Arizona Democrats are hoping to gain a majority in the state legislature, in part, by picking up a seat that tends to favor Republican candidates.
John McLean is running for the state Senate in Arizona Legislative District 17. The district covers Pima County, north of Tucson, including Marana and Catalina.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post wrote a piece, entitled, “Forget the presidential race. Statehouses are where it’s at.” In that article, the reporters, Theodoric Meyer and Leigh Ann Caldwell, opined that “Democrats are trying to flip the state House and Senate in Arizona after Democrat Katie Hobbs won the governorship in 2022, giving the party control of state government.”
Word is spreading quick! #LD17 is THE state legislative battleground race to watch. Not just in Arizona, but across the country. https://t.co/51bwJKnu04
They added, “There are few places where the fights for control of Washington and state legislatures align more than in Tucson’s northern suburbs….Democratic Senator Mark Kelly and Hobbs carried the 17th District when they won in 2022, and Democrats are making it a top target this year. The party needs to flip only two seats in the state House and two in the Senate to win a trifecta (as it’s called when one party controls the governorship and the legislature).”
Kevin Volk, who is running alongside McLean for a seat in the state House of Representatives, told The Washington Post, “Arizona politically seems like the belle of the ball for the first time. And that’s translated to a lot of on-the-ground enthusiasm.”
McLean, a third-generation Arizonan shared on March 29 that he filed 1,369 nominating petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. He wrote, “To the army of volunteers who made this happen, I thank you. This campaign has only just begun!”
37 days ago, I announced that I was running for the Arizona State Senate to bring sanity back to the state legislature. Yesterday, I filed 1,369 nominating petition signatures. To the army of volunteers who made this happen, I thank you. This campaign has only just begun! pic.twitter.com/zEI0DS4OZJ
On his website, McLean lists endorsements from many left-leaning organizations, including Climate Cabinet, National Organization for Women Arizona PAC, Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, Save Our Schools Arizona, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC.
Last month, McLean also boasted about his endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign PAC.
Humbled to have earned the endorsement of the @HRC. I will fight for equality for all, without exception and without leaving anybody behind. #LD17pic.twitter.com/SoyQOpF7Ha
For candidates without a legislative or governing record for voters to research, these endorsements often provide an insightful window into how they might handle their potential roles as legislators or who they may be beholden to in office. For example, organizations like the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona are staunch opponents of the state’s school choice and educational freedom opportunities, including the historic Empowerment Scholarship Account program, which was expanded just a couple years ago. One of McLean’s top issues on his campaign website is “Quality Education For All,” yet he only refers to public schools in his subsequent explanation.
Additionally, McLean’s endorsements from National Organization for Women Arizona PAC and Human Rights Campaign PAC raise concerns about how he would vote in matters of life and family issues. For decades, Arizona has been one of the top states in protecting life and family values, which have come under assault from countless individuals and groups, including the two aforementioned organizations. Support from those two seem to indicate that McLean would be a reliable vote for their issues should he be entrusted with the levers of authority from Legislative District 17 voters in November’s General Election.
McLean lists “Reproductive Rights” – or abortion – on his website as another top issue, framing the argument as “Government should not interfere with anyone’s personal health care decisions which should remain between her and her doctor.”
Arizona Legislative District 17 is a Republican-leaning seat with an 8.3% vote spread between Republicans and Democrats in the past nine statewide elections, according to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Out of those nine elections, all nine contests have ended up in the Republicans’ column.
McLean ran unopposed in the Democrat primary on July 30. He obtained 23,312 votes, according to unofficial totals from the Arizona Secretary of State as of Wednesday afternoon. He will likely face off against Vince Leach, who was ahead of incumbent Justine Wadsack in the Republican primary by 943 votes as of Wednesday afternoon.
After emerging from the primary, McLean posted, “Thank you Legislative District 17 for choosing me as your Democratic nominee for state senate. Together, we’ll secure our water future, strengthen our school system, and build a stable economy. 98 days until Election Day. Let’s do this!”
Thank you #LD17 for choosing me as your Democratic nominee for state senate. Together, we'll secure our water future, strengthen our school system, and build a stable economy. 98 days until Election Day. Let's do this!
Leach told AZ Free News that, “John McLean is going to have to defend the actions of the Democrat party both at the state level and the national level. He owns the damage to the state of Arizona by Governor Katie Hobbs, and also the radical policies that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are inflicting on our country. If voters elect McLean to office, that will help the Democrats take over the state legislature, which means that taxes will increase, school choice will disappear, and commonsense election laws will be reversed. There is a clear divide between me and John on abortion, economic policy, border security, election integrity, and many other issues. I look forward to making this case to our district from now until the General Election.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
In the election for the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board, it appears that one campaign is playing by the rules while the other is not. And the City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Department has chosen to favor the side breaking the rules.
A concerned citizen contacted AZ Free News and provided photographic evidence that the campaign for candidates Donna Lewis, Matthew Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey, installed large street signs over a month before the allowed period, which begins on August 26.
Social media posts from the North Scottsdale Democrats and campaigner Shea Najafi indicated that the organization participated in installing the signs prior to the permitted date.
City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Officer Cathy Maldonado confirmed in correspondence provided to AZ Free News that the permitted date for school board campaign signage is Aug 26.
However, after multiple complaints, the city told the citizen that it is “unable to remove School Board election signs based off the time they are being placed,” unless “they are in a sign free zone, obstructing view / safety hazard, or if they do not have contact information.”
According to the City of Scottsdale’s Campaign Signs Guidelines and Regulations, “Campaign/Political Signs are allowed beginning 71 days before a primary election and ending 15 days after the general election.”
The document advises, “Candidates exceeding the permissible time limit will be subject to enforcement. Failure to comply with these guidelines and regulations may result in sign removal and other enforcement action.”
In a statement sent to AZ Free News, a supporter of conservative school board candidates Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley and Drew Hassler laid out the chain of events:
“On 7/23, the supporter was informed that the City removed the Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis school board candidate sign.”
“On 7/24, I then filed a second complaint for another sign. Richie from the City of Scottsdale went to the sign location, we spoke, and he confirmed in text that the city would contact the candidates and give them 24 hours to remove the signs.”
“Throughout the day, additional complaints were filed as more Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis signs were discovered by the community … but now the City is responding to complaints to deny them, claiming that school board signs cannot be removed, even though they are admittedly out early. It appears that management is telling Code Enforcement Officers that they can only enforce some rules (safe zones, yes; but timing, no).”
“On 7/25, Code Enforcement Officer Richie confirmed in text to me that the signs are out early, but that he will not be allowed to remove the signs as he had stated that he would.”
In an email provided to AZ Free News from Melanie Schwandt, an Administrative Secretary with the City of Scottsdale, our source was given an answer from the City’s Legal Department which had determined “the School Board signs could not be removed even prior to the 71 day mark.”
Arizona Women of Action posted to X regarding the signage violations in Scottsdale, writing, “Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.”
Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) July 27, 2024
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, reporting the same violations, wrote, “The @scottsdaleazgov confirmed that school board candidate signs may not be displayed until Aug 26th … but after democrat candidates installed signs more than 1 month early, the City has decided they will do …. exactly nothing.”
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) July 26, 2024
AZ Free News has reached out to ‘Protect SUSD,’ the campaign for Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis, North Scottsdale Democrats (NorScoDems.org), as well as the Scottsdale Code Enforcement, Legal and Communications Departments for comment. We received no responses by time of publication.
The state’s Democratic leaders, Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, have been taking aggressive action to undo school choice in Arizona, even as the Auditor General has exposed another public school district for poor finances.
Earlier this month, Mayes launched an investigation into the usage of school choice funds to purchase supplementary materials. Mayes also submitted a letter to the Department of Education ordering parents to submit a curriculum for all requests for supplemental materials.
Meanwhile, over 40 school districts were determined to not be in compliance with audit reporting requirements for the 2023 fiscal year. The latest public school district to be reported on by the auditor general, Baboquivari Unified School District (BUSD), not only spent nearly $500,000 on out-of-state travel for trainings and conferences found to be “unnecessary and potentially wasteful” in under two years — it spent over $8,400 for its board to hold board meetings and retreats out of town at a casino.
The BUSD Board traveled to Desert Diamond Casino in Tucson — over 115 miles round trip — where they addressed agenda items that the auditor general determined weren’t preclusive to public attendance. The board held three special meetings and five weekend board retreats at this casino.
The auditor general noted that these meetings were potentially in violation of the state’s open meeting laws.
In its response to the audit, BUSD said that if it were to have meetings out of town again, such as in a casino, it would ensure the public could watch via livestream or other methods.
The auditor general also noted that BUSD potentially violated the state constitution’s gift clause requirement with its $500,000 travel expenses. The report cited a specific instance of several thousand spent on an individual involved with overseeing education on behalf of the tribal government, not employed by the district, to travel and attend an educator training course in Georgia: an expense the district couldn’t show it approved in advance.
A majority of the objectionable travel expenses, over $340,000, occurred when BUSD sent staff to an out-of-state professional development conference. That mass expense included the attendance of a “substantial” number of non-educators — including a custodian, IT staff, business office staff, and Board members — and a repeat trip for seven staff members.
The auditor general found that if BUSD had excluded non-educators from the conference, the district would have nearly halved its costs. Further, if BUSD had chosen to only send a handful of “key employees” capable of training the other staff members, the district could have saved 97 percent of its costs. What’s more, the conference had a virtual training option, which would have eliminated the large expense of travel costs to the district entirely.
During the audit, BUSD indicated to the auditor general that they wanted to send nearly all of its staff to the conference to “energize and motivate teachers and staff” in order to improve student attendance and achievement.
In the last reporting year (2022-23), BUSD had “significantly lower” student achievement than its peer districts and the statewide average. Only two percent of students passed state assessments in math (compared to 27 percent), six percent in English (compared to 33 percent), and three percent in science (compared to 23 percent).
In its response to the auditor general, BUSD said that its business office was aware and had questioned the excessive travel and training costs, but the superintendent at the time had dismissed their concerns.
According to the auditor general, there were other, more critical needs in which the district could have instead applied that excessive spending.
“[T]ravel expenditures did not always comply with State requirements and may not have provided intended benefits,” read the report. “In addition to travel costs exceeding State travel policies and spending limits, the District could have saved at least $389,000 that it could have used for other District priorities, such as increasing teacher pay, by limiting the number of District staff and Board members attending conferences.”
BUSD was found to have ignored spending limits for lodging, overpaid staff and Board members for meals, failed to document its record of payments to staff members for travel expenses, and failed to ensure preapproval of travel expenditures.
The excessive spending resulted in BUSD spending over double per student on administration than its peer districts on average. The auditor general also found BUSD had operated schools below capacity, which also contributed to the higher spending.
Since BUSD failed to maintain transportation records, per the report, the auditor general was unable to have a complete scope of review of the district’s school bus and fleet vehicle maintenance, inspection, and mileage documentation and procedures.
BUSD didn’t have documentation to support that it performed the required school bus preventive maintenance. The district also didn’t maintain the required records for fleet vehicles, nor could it show that it safeguarded and monitored fleet vehicles to prevent unauthorized use, theft, or damage.
Finally, the auditor general found that BUSD failed to comply with requirements to protect students and safeguard public monies and sensitive computerized data. BUSD lacked internal controls for conflicts of interest, payroll, and credit cards. This resulted in an increased risk for unauthorized purchases and fraud with public monies. BUSD also assigned too much access to its accounting system and failed to secure its IT equipment.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A powerful Arizona organization is attempting to coax the state’s once-invincible champion for school choice into fighting back against one of its most fierce opponents.
Last week, John Thorpe, a Staff Attorney with the Goldwater Institute, sent a letter to Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, over his office’s continued capitulation to Attorney General Kris Mayes over the interpretation of certain laws pertaining to the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
The letter from the Goldwater Institute sought “to bring some clarity to the issues of (1) whether the use of ESA funds for ‘supplementary expenses’ requires an explicitly documented ‘nexus’ to a curriculum approved by the Department of Education, and (2) whether ESA funds are subject to the AG’s authority under [state statutes].”
This communication addressed an earlier email from Arizona Department of Education ESA Executive Director, John Ward, to parents within the program, informing them about a letter he had received from Mayes’ Solicitor General. According to Ward, that letter “stated that some ESA program practices are inconsistent with State law and result in payment of ESA funds without authorization of law, [and that] the Solicitor General’s Office has directed the ESA program to address the issues it identified.”
The Attorney General’s Office cited two Arizona statutes to bolster its argument that “the Arizona Department of Education has approved certain supplemental items and textbooks without requiring curricula, which may result in ‘illegal payment of public monies.’” Ward told parents that “ADE has no choice but to comply with the Solicitor General’s determination,” forcing families to “submit a curriculum with all supplemental materials requested or purchased” – something that he even noted was a practice “in place since before the current ADE administration.”
Horne’s acceptance of Mayes’ interpretation of the law was surprising to many members of the public, being that his office has been at odds with the Attorney General’s Office on almost every issue related to this program. Previously, Horne issued several statements expressing his unabashed opposition to the Democrat Attorney General’s persistent attacks on the ESA program and vowing to match her office step for step in defense of parents.
In Thorpe’s letter, he argues that “the law does not condition families’ rights to buy supplemental materials on an explicitly documented ‘curriculum nexus,’” and that “Arizona families’ ESA dollars are not ‘public monies.’”
Thorpe concluded his letter to the state’s schools chief, writing, “The AG’s power to investigate misuse of public monies does not give her the authority to prevent your office from allowing Arizona families to use their ESA funds for statutorily permitted uses. Nor does the law require you, or those families, to justify every textbook or ‘supplementary expenditure’ with a Department-approved curriculum nexus or documentation from a private school.”
On the same day of the Goldwater letter, Ward sent another email to ESA families in response to questions of his department “to provide additional guidance on what is required to use Empowerment Scholarships to purchase supplemental materials” – perhaps signaling that Horne and the Arizona Department of Education would not be backing down from its surrender to Mayes. Ward stated that “ADE would like to provide you with an updated template of Parent-Prepared Curriculum that you can use to submit with your requests for supplemental materials.”
One of the state’s most ardent and effective advocates of the ESA program, Christine Accurso, linked to the Goldwater letter on her social media platform, adding her own commentary about how parents should react to the decision from the Arizona Department of Education on these supplemental materials for their ESA accounts. She said, “ESA parents should have absolutely no fear with submitting orders (for direct purchase or for reimbursement) that includes items that are obvious supplemental educational materials. If an order gets rejected, then email asking them to approve it. If you get an email or communication about your order that says it is the ‘department’s final administrative decision’ then you can go to the State Board of Education and file an appeal. However, you must have proof that the department has given its ‘final administrative decision’ before submitting an appeal to the SBE.”
The Goldwater Institute’s public foray into this controversial action from the Republican Superintendent’s Office follows a letter that was previously sent to Horne from Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, a fellow Republican. In his letter, Toma wrote, “I understand that you may have no choice but to cooperate with the Attorney General’s politically-motivated investigation. However, ADE is best situated to determine how to implement its policies in a way that fulfills legislative intent but does not burden parents with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements.”
Toma added, “As you implement your Department’s policies, I urge you to scrutinize Attorney General Mayes’ unsolicited legal advice expressed in her July 1, 2024, letter, consider how her interpretation of Arizona statutes would impact parents throughout the state, and reject her interpretation of the law that would lead to absurd results.”
In a blog post for the Goldwater Institute, Matt Beienburg referenced Toma’s letter, stating, “As noted by Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma, the unprecedented intrusion and second-guessing by the AG’s office into ADE’s administration of the ESA program is just the office’s latest attempt to advance a novel legal theory in order to hijack the legislative deliberations and decisions of state lawmakers. Indeed, just days before firing off its attack against ADE for its application of state statute, the AG’s office was forced to concede and drop its efforts to override the provisions of the recent bipartisan state budget agreement. The AG’s demands against the ESA program should similarly be rejected by the state department of education, the state board of education, and the judicial system of Arizona.”
A few days removed from the Goldwater Institute letter, the Arizona Department of Education sent another email to ESA parents, informing them of a virtual meeting with Horne, Ward, and others from the department to “provide account holders with an opportunity to have their questions answered regarding the new curricula requirements for supplemental materials.” However, families will not be able to ask their questions live and unfiltered. Instead, as per the electronic notice, “the format for the virtual meeting will be the Department of Education reading and answering questions that have been submitted to it by ESA Holders.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Thursday, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a non-partisan ethics watchdog group filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel under The Hatch Act of 1939 against Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. FACT has alleged that Cardona violated the Act by sending out a political email to federal student loan borrowers in his official capacity. The HATCH Act of 1939 limits certain political activities of federal employees to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace.
According to a press release from FACT, an email sent in July 2024 to an estimated 43 million “citizens who are federal student loan borrowers,” originated from an official government email address, was written on an official Department of Education letterhead, and was signed by Cardona with his official title. The foundation noted, “This type of political advocacy from the government targeting citizens who interact with an agency is exactly the type of politicization the Hatch Act is designed to prevent.”
Kendra Arnold, Executive Director of FACT, said in a statement, “Secretary Cardona appears to have been caught making an overtly political pitch to student loan borrowers in an election year. The uniqueness and magnitude also need to be noted, as this case goes far beyond a standard Hatch Act violation of making a political remark while appearing in an official capacity.
What looks to have happened here is an extremely partisan message was widely distributed using data the federal government had compiled on citizens who have student loans—a universe that could be 43 million people. We urge the Office of Special Counsel to immediately act and investigate whether Secretary Cardona violated the Hatch Act and, if so, the true scope of it.”
In the text of the email from Cardona, revealed by FACT, several statements from Cardona are explicitly political in nature, addressing Republicans as adversaries to the department. For example:
“Republican elected officials who are siding with special interests and trying to block Americans from accessing all the benefits of the most affordable student loan repayment plan in history . . .”
“President Biden and I are determined to lower costs for student loan borrowers, to make repaying student debt affordable and realistic, and to build on our separate efforts that have already provided relief to 4.75 million Americans – no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us.”
“While we disagree with the Republican elected officials’ efforts here to side with special interests and block borrowers from getting breathing room on their student loans . . .”
The complaint submitted by FACT lays out the HATCH Act case against Cardona clearly and in simple terms: “(1) the email was a blatant political communication and (2) it was sent in Cardona’s official capacity using taxpayer funded resources.” In campaign or marketing terms, the email list owned and maintained by the Department of Education is a resource that is potentially worth billions of dollars and is off-limits for anything but official government use. As Arnold noted, “the email sent by Cardona was a blatant political communication. When read in its entirety it is clear the only purpose for sending the letter was a political one and its content was primarily political. The email made political arguments and numerous times specifically identified the political party by name that Cardona opposes in a disparaging manner to generate opposition to the political candidates and party.”
As reported by The Daily Mail, the modern interpretation of the HATCH Act prohibits the sending or forwarding of partisan political emails while an official is on duty or in the workplace or even engaging in political activity like attending a meeting while in uniform or driving a government vehicle.
Arnold writing on behalf of FACT concluded, “While this is an obvious case simply based upon the facts above, it goes far beyond the standard violation of just making a political remark while appearing in an official capacity. While he certainly did make a political remark in his official capacity, he also proactively used data the government had on student loan borrowers for political purposes. Quite clearly this is a severe breach of the citizens’ trust and is inexcusable.
The government endorsement of a political position and use of taxpayer funded resources to do so is the exact political behavior that is forbidden by the Hatch Act.”
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is advising Arizona’s school districts and charter schools to consult legal counsel regarding implementation of the controversial Title IX changes.
The changes to Title IX center on the redefining of the term “sex” to include “gender identity.” In effect, schools would be required to permit access to gendered programs, activities, or spaces on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex, such as sports teams, locker rooms, and bathrooms. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) released the final Title IX rules outlining this change in April.
In ED’s justification for expanding the concept of “sex” to include “gender identity,” the agency declared that basing exclusion on biological sex amounted to sex discrimination.
“For more than 50 years, Title IX has promised an equal opportunity to learn and thrive in our nation’s schools free from sex discrimination,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. “These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights.”
These new rules take effect on Aug. 1.
In a press release on Monday, Horne announced that he’d advised legal counsel to educational institutions through letters disseminated to all districts and charters. Horne emphasized that, though all schools had the choice to implement the updated Title IX regulations, there were pending legal challenges that may result in students suffering damages.
“This is your choice, but you may wish to delay implementing the new regulations until the legal situation is clarified. If the regulations are implemented and then later overruled by the courts, students may suffer damages in the meantime,” said Horne. “This is not legal advice. The Arizona Attorney General may disagree […] We are a local control state, and it will be up to districts and charters to determine how to proceed in this situation. You need to consult with your lawyer. I am only providing information I think might be useful.”
Indeed, a federal court in Louisiana ruled against the new regulations last month. The judge determined that the new federal rules amounted to federal overreach, calling ED’s rulemaking “arbitrary and capricious,” and signaling concern for the rules’ threat to protected constitutional speech.
Some districts have already opposed the changes.
Dysart Unified School District’s governing board voted to reject the new Title IX rules earlier this month. The district declared that ED’s changes to Title IX were contradictory to the existing, plain language of the rules.
Horne noted in Monday’s press release that the new Title IX rules could “significantly injure public education” by prompting parents to flee the system.
“In the past I’ve been asked by districts, as a policy matter, about their consideration of rules, permitting biological boys who have male genitalia being allowed in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers,” said Horne. “My response was that there should be unisex bathrooms available, and if there was no room for them, the faculty bathroom should be used for that purpose. That would preserve the dignity of biological boys who identify as girls. But if they were allowed in girls’ facilities, I thought parents might well remove the girls from the school and send them to another district, Charter School, or private school. So, this rule could significantly injure public education.”
26 states have put forth legal challenges to the Title IX changes, with some awarded injunctions: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
