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.”
The Arizona Supreme Court has kept a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s donor disclosure law alive, ruling that conservative organizations and anonymous donors may try to prove Proposition 211 violates the state constitution’s free speech protections as applied to them.
In its June 29 decision in Center for Arizona Policy Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State, the court did not strike down Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act. The justices rejected the plaintiffs’ broad facial challenge to the law, along with their claims under the Arizona Constitution’s Private Affairs Clause. But the court ruled that the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous donors sufficiently alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements could unconstitutionally burden protected political speech and association.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop their as-applied challenge and attempt to show that compelled disclosure of donors could expose supporters to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
Scott Freeman, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling “an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure.” He added that the court recognized that citizens are entitled to try to prove compelled donor disclosure violates Arizona’s free speech protections.
“From the very start, this case has been about protecting the freedom of everyday Arizonans,” said Peter Gentala, President of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). “No one should have to choose between supporting a cause they believe in and fearing harassment, retaliation, cancellation, or personal safety. Today’s decision affirms what we’ve always known to be true: our constitutional freedoms belong to every one of us, not just to those whose views happen to be popular at the moment.”
The Voters’ Right to Know Act requires nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
The court’s majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ann Timmer and joined by Justices James Beene and William Montgomery, along with retired Justice Rebecca Berch. Justice Kathryn Hackett King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Maria Elena Cruz was recused.
The majority held that Arizona courts must interpret the state constitution’s Speak Freely Clause independently from the First Amendment. The court said federal free speech cases may be consulted when helpful, but the Arizona Constitution remains its own source of free speech protection. “The Speak Freely Clause tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause’s protective scope,” Timmer wrote.
The court also concluded that donations made to an organization for the purpose of funding campaign media or knowingly allowing donations to be used for that purpose can constitute expressive conduct protected by the Arizona Constitution’s Speak Freely Clause.
For compelled election disclosure laws, the court adopted an Arizona-specific standard requiring the state or another defender of the law to show that the disclosure requirement meaningfully furthers election integrity or transparency and does not unreasonably burden or hinder protected expression.
Applying that framework, the court found that Proposition 211 meaningfully furthers election integrity and transparency. The court also found, however, that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the disclosure requirements may impose a concrete burden on their speech because public disclosure could expose donors or organizations to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
The court cited allegations that CAP and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) had faced threats and harassment connected to their issue advocacy. The opinion noted that CAP alleged it received a message stating, “Sooner or later, you will die, and some of us pray it is sooner,” and “You are a cancer that will soon be sliced out of our nation’s sick body. I will make it my personal mission to bury every single one of you.” AZFEC reported that staff had received threats of violence and that one staff member’s car had been vandalized in retaliation for communicating AZFEC’s message.
The two anonymous donors alleged that they had previously donated more than $5,000 to nonprofit organizations involved in campaign media and would limit future donations to avoid disclosure. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to allow the as-applied free speech claim to proceed.
“Free societies depend on people being willing to speak, advocate, and support important causes without fear of retaliation,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Today’s decision ensures that Arizonans will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Arizona Constitution protects those freedoms.”
Andrew Gould of Holtzman Vogel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, said the decision establishes that the Arizona Constitution is an “independent source of liberty” and confirms that Arizona courts are not required simply to follow federal free speech doctrine, adding it “recognized that plaintiffs may challenge compelled donor disclosure when it chills protected expression.”
The Goldwater Institute’s case page states that the organization represents the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two private donors in the lawsuit against the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, and public officials charged with implementing and enforcing Proposition 211.
Campaign Legal Center, which represents Voters’ Right to Know, framed the ruling as a victory for disclosure. In a statement, the organization said the court affirmed Proposition 211’s constitutionality by rejecting the broad challenge to the law while allowing the plaintiffs to attempt to prove serious harm from the disclosure requirements as applied to them.
Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter said the ruling affirmed “Arizonans’ right to know” who is spending major money to influence elections. The organization said Proposition 211 was supported by 72% of Arizona voters in 2022 and was designed to trace original sources of money spent in elections.
Justice King’s partial dissent, joined by Lopez and Bolick, would have gone further than the majority. The dissent argued that political advocacy before an election is core political speech and that anonymous speech contributes to liberty.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ as-applied Speak Freely Clause claim. The court did not strike down Proposition 211, and the plaintiffs still must prove that the law unconstitutionally burdens their speech as applied to them.
Protect the Vote Arizona will not submit signatures for its proposed Free, Fair and Secure Elections Act, ending the group’s effort to place a constitutional amendment that supporters said would preserve early voting and mail-in voting on Arizona’s November ballot.
The campaign said it collected 439,000 raw signatures with the help of more than 2,000 volunteers after filing the initiative in mid-March, but the measure needed 383,923 valid signatures by July 2 to qualify for the ballot.
Stacy Pearson, who led the campaign, said the raw signature total would have required nearly 88 percent of the signatures to be validated. She said the campaign made a “strategic decision” not to turn over the petitions, citing Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap by name.
“Facing an impossible 88 percent validity requirement, the campaign made a strategic decision to not turn over the signatures of hundreds of thousands of mail-in voting supporters to the very election-denying politicians (i.e. Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap) that this measure was designed to protect against,” the campaign said in a statement.
BREAKING: Protect the Vote Arizona's election initiative won't be on the ballot this year.
The group didn't collect enough signatures and decided not to give supporters' information to "the very election-denying politicians… that this measure was designed to protect against." pic.twitter.com/AMVKTZzPWH
“The Protect the Vote Arizona team is filled with gratitude for the encouragement, support and hard work across the state,” the group said.
The campaign said it will now focus on challenging HCR 2001 in court and supporting what it called “pro-democracy candidates” in November.
The Free, Fair and Secure Elections Act would have amended the Arizona Constitution to enshrine voting by mail, early in-person voting, Election Day voting at county voting centers, and the ability of voters to sign up to receive a ballot for every election.
The campaign also said the measure would have codified Arizona’s voter ID requirements, required election outcomes to be determined by votes cast by eligible U.S. citizen voters, and barred the Legislature from eliminating mail-in voting or reducing the early voting period.
Protect the Vote Arizona’s decision leaves HCR 2001, also known as the Arizona Secure Elections Act, as a major statewide election measure on the issue currently headed to voters.
The measure would require every voter to show valid government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot “whether voting in person or by any other method,” require Arizona elections to be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters, prohibit foreign nationals from contributing or spending money to influence Arizona elections, and give voters the option to have their ballot tabulated at their voting location on Election Day.
The measure would also allow Arizona voters and the Legislature to enact laws governing elections, including early voting and mail voting, if those laws are “rationally connected to a legitimate state interest,” including timely and accurate election results, efficient election administration, election security, and preserving public confidence in elections.
HCR 2001 would apply to elections taking place on or after Jan. 1, 2028, if approved by voters. The enrolled text designates the measure as the “Fast Accurate Secure Transparent Election Results Act” or “FAST Election Results Act.”
Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3), the Scottsdale Republican who sponsored HCR 2001, told lawmakers in March that there were “many potential options” for implementing the ID requirement for mail ballots, including a system in which county recorders would issue voters a unique identification number and require voters to write the last four digits on their ballot envelope.
Votebeat reported that if two Arizona ballot measures with conflicting provisions were to pass, the measure receiving more votes would take effect. With Protect the Vote Arizona no longer submitting signatures, that potential ballot conflict has been removed.
