A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered Arizona election officials Tuesday to rewrite the descriptive title and “yes” and “no” statements for Proposition 212. The judge found that the current version omits substantial changes to enforcement and government oversight and misleadingly describes Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program as a “school voucher program.”
Judge Julie Ann Mata enjoined Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from using the current language on the official ballot or in the publicity pamphlet. She also issued a writ directing Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes to revise the language in accordance with state law and her ruling.
The court left the exact wording to Fontes and Mayes under their statutory drafting and approval authority. Mata declined to order the state to adopt replacement language proposed by the plaintiffs and denied their request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Daryl Groves and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) filed the case against Mayes and Fontes on July 28. Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political committee sponsoring Proposition 212, participated as a friend of the court in support of the challenged language. The defendants argued that the wording fairly summarized the measure and complied with A.R.S. § 19-125(D).
AFEC called the order a “major victory for Arizona school choice” and said, “Arizona voters deserve the truth.”
BREAKING NEWS: MAJOR VICTORY FOR ARIZONA SCHOOL CHOICE
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has won at the trial court in our lawsuit challenging the misleading ballot language drafted for Proposition 212: the union-backed initiative targeting Arizona’s ESA program.
Mata wrote that the court’s review addressed the accuracy of the ballot language and left the policy merits of Proposition 212 to voters.
The version posted by the Secretary of State before the ruling states that Proposition 212 would limit ESA eligibility to families earning $150,000 or less per year, with specified exceptions; prohibit spending on noneducational and luxury items; impose qualifications on tutors; require accreditation or testing for participating schools; and generally return unspent annual ESA allocations to the state.
The full initiative also gives the sponsoring committee or its designee standing to initiate or intervene in litigation to enforce or defend the measure. Mata found that authority to be a substantial change that the ballot title or description must disclose. She found that the existing phrase “other rules and restrictions” failed to adequately inform voters about it.
Mata also found that the “yes” statement omitted a substantial change to two existing statutory limits on government control or supervision of nonpublic schools and homeschools. Proposition 212 would amend those provisions to permit control or supervision provided elsewhere in the ESA chapter for schools and homeschools receiving ESA funds. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that proposed change.
The judge separately found the phrase “school voucher program” misleading. She cited Arizona decisions that invalidated two voucher programs and later upheld the ESA program under a different legal structure. Mata wrote that using the phrase could lead voters to treat the legally distinct programs as equivalent.
The court rejected one of AFEC’s arguments. The group argued that describing the $150,000 income limit as “adjusted for inflation” could mislead voters because the initiative caps the annual adjustment at the lower of 2% or the change in the gross domestic product price deflator. Mata found the existing wording provided appropriate information and held that omitting the precise formula was not misleading.
In a separate decision, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Martin also ordered changes Tuesday to a separate piece of voter information concerning Proposition 212. The judge directed the Arizona Legislative Council to revise its analysis for the publicity pamphlet by Aug. 21.
Martin found the Council’s statement that the initiative committee would have “the power to sue the families and private schools that participate in the program for any violations of the proposition” sufficiently partisan to violate state law. He ordered the Council to strike or revise the language by Aug. 21. The Council’s adopted three-page analysis is governed by a separate law requiring an impartial explanation for the publicity pamphlet.
Mata’s case concerned the shorter ballot title and “yes” and “no” statements prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General.
Proposition 212’s ballot qualification remains the subject of separate litigation over petition circulators and signatures. That case, Clark v. Fontes, is a Goldwater Institute and AFEC-backed challenge to the initiative’s petition circulators and signatures. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell is expected to rule on the matter by the end of the week. The amended complaint seeks to prevent the initiative from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona Democrat’s nominee for the 6th Congressional District refused to elaborate this week on why she opposes a measure that would prevent males from entering female-only spaces and sports.
JoAnna Mendoza ignored public questioning when asked about her opposition to Proposition 318, a ballot initiative that would require schools and athletic associations to restrict individuals to private spaces and sports teams designated for their biological sex.
The proposition, titled “Require Schools and Athletic Associations to Restrict Use of Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Other Privates Spaces Based on Sex,” would also define sex as the biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the original birth certificate.
Yesterday, YES on Prop. 318 – Protect Girls Sports released a new video entitled "Pretending.” Please watch and share.
The opposition's website copies the YES on Prop. 318 website- violating Arizona election law, as well as, consumer protection and copyright laws.
Mendoza indicated in a statement to American Journal News last month that she opposed the proposition. Mendoza implied that the question shouldn’t be decided by a ballot vote but should instead be decided by parents, coaches, and sports associations.
“As a mom, I know that parents just want to protect their kids on the playing fields and across Arizona,” said Mendoza. “Rules about keeping sports fair and safe for young people should be made by the people who know the most — parents, coaches, and sports associations — not politicians.”
Mendoza is running for the 6th Congressional District to unseat its Republican incumbent, Rep. Juan Ciscomani.
Mendoza had previously stated during the 2020 campaign for the state legislature that legislation requiring strict biological gender adherence for sports teams was “toxic” and non-inclusive. In deleted interview footage, Mendoza said public schools and sports needed to be inclusive of transgenderism.
“And I believe that we need to ensure that our students from all backgrounds from the LGBTQ community should feel accepted and safe in their environments and at school,” said Mendoza.
The National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Ben Petersen said Mendoza was a “far-left lobbyist” that has strategically toned down her rhetoric on these politicized issues.
“Lobbyist Mendoza called concerned parents ‘toxic’ for wanting to protect girls’ sports, and now she won’t even explain why she opposes this common sense ballot initiative,” said Petersen.
It was also during her 2020 campaign that Mendoza advocated for legalizing prostitution, especially for transgender women of color and other communities she characterized as marginalized.
Mendoza has received backing from major Democratic donors.
Mendoza raised more than $7.3 million. Some of her biggest single contributors have been the House Victory Project 2026, JStreetPAC, New Politics Next Mission Fund, Dem Rising 2026, Emily’s List, Invest to Elect Illinois Battleground Support 2026, and VoteVets Hellcat Victory.
Mendoza also received funding from the Soros family via George Soros’ son Jonathan Soros.
In recent weeks, Mendoza has faced questions over her campaign salary and financial disclosures changes. In her 2026 candidate financial disclosure filed last month, Mendoza reported receiving a salary of more than $35,000. Other campaign finance filings reflecting regular payroll payments to Mendoza indicated that she was compensated much higher: approximately $102,000 annually before taxes.
OpenPolitical’s federal campaign finance data reflected that Mendoza’s campaign reported nearly $300,000 in payroll-related expenditures.
Ciscomani has raised more than $6.1 million. His biggest single contributors so far have been the Ciscomani Victory Fund, Grow the Majority, Defend Our Majority, and Emmer Majority Builders.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The campaign supporting Proposition 318 filed a campaign finance complaint with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on Monday, alleging an opposition website copied its name and visual presentation while failing to disclose who paid for the site.
The two-page complaint accuses the unidentified operators of ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote of violating Arizona campaign disclosure requirements and attempting to mislead voters about the November ballot measure.
The complaint compares the opposition site with the Yes campaign’s ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote, including screenshots showing similar turquoise, pink, black, and white branding and versions of the phrase “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona.” La Sota alleged the opposition site copied the Yes campaign’s “trade dress” and selected a web address closely resembling the campaign’s own domain.
“In addition, the website address itself is meant to mislead,” La Sota wrote in the complaint.
According to the complaint, the opposition site uses ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote, while ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.com redirects visitors to the same website. The Yes campaign operates ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote.
“The group I chair has existed since June,” La Sota wrote. “What these fraudsters obviously did was go to our website and copy our trade dress and even our name, and intentionally found a website address that was as close to ours as possible.”
The complaint alleges that the opposition website does not identify a person or organization that paid for it.
Under A.R.S. § 16-925, a person other than an individual who makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fundraising solicitation must include the words “paid for by” followed by the name of the person making the expenditure. Electronically delivered advertisements are required to make the disclosure clearly readable.
Arizona campaign finance law defines an “advertisement” as information or materials, excluding nonpaid social media messages, that are published, displayed or otherwise placed in a communication medium for the purpose of influencing an election. A “ballot measure expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates support for or opposition to an identified ballot measure.
“The only conceivable way that there would be no disclosure requirement would be if a single individual person was behind this shameful effort,” La Sota wrote. He added that publicly available registration information did not reveal the identity of the person who registered the domain.
Whether the website violates state campaign finance law has not been determined. The identity of its operator and the amount spent to create or maintain the site were not established in the complaint.
La Sota also cited A.R.S. § 16-905, writing that registration and campaign finance reporting requirements could apply depending on how much money has been spent on the effort.
Arizona law requires an entity to register as a political action committee when its primary purpose is influencing an election, and it crosses the applicable contribution or expenditure threshold. The Secretary of State lists the adjusted threshold for the 2025-2026 election cycle at $1,500.
The complaint also cites A.R.S. § 16-1006, which makes it unlawful to use specified corrupt means to influence an elector and prohibits deceiving an elector into voting for a different measure than the voter intended. A violation is a class 5 felony.
La Sota acknowledged in the complaint that the Secretary of State does not have criminal enforcement authority and cautioned against broad application of the statute because of its potential effect on protected political speech.
“Obviously this statute must be used with the utmost caution because it could easily be turned into a weapon against protected speech,” La Sota wrote. “But this is about as compelling a case under this statute as I have seen given the obvious attempt to defraud voters.”
The Yes campaign separately said it is asking Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate whether the opposition website violates state consumer protection laws. The campaign did not include a separate Attorney General complaint among the materials provided to AZ Free News. Its Monday press release described the campaign finance complaint as filed with the Secretary of State and said the campaign was “asking the Attorney General to investigate.”
The campaign announced the complaint during an event at the Arizona State Capitol, where it also named Christine Jones and former Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit as honorary co-chairs of the Yes on 318 campaign. State Senate President and Republican Attorney General nominee Warren Petersen, Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Andy Biggs, and Republican Secretary of State nominee state Rep. Alex Kolodin also voiced support for the measure in the campaign announcement.
“Arizona parents should not have to wonder whether a political website is deliberately deceiving them or who is hiding behind it,” Petersen said. “Attorney General Kris Mayes must immediately investigate these allegations and determine whether Arizona’s campaign finance and consumer protection laws were violated.”
The campaign also released a 39-second advertisement titled “Pretending”, which places screenshots of the Yes and No websites side by side and draws a comparison between the dispute over the opposition site and the campaign’s arguments concerning transgender participation in female sports. The advertisement ends with a disclosure stating that it was paid for by Protect Girls Sports in Arizona, received zero percent of its funding from out-of-state contributors and was not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Glad to see my bill to protect girls’ sports and female spaces has been given a title and is now known as Prop 318. But now seeing a disgraceful trick by the opponents to copy our official website – Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona. With look-alike graphics and no “Paid for”… pic.twitter.com/zHqIGDiZty
Proposition 318, referred to voters by the Legislature as HCR 2003, would amend Arizona law governing student athletics.
According to the Secretary of State’s official ballot language, the measure would require public schools, private schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on biological sex as recorded at birth and would prohibit males from participating on female teams. It would also prohibit schools and athletic associations from authorizing individuals to use private spaces, including restrooms, that are not designated for that individual’s sex.
Current Arizona law applies the athletic-team designation requirements to public schools and private schools whose teams compete against public schools. Proposition 318 would broaden the statute to additional schools and athletic associations and expressly add restrictions governing restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private athletic spaces.
A “yes” vote would enact those changes beginning Jan. 1, 2027, while a “no” vote would maintain current Arizona student-athletics law, according to the Secretary of State.
“Today we celebrate sports for all, as we begin the campaign to protect both girls’ sports and the right for everyone to participate,” Jones said Monday. “Prop 318, the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act will designate sports Male – Female – Co-Ed, ensuring fairness for females, and the opportunity for everyone to play.”
The complaint urges Fontes to take action on the alleged disclosure violations and ensure transparency surrounding the opposition website. La Sota asked the secretary to give the matter his “utmost attention,” writing that voters should not “unwittingly lose their vote on this ballot measure.” As of publication, no determination that a campaign finance violation occurred had been announced.
The Democratic nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Teresa Leyba Ruiz, says Arizona’s school choice funds should be reverted back to the public schools.
Ruiz, the former president of Glendale Community College, told “The Mike Broomhead Show” on KTAR that Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) funds should be converted to public school funding under her administration of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE).
Ruiz said that she would like to use ESA funds to pay for a literacy coach in every single classroom. Ruiz said if Arizona spent more on its schools, parents would be “fighting” to stay in public schools instead of leaving.
“Right now, in Arizona, there’s over $350 million dollars being stockpiled for future use, for college perhaps. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we took that money and invested it in our schools?” said Ruiz. “If we just invested in our schools — remember this is 50 years of underfunding and not prioritizing our public schools.”
The state spent more than $13.4 billion on public schools in the past fiscal year, an increase of $300 million from the prior fiscal year. Per-pupil spending was more than $12,000, and the average teacher salary was more than $65,600.
Instructional spending declined for the third consecutive year to 52%, the lowest rate since state monitoring began in 2001.
Ruiz also told KTAR on the “AZ Political” podcast that ADE would save money by creating an automated denial system for ESA funds.
“Over $650 million of our taxpayer dollars have flown out the door, unchecked and unchallenged. No oversight on the front end, and that’s something we would put an end to,” said Ruiz. “We’re talking about having a modern, automated system that can quickly process transactions that are appropriate and flag and stop inappropriate transactions.”
According to the current superintendent, Tom Horne, ADE automatically approved expenditures under $2,000 due to lack of staffing. Problematic expenditures under that cap would be subject to review post-approval.
Ruiz said it was for a lack of leadership that Horne had that problem. She claimed that ADE could have shifted resources from one aspect of the department to another to make up for understaffing within the ESA expenditure approval team.
Ruiz served on President Joe Biden’s Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Hispanics, specifically the committee for Advancing Higher Education and Hispanic Serving Institutions. The commission was part of the Biden administration’s reestablishment of the Hispanic-Serving Institution programming, which used federal funding to incentivize higher education institutions to intentionally prioritize Hispanic students within admissions.
Ruiz’s commission resulted in the July 2024 creation of the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions, which formally prioritized Hispanic-serving institutions through federal recruitment, federal resources, and federal funding.
The commission also successfully convinced the Biden administration to expand federal TRIO programming to illegal alien students classified as Dreamers; TRIO programming has historically provided low-income American citizens with support services such as college campus visits, tutoring, and assistance with college and financial aid applications.
Ruiz also served in the Aspen Institute’s 2018-2019 Presidential Fellows Program; as reported previously, the Aspen Institute played a major role in covering up the Hunter Biden laptop scandal ahead of the 2020 election.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ proposed ballot language for Proposition 145 violates Arizona law, blocking Fontes from using the language on the November ballot.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), who challenged the ballot language for the proposed constitutional amendment concerning Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) for children of military families.
Montenegro and Petersen alleged that Fontes’ proposed language improperly characterized Proposition 145 by informing voters that approving the measure would also nullify Proposition 212, a separate ballot initiative that would make changes to Arizona’s ESA program.
Petersen and Montenegro sought an injunction preventing Fontes from using the proposed descriptive title and “yes/no” language on the official ballot.
Fontes’ proposed language stated that a “yes” vote would amend the Arizona Constitution to “nullify Proposition 212, which imposes spending and income limits” on ESAs.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell ruled that the language did not comply with A.R.S. § 19-125(D), which requires ballot descriptions to explain the effect a measure would have on existing law.
“The reference to Proposition 212 in the title and the ‘yes/no’ language is not a reference to existing law,” McDowell wrote in his ruling.
Because Proposition 212 is a proposed initiative that voters will consider in November, rather than an existing law, McDowell determined that Fontes could not include a reference to its potential nullification in the official ballot language for Proposition 145.
The court therefore enjoined the Secretary of State from using the proposed title and “yes/no” language for Proposition 145 on the official ballot.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Republican leaders of the Arizona legislature are suing Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for allegedly misrepresenting a ballot measure to preserve school choice funding for military families.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), the Republican nominee for attorney general, and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) sued Fontes to prevent the ballot measure language from going to voters.
The 66-page verified complaint accused Fontes of drafting ballot language that intentionally undermines the constitutional amendment, Proposition 145, in order to give a leg up to a competing ballot proposition to end the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
The language for Prop. 145’s descriptive title reads:
“Would nullify Proposition 212 (below) if voters enact it this election; prohibits the state from sweeping funds from certain state-run scholarship accounts if the student’s parent has provided certain active-duty military service; nullifies all laws that would sweep any such funds, including unrelated provisions of those laws.”
The yes/no language reads:
“A ‘yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to: (1) nullify Proposition 212, which imposes spending and income limits on the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, if the people enact that Proposition during this election; (2) prohibit the state from sweeping funds from certain state-run scholarship accounts if the student’s parent has provided certain active-duty military service; and (3) nullify all parts of any law that would sweep any such funds, including unrelated provisions of those laws, applying retroactively to all laws enacted on or after November 1, 2026.
A ‘no’ vote shall have the effect of maintaining current constitutional provisions related to scholarship accounts and allowing Proposition 212 to go into effect if voters enact it this election.”
According to the lawmakers, Fontes’ Prop. 145 ballot language allegedly skimped on and buried details of how the proposed constitutional amendment would preserve military families’ school choice funding. Much of the language, they say, used “partisan, argumentative framing” of Prop. 145 as a direct nullification of Proposition 212, or the Protect Education Act.
Prop. 212 seeks to end the ability for all Arizona students to enter the ESA program by imposing an income cap. It would also require approved curriculum for the release of ESA funds, degrees and background checks for ESA-funded tutors, accreditation or administration of state standardized tests for ESA-funded schools, and revocation of unspent ESA funds for public school usage.
The lawmakers argued that the “impermissibly misleading” ballot language focused more on Prop. 145’s potential future impacts on Prop. 212, in conflict with Arizona law, rather than summarizing the essential change in existing law. They claimed the ballot language is biased, argumentative, and fails to state the measure’s impact on existing law.
Attorney General Kris Mayes signed off on the ballot language.
Montenegro accused Fontes of “play[ing] political games” at the expense of military families.
“Instead of giving voters a fair description, Fontes turned the Secretary of State’s Office into a platform for Democrats’ anti-school-choice talking points,” said Montenegro. “Military families deserve better. I’ll see him in court.”
Adrian Fontes claims to support our veterans, yet he is using official ballot language to play political games with the children of military families. Prop. 145 safeguards their scholarship funds and protects school choice. Instead of giving voters a fair description, Fontes…
