by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, joined former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould on Thursday to challenge Proposition 211. The measure, called the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” is being contested on the grounds that it violates the state Constitution’s protections for free speech and privacy.
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and a decade marked by attacks on political figures—the security risks of effectively doxxing political donors loom large in the case.
If upheld, the law would force 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.
In today’s climate of escalating political violence—from death threats and swatting to vandalism, arson, and even assassinations—a database like this could essentially become a “hit list.”
In a press release the Goldwater Institute explained its position stating, “While proponents of the Voters’ Right to Know Act say they’re simply combatting so-called ‘dark money’ in politics, it is clear to Goldwater and its clients — the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors — that their real intent is to intimidate their political opponents into silence.”
“Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in,” said Jon Riches, Goldwater’s Vice President of Litigation. “The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211.”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi added, “They’re afraid of the activist organizations out there. They’re afraid of politicians and others that want to exact retaliation because they simply support a position or belief that they disagree.”
Mussi characterized the law as “a dangerous threat to our right to free speech and association.”
“As drafted, the law can be used to unconstitutionally target and harass private citizens, including our organization and our supporters,” Mussi stated. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this law poses and will rule in our favor.”
In a statement to AZ Free News in May, Mussi elaborated on the potential for political intimidation: “Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well.”
Peter Gentala, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated in a press release that Proposition 211 “creates an atmosphere of fear among those who support nonprofits that engage in the most pressing issues in Arizona today.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
What began in August as a temporary pause on Sedona’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) program has now become a full termination. At its September 9 regular meeting, the Sedona City Council voted unanimously to sever its contract with Flock Safety and remove all ALPR cameras from city limits. The vote came under agenda item AB 3261, which had originally been slated for discussion of a possible citizen working group to review policies surrounding the technology. Instead, council members chose to end the program outright, citing concerns over transparency, trust, and civil liberties.
The decision builds on the council’s August 24 action, when members voted 5–1 to deactivate 11 cameras already installed and block the installation of a twelfth. At that time, the program was effectively frozen while staff compiled a timeline of its approval and explored potential safeguards through a future citizen advisory group.
By early September, however, new information came to light about Flock’s federal partnerships. The company acknowledged limited pilot programs with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations, contradicting earlier statements to city officials that no data-sharing was occurring. That disclosure, coupled with weeks of strong public opposition, prompted the council to move from pause to permanent shutdown.
Council members expressed frustration that the technology had been introduced without a broader policy conversation about its implications. “This began as a handful of people who viewed these license plate readers as a modern policing tool,” one member said. “But what was missed was the question of whether we should be collecting and storing data on innocent people.”
While several members noted that ALPRs have proven useful in other communities, the combination of mistrust in the vendor and unease about federal access to local data swayed the body toward termination. “The only way to ensure data is not shared or abused is to not have it,” another council member remarked.
The unanimous vote represents a shift from the August meeting, when Mayor Scott Jablow supported continuing the program and Vice Mayor Holli Ploog was absent. This time, all members aligned in favor of ending the city’s relationship with Flock and removing the cameras.
The debate has mirrored national disputes over surveillance technology. As reported in the August 24 article, communities from Arkansas to New York have raised similar objections, with residents warning of potential erosion of civil liberties. In Sedona, residents filled inboxes with emails and spoke at public forums, urging leaders to prioritize privacy over surveillance.
The council’s decision closes the door—at least for now—on the use of ALPRs in Sedona. Members left open the possibility that the issue could be revisited in future years if public attitudes or technology practices change but stressed that significant shifts would be necessary before reconsideration.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 13, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona’s top Republican lawmakers are asking the Trump administration to reimburse the state for more than $700 million spent on border security initiatives over the past several years.
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro sent a letter this week to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, requesting repayment under the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill, which provides $10 billion for states to recover border-related expenses incurred during the Biden administration.
According to the letter, Arizona appropriated $599 million in 2021 and 2022 through the Border Security Fund, in addition to $145 million over five years for law enforcement and other enforcement efforts tied to the southern border. The funds were used to support sheriffs, the Department of Public Safety, and construction tied to border barriers.
“For four years, the Biden Administration failed to defend our border, leaving Arizona to shoulder the burden,” Petersen said in a statement. He argued that the investments made by the Legislature were necessary to protect residents and that taxpayers deserve reimbursement.
Earlier this year, Petersen joined a group of attorneys general on a border tour reviewing state and federal enforcement operations. He praised former President Donald Trump’s policies, calling them effective in reducing illegal crossings without additional legislation.
Montenegro also underscored the legislature’s commitment to border security, contrasting it with the approach taken by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. He pointed to the voter-approved Secure the Border Act as evidence of public support for stricter enforcement.
“Arizona voters made their voices clear when they overwhelmingly passed the Secure the Border Act that Democrats tried to block,” Montenegro said. “Thanks to President Trump and his administration, Washington is finally treating border security as a priority again, and Arizona taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed.”
If the state receives federal funds, legislative leaders said the money will be directed into Arizona’s General Fund and overseen by the legislature to ensure proper use.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 13, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, announced this week it has asked the City of Sedona to “review and revise” the Sedona Police Department’s warning shot policy. The group says the policy could have officers committing felonies.
The organization requested the review and revision of the SPD policy, according to a letter released by Judicial Watch Southwest Projects Coordinator Mark Spencer, a 25-year veteran, former Phoenix police officer, and former President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.
In the letter, Spencer cited potential conflicts with A.R.S. §13-3107, known as Shannon’s Law, as well as standards set by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST).
Judicial Watch reported in its statement that the organization’s intervention began with a public records request (PRR) to Sedona City Manager Annette Spickard regarding the SPD’s warning shot policy on July 28th. But according to the group, the request for records was not fully complied with:
“Judicial Watch sought various SPD documents, including training records, policy manuals, and communications related to the use of warning shots. However, many of the requested documents were not provided or available.
The responsive documents included 26 emails, which revealed a timeline of events and issues related to the warning shot policy. Notably, on April 18, 2023, an email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration, which included and allowed warning shots. Subsequent emails showed ongoing evaluations and suggestions for policy revisions, with some recommendations to exclude warning shots.”
According to Shannon’s Law, “A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.”
Judicial Watch cautioned that the use of a warning shot under current SPD policy could constitute a criminally negligent discharge under Shannon’s Law, making the officer following the policy guilty of a class 6 felony.
In the text of the letter, Spencer noted that among the 26 responsive emails received by Judicial Watch, “An email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration. “Warning shots” were acknowledged, included, and allowed in the policy. Within this email, it was also stated, “Officers are taught during their academy training about reasonable force, deadly force, warning shots (emphasis added), when and how to use non-deadly weapons, and when and how to use deadly force and firearms.”
Conversely, in a later email from Sedona’s outside legal counsel, Eric Edwards, policy revisions were submitted for the SPD officer’s manual addressing the use of “Warning Shots.” Edwards reiterated in the formal police policy that “Officers are taught during their academy training about… Warning Shots.” He then makes the following change in policy by suggesting, “Officers will not…Generally, fire warning shots.”
Spencer concluded, “Judicial Watch expressed concerns that the current policy may conflict with A.R.S. §13-3107, also known as Shannon’s Law, which could classify the use of warning shots as a class 6 felony. Additionally, they questioned the accuracy and consistency of the policy with AZPOST (State law enforcement certification agency) and other law enforcement standards. Judicial Watch has requested the City Council and City Manager to consider revising the SPD policy to eliminate the use of warning shots. They have indicated their intention to make a formal complaint to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and the Arizona Attorney General’s office if the policy is not revised.”
As of this report, the City of Sedona has made no official statement regarding the Judicial Watch request.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 13, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Governor’s Office has opened the application process to fill an upcoming vacancy on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, inviting eligible residents with an interest in wildlife and conservation to apply.
The five-member commission is responsible for setting policy, rules, and regulations governing the state’s wildlife management, fisheries, and related outdoor recreation activities, including watercraft and off-highway vehicle operations. In addition to establishing regulations, commissioners provide guidance to the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
By law, the commission is structured to reflect both geographical and political diversity. The vacancy must be filled by a resident from one of the following counties: Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Yuma, or Yavapai. Applicants are required to state their political party affiliation and must not have switched party registration within the last two years.
Completed applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30. Interested candidates can apply through the state’s Boards and Commissions website and are asked to provide their residential address, party affiliation, resume, and any additional supporting materials or letters of recommendation.
The Game and Fish Appointment Recommendation Commission will review submissions in October and conduct in-person interviews before forwarding recommendations to the Governor’s Office.
For questions about the review process, applicants may contact Madeline Gaffney with the Arizona Game and Fish Department at mgaffney@azgfd.gov. Additional inquiries can be directed to the Governor’s Office of Executive Appointments at bc@az.gov.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 12, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination, comments from Arizona Democrats and some media figures struck a sour note Thursday. Their remarks drew swift and widespread condemnation across social media.
Most prominently, an initial comment from Governor Katie Hobbs calling for “lowering the temperature of our politics” has generated outrage, seen by many as a critique of Kirk.
Hobbs wrote in a statement, “I am deeply saddened by the news of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I am saddened for Charlie’s family, friends, and Arizonans as they mourn his loss, and I am saddened for our country as our politics have descended into horrific violence. This tragedy is not about who Charlie Kirk supported politically. It is about the devastating loss of a father, a neighbor, and an Arizonan who called this state home, and whose life was cut short by senseless violence.”
Hobbs’ statement took a turn, however, with her adding, “We must stand together in rejecting violence, lowering the temperature of our politics, and recommitting ourselves to the values of civility, respect, and community that American democracy requires.”
The comments from Arizonans in general and groups like the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) were immediate and scathing.
“Katie Hobbs uses Charlie Kirk’s assassination to lecture conservatives that they need to ‘lower the temperature.’ Everything Charlie did was civil, engaging political opponents in open dialogue with ideas and arguments. Sorry Katie, we won’t back down,” AZFEC posted on X.
Garrett Lewis, Host of The Afternoon Addiction on 550 KFYI, replied, “All Charlie did was have civilized discussions and he showed respect to everyone, including those that disagreed with him. You evil freak.”
Pro-life commentator ‘Sanctity of Life’ responded with a harsh critique writing, “What should concern you and others who are prominent in the Democrat party is to change the tone of the party rhetoric that incites violence. Until that happens no one will take you Democrats seriously. We’re sick of being demonized and threatened for disagreeing with you!”
Gerald Bourguet, the now-former Lead Suns writer for PHNX Sports and co-host of the Phoenix Suns Podcast, was severely criticized after posting a lengthy thread blasting Kirk just hours after his death. The post resulted in PHNX Sports making “the decision to part ways,” early Thursday morning.
In a post to X announcing the decision, PHNX Sports wrote, “The opinions expressed by our employees do not represent the views of PHNX or ALLCITY Network. We take matters involving violence very seriously and are committed to ensuring that ALLCITY remains a safe place for our employees and community alike. We have addressed this matter with the individual and made the decision to part ways.”
The decision was praised by Tyler Bowyer of Turning Point USA, who wrote, “As a subscriber to @PHNX_Sports, thank you @Espo for making the right decision. Won’t forget that.”
As of this report, no public reaction has been issued by the Phoenix Suns.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
