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.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) was cleared of campaign finance and sexual misconduct accusations by one entity, but now faces a probe into his campaign finances by another.
The Senate Ethics Committee issued a letter to Gallego on Friday notifying him that he was cleared of accusations made by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) concerning sexual and financial misconduct.
The committee advised it had reviewed statements from individuals identified in the complaint, Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports, the 2025 Senate secretary’s expenditure report, the House of Representatives clerk’s expenditure reports, the House of Representatives reports of privately sponsored travel, and information provided by Gallego to the committee.
Committee members include Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), chairman; Christopher Coons (D-DE), vice chair; James Risch (R-ID); Brian Schatz (D-HI); Deb Fischer (R-NE); and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).
In response to the committee letter, Gallego accused Paulina Luna on Monday of being one of many “far-right activists” spreading “right-wing conspiracies.”
The dismissal by the Ethics Committee reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House, and their allies.
I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna…
— Senator Ruben Gallego (@SenRubenGallego) June 29, 2026
Relief for the potential 2028 presidential candidate was short-lived. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also had an announcement on Monday wherein it revealed Gallego was under investigation for those alleged campaign finance violations the ethics committee had cleared.
According to federal campaign finance records, Gallego allegedly spent campaign funds on amenities and extravagances for himself and his family. An anonymous source first reported on by Politico accused the senator of treating his campaign cash like a “personal slush fund” for “a luxury lifestyle.”
One widely scrutinized expenditure concerned Gallego’s attendance at the 2023 Super Bowl with his former best friend: ex-California congressman and gubernatorial candidate, Eric Swalwell. Gallego and Swalwell hosted a joint fundraising committee event in which they dropped tens of thousands of dollars on brunch, tickets, and other watch party arrangements for themselves and select special guests.
Gallego has reportedly spent around $20,000 in campaign funds on childcare over the past seven years (nearly half came from this past year alone), and tens of thousands more on trips to vacation destinations including Miami for his wife’s birthday, the Caribbean for the birthday of his wife’s boss, and Nantucket and Puerto Rico as well.
Twice in 2025, Gallego used campaign funds to fly his family and an au pair to Disney properties.
Another anonymous source — either the same source quoted by Politico or another source — toldThe Daily Beast that Gallego arranged at least the Miami trip under the guise of fundraising but truly intended as a celebration for his wife’s birthday.
The New York Times recently reported that, while running for Senate back in 2024, Gallego allowed his wife to drive an SUV leased for campaign purposes.
Gallego and his spokespeople have defended the au pair as allowable childcare reimbursements under FEC rules, and some of the events criticized as luxury outings like the jet-setting trips and 2023 Super Bowl watch party as valid fundraising endeavors.
“Trump is targeting Senator Gallego while the most weaponized Department of Justice in history is turning a blind eye to Trump’s unprecedented corruption that’s raising costs for families, and instead targeting anyone who gets in their way — like the Federal Reserve, members of Congress doing their oversight duty, and now Senator Gallego,” read a recent statement from a Gallego spokesperson.
“Because I’m not a millionaire (I’m one of the least wealthy members of Congress), every month is a game of childcare, travel, and scheduling balancing,” said Gallego in a post to X earlier this month. “And because of my schedule and the laws passed that allow for it, I will at times bring my wife and children with me to these retreats and fundraisers. Are these at nice venues? Yes, it’s where the donors are, and it’s part of campaigning. I know people have opinions on that, but that’s the nature of the campaign system we have in our country.”
Let me clear the air on some of these stories swirling around. The FEC has stated that childcare may be reimbursed. There is a simple reason: we want Congress to look like America. Not just people without children, those with grown children, or those from wealthy backgrounds.
U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) has introduced the Monitor Accountability Act in the U.S. Senate, serving as a companion measure to H.R. 8365, legislation previously passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05).
The legislation seeks to establish new federal standards governing court-appointed monitors used in civil consent decrees involving state and local governments. These monitors are typically assigned to oversee reform efforts in areas such as law enforcement and public safety compliance.
Supporters of the bill point to long-running monitorships in jurisdictions such as Maricopa County, Arizona, and New Orleans, Louisiana, as examples of cases where oversight arrangements have extended for years and generated significant taxpayer costs.
According to figures cited by sponsors, the New Orleans Police Department consent decree lasted 13 years and cost an estimated $100 million before concluding, while the ongoing Maricopa County monitorship has reportedly exceeded $350 million in taxpayers expense and continues.
“I’m grateful for Senator Kennedy’s partnership in this fight to reinsert sorely needed congressional oversight over these out-of-control federal monitors,” stated Congressman Biggs. “The stories of Maricopa County and New Orleans are abusive and well-documented, showing how these monitors operate without oversight across America. As I have said repeatedly, the destructive effects these monitors have on government budgets and public safety necessitate congressional action. I hope the Senate quickly passes this bill and sends it to the White House to be enacted into law.”
U.S. Senator John Kennedy has introduced the Monitor Accountability Act as a companion bill to my legislation.
I’m grateful for Senator Kennedy’s partnership in this fight to reinsert sorely needed congressional oversight over these out-of-control monitors. pic.twitter.com/0bePhGAMx2
Senator Kennedy emphasized the need for accountability and cost controls in the system.
“Federal court monitors can serve an important purpose, but taxpayers should not have to fund open-ended monitorships that drag on for years without basic accountability,” said Senator Kennedy. “We basically let government contractors decide whether their own government contract keeps going. The Monitor Accountability Act would cap fees, limit terms and bring transparency to a system operating for far too long on autopilot.”
If enacted, the legislation would direct the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement standardized rules for appointing and managing federal monitors. These include:
Five-year term limits for monitors, with no reappointment under the same court order.
Restrictions on successive appointments, preventing the same individual or affiliated employer from continuing a monitorship.
Fee caps and transparency requirements, including annual public accounting of services and compensation.
Public notice and comment period before a monitor is appointed.
Compliance-based extensions, allowing continuation only if substantial and sustained compliance has not been achieved.
Judicial reassignment after six years in ongoing cases to prevent prolonged oversight by a single judge.
Retroactive application to monitorships exceeding six years, including potential replacement of monitors and judicial reassignment.
The bill also encourages the use of pro bono or reduced-rate services in monitor roles.
As the legislation moved through the House earlier this year, it received public support from several law enforcement leaders and organizations, including Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels, the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and the Arizona Police Association.
The bill notes that federal monitors are typically appointed in civil settlement agreements or consent decrees to oversee corrective reforms, often in response to findings of unconstitutional policing or systemic agency misconduct.
The legislation responds in part to prior federal guidance encouraging greater transparency, term limits, and cost accountability in monitor appointments.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The U.S. House of Representatives has unanimously passed H.R. 7396, the Native American Entrepreneurial Opportunity Act, a bipartisan measure aimed at strengthening Small Business Administration (SBA) outreach and support for Tribal entrepreneurs across the United States.
The legislation, led by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, seeks to formally establish and codify the Office of Native American Affairs (ONAA) within the SBA by amending the Small Business Act.
The goal is to improve coordination, accountability, and targeted support for Native American and native Hawaiian business owners who often face structural barriers in accessing federal resources.
The bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ-02), alongside Rep. Shanice Davids (D-KS-03), Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX-06), and Rep. Kelly Morrison (D-MN-03). The measure passed the House with unanimous support after previously clearing the chamber in the last Congress with strong bipartisan backing before stalling in the Senate.
If enacted, the legislation would formally embed the ONAA within the Small Business Administration and assign its responsibility for expanding access to entrepreneurial development programs, contracting opportunities, and capital resources for Tribal communities.
This evening, the House unanimously passed the Native American Entrepreneurial Opportunity Act to strengthen @SBAgov outreach to Tribal entrepreneurs.
The office would also be tasked with improving coordination with other federal agencies and increasing education about available programs for Native entrepreneurs.
Tribal business owners, particularly those operating on reservations, often face unique challenges including complex tax structures, regulatory barriers, lending difficulties, and questions surrounding property rights.
Supporters of the legislation argue that these issues have been compounded by inconsistent outreach and limited access to federal small business programs.
By codifying the Office of Native America Affairs into federal law, the bill also strengthens congressional oversight by requiring annual reports to Congress detailing outreach efforts, consultations with Tribal governments, training initiatives, and the number of entrepreneurs served.
“I’m proud to be part of the bipartisan coalition working to improve and expand SBA outreach to Tribal communities. As the representative of over half of Arizona’s tribes, I’m focused on solutions to help expand economic growth throughout rural Arizona,” stated Rep. Crane. “I’m grateful to Rep. Davids for her leadership, as well as Reps. Ellzey and Morrison for their support of this important bill. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to quickly take up and pass this measure.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws barring males from competing in female sports, even if they identify as female. The ruling drew praise from Arizona’s Republican leaders.
In its opinion in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (inclusive of Little v. Hecox), the high court declared that biology defines sex, not gender identity, when considering federal regulations on sex-based discrimination.
“The term ‘sex’ […] cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” stated the ruling.
Arizona participated in the lawsuit through its leaders in the Republican-led state legislature: Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (LD14) and Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro (LD29). The pair filed an amicus brief last September.
Petersen hailed the Supreme Court decision as a “landmark ruling.” In a press release responding to Tuesday’s ruling, Petersen said the ruling represented a win in both the intellectual and moral sense, calling it common sense justice for women and girls.
“Every young woman deserves the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and earn a roster spot, a championship, a record, or a scholarship based on her hard work. Girls shouldn’t have to lose those opportunities because adults are afraid to acknowledge biological reality. That’s not fairness, and it’s not what Title IX was created to do,” said Petersen. “Arizona has been leading on this issue for years, and we were proud to stand with West Virginia and Idaho before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend girls’ sports. Today’s decision makes it clear that states can continue protecting the integrity of women’s athletics and the opportunities generations of women fought so hard to secure. This is a victory for every girl who dreams big, works hard, and deserves the chance to compete fairly.”
Arizona Superintendent of Schools Tom Horne — the lone elected leader to defend in court Arizona’s law prohibiting biological males from participating in female-only sports — declared the ruling a victory for female success and safety in competition. Attorney General Kris Mayes refused to defend the law in court (Jane Doe v. Warren Petersen).
“The news has been full of stories about girls who worked hard on their sports, hoping to make the team, or even earn a college scholarship or qualify for the Olympics. But then they had to compete against biological boys and their advantages in birth in size, speed and strength. The girls’ dreams were shattered and they were devastated,” said Horne. “Girls have also been injured, including a brain injury, from having to compete against larger and stronger males. I am committed to making sure that Arizona schools follow state law protecting girls’ sports.”
Former Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, passed the “Save Women’s Sports Act” under the Republican-led state legislature in 2022. In a letter approving the legislation, Ducey called it fair and common sense.
“This legislation simply ensures that the girls and young women who have dedicated themselves to their sport do not miss out on hard-earned opportunities including their titles, standings and scholarships due to unfair competition,” stated Ducey. “This bill strikes the right balance of respecting all students while still acknowledging that there are inherent biological distinctions that merit separate categories to ensure fairness for all.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
