucratic abomination for 2 years, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes has walked back its unlawful demands. No more permission slips needed to buy pencils and children's books:
The dispute began after Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office sent a 2024 letter to the ADE opening a public monies investigation into ESA spending approvals. The Attorney General’s Office said at the time that ADE guidance appeared to allow expenses beyond the statutory framework for the ESA program, including the approval of supplementary materials without documentation demonstrating a curricular connection.
In the letter, Mayes’ office asked the ADE to “promptly cease approving supplementary material expenses without the requisite documentation of a curriculum nexus,” and requested information on ESA spending for supplementary materials, curriculum materials, and textbooks from the 2019–2020 school year through the 2023–2024 school year.
The Goldwater Institute, which represented Aguirre, said in a September 2024 press release that the directive forced parents to justify purchases of basic school supplies and educational books. Goldwater said Aguirre had purchases such as “Where the Red Fern Grows,” a periodic table poster, and pencils rejected for failing to satisfy the curriculum documentation requirement.
Arizona law allows ESA funds to be used for several categories of educational expenses, including tuition at qualified schools, textbooks, tutoring, curricula, and supplementary materials.
The law defines “curriculum” as “a course of study for content areas or grade levels, including any supplemental materials required or recommended by the curriculum, approved by the department.”
After Mayes’ 2024 letter, the ADE posted guidance stating that supplementary materials, including common school supplies such as pencils, paper, glue, and crayons, required curriculum support. The ADE’s ESA support page stated that items previously allowed without curriculum documentation “now do require a curriculum.”
Goldwater filed suit in September 2024 on behalf of Aguirre and Rosemary McAtee, arguing that the documentation requirement imposed new burdens on families buying ordinary educational materials. Goldwater said at the time that parents were being required to show that each purchase was explicitly called for in a curriculum, including items such as pencils, erasers, flashcards, and children’s books.
Under the settlement, ESA families purchasing general educational supplemental materials must attest that the items are intended to support a curriculum or course of study for the qualified student and are not being purchased for another purpose. The agreement also requires ESA holders to indicate the curriculum or course of study the materials support by selecting categories such as reading or grammar, social studies, science, mathematics, physical education, art, vocational instruction, or other.
The agreement states that the ADE will not require a specific curriculum document as a prerequisite for approval or processing of general educational supplemental material purchases. It also provides that the ADE may require an ESA holder to enter the name of the curriculum or course of study in a text box when selecting “Other,” once technologically feasible or no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2027.
The settlement does not eliminate the ADE’s oversight authority. Rather, it states that nothing limits the ADE’s ability to review or audit individual expenditures or ESA accounts, disallow expenses, seek repayment, or report an ESA holder to the Attorney General’s Office for investigation of fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures.
The agreement also preserves the Attorney General’s authority to investigate or enforce the law in cases involving fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures, and to request information in specific cases where there is a reasonable basis to believe a violation occurred.
The State disputed in the settlement agreement that the ADE enforced the alleged documentation policy and maintained that the ADE has the authority and obligation to confirm that ESA expenditures are allowable under statute and rules. The parties agreed to resolve the case to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation.
Goldwater characterized the settlement as a victory for ESA families.
“ESA holders shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document when purchasing items identified as ‘general educational supplemental materials’ in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook,” Goldwater wrote, quoting the settlement agreement. The organization said the change means families will no longer have to provide individualized curriculum documentation for ordinary educational purchases such as pencils and children’s books.
In a press release on July 2, Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, summarized the legal victory:
“This means no more manufactured paperwork from parents simply to appease the bureaucratic whims of politicians. No more wasted hours explaining why hundreds of individual items, like pencils or children’s literature, are necessary for a child’s education.
“Instead, parents will simply acknowledge via a single check box for a purchase order or reimbursement request that the purchases are intended to support the course of study for an ESA student. What was once the needless compounding of minutes into hours to comply with the attorney general’s demands will now be two clicks of a mouse.”
The parties agreed to file a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice within 10 days of executing the settlement.
Stand for Health Freedom has endorsed U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs in Arizona’s governor race, adding another national organization to the growing list of groups and elected officials backing his campaign. The endorsement was announced Wednesday by the organization and the Biggs campaign.
Stand for Health Freedom, which describes itself as a grassroots organization representing nearly one million Americans, advocates for policies centered on medical freedom, informed consent, parental rights, religious liberty, privacy, and free speech. According to the organization, it endorsed Biggs based on his record supporting those issues.
@andybiggs4az has a proven track record of taking a stand for health freedom, we are proud to endorse his race for Governor! https://t.co/CqSumVeHSu
— Stand for Health Freedom (@standforhealth1) July 2, 2026
“We must protect the medical freedoms of Arizonans and ensure everyone can make the right health decisions for their families,” Biggs said in a statement.
“From my bipartisan work in passing Right to Try legislation in Congress to pushing back against outrageous and nonsensical COVID mandates, I’ve fought for the MAHA agenda throughout my time as a legislator. As Governor, I’ll make sure Arizona is the healthiest and freest state in the country so our citizens can thrive and prosper without government overreach into health decisions. I thank the Stand for Health Freedom coalition for their support and I look forward to getting their many Arizona members out to vote in 2026.”
The campaign said Biggs has made outreach to supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement a key component of his gubernatorial campaign, including discussing MAHA priorities during the June Republican gubernatorial debate, television interviews, and meetings with health freedom advocates.
The endorsement comes as health freedom legislation and medical autonomy continue to be active issues in Arizona politics. Lawmakers introduced numerous bills addressing vaccines, medical interventions, parental rights, and informed consent during this year’s legislative session, reflecting the continued prominence of health policy debates that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Biggs has built much of his congressional record around limiting federal involvement in health care decisions. In December 2025, he introduced the Putting Patients First Healthcare Freedom Act, a legislative package consolidating conservative health care proposals focused on expanding health savings accounts, increasing price transparency, strengthening health care sharing ministries, and other market-based reforms. Biggs also co-sponsored the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act alongside Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), the companion of a Senate measure from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).
According to the campaign, the endorsement adds to support Biggs has already received from President Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, U.S. Reps. Eli Crane, Paul Gosar, and Abe Hamadeh, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Maricopa County Supervisors Debbie Lesko and Mark Stewart, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller, along with several conservative organizations and more than 40 current and former Arizona legislators.
A new ruling from the Supreme Court on absentee ballots won’t have any impact on Arizona’s upcoming elections, according to a state senator.
In the Watson v. Republican National Committeedecision issued earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law requiring the acceptance of absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five days after Election Day. Some refer to this post-Election Day acceptance of ballots as a “grace period.”
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that federal law prevents Mississippi from allowing a grace period.
“[W]hile federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law governs when they must be received,” stated the court. “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”
The ruling declared that states have the authority to establish their own laws and regulations concerning deadlines for receiving ballots.
While this may have an impact on elections elsewhere, State Sen. Vince Leach (R-LD17) issued a press release advising that this ruling wouldn’t impact Arizona because state law doesn’t allow for a grace period. Instead, state law requires county election officials to receive early ballots by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.
Therefore, Leach advised Arizona voters to exercise caution by relying on in-person voting rather than mail-in voting should they cast their ballots closer to Election Day. Election officials recommend voters return their primary ballots by July 14 at the latest to allow sufficient time for the primary election, which is scheduled to take place on July 21. As of this report, early voting is underway.
“Ballots that arrive after that deadline cannot be counted, regardless of when they were mailed or postmarked. Returning ballots early helps ensure every legal vote is counted while supporting the timely administration of Arizona’s elections,” said Leach. “If you’re getting close to Election Day, don’t take chances with the mail. Use an official ballot drop box or vote in person. The rules are clear, and following them is the best way to make sure your vote is counted.”
President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court ruling a “tremendous loss” for voters’ rights. Trump advocated for the passage of the SAVE America Act, which would establish federal requirements for voter ID and proof of citizenship as well as limiting mail-in ballots to those with illnesses, disabilities, military deployment, or approved travel.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) seconded Trump’s call to action.
— RNC Election Integrity (@RNCVoteProtect) June 29, 2026
The Supreme Court issued its decision the same day it announced it would take up the RNC’s case defending Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said the Supreme Court decision had risked the country’s ability to implement fair and secure elections.
“Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots,” said Gruters. “Republicans are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day as Americans want.”
