Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ-02) has backed an arrangement to secure lawfare protections for American farmers and ranchers.
Crane was present for the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Small Business Administration (SBA) that establishes a joint process to intake, investigate, and resolve lawfare complaints.
As part of the signing, the two agencies hosted a roundtable where farmers and ranchers shared personal testimonies of alleged regulatory and legal overreach.
Two Arizona rancher families impacted by that kind of alleged overreach were present at the event: Dustin and Becki Ross of Windmill Mountain Ranch, and Casey and Meggan Murph of H Bar and Y Ranch.
The Ross family has endured a two-year-long stall on their grazing allotment due to archaeological-clearance requirements, affecting their property maintenance and herd management.
The Murph family faces the potential loss of their grazing leases to a foreign company’s solar project. Their family has worked the land for over 100 years, predating Arizona statehood.
In a press release, Crane accused the federal government of historically siding with environmentalists to target farmers and ranchers. However, Crane said the Trump administration has taken a novel, friendlier approach to the welfare of families like the Rosses and Murphs.
“Farmers and ranchers are the foundation of a strong and thriving nation. Despite their tremendous contributions to our way of life, the federal government has too often stood by as radical environmentalists targeted them,” said Crane. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, Secretary Rollins, and Administrator Loeffler, those days of bureaucratic neglect are over. This Memorandum of Understanding will help protect America’s producers from senseless red tape and litigation. We look forward to continuing this critical partnership and laying the groundwork for a healthy, robust industry for generations to come.”
Under this lawfare protection arrangement, the USDA will collect complaints and the SBA will handle case management and resolution.
The SBA said in its announcement of the memorandum of understanding that the Trump administration has taken a posture of believing the plight of farmers and ranchers first, and seeking justification for the regulations and legal actions that allegedly burden them.
“The goal is to identify patterns of abuse and eliminate regulations that drive up costs and drive down productivity,” stated the SBA. “Family farmers do not have the time or legal resources to fight back when Washington gets it wrong. Under POTUS, we are answering to the producers who power this country, not the bureaucrats who hold them back.
SBA and @USDA have signed a new MOU to help farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses report costly federal rules and lawfare.
Under this partnership, USDA will collect complaints and share them with SBA for case management and resolution.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said their agency’s Lawfare Portal received over 600 submissions from producers across 47 states, including Arizona, who she says were “unfairly targeted by their own government.”
The USDA launched its Lawfare Portal last April in the wake of a high-profile criminal trespass trial involving a South Dakota ranching couple in a land dispute with the U.S. Forest Service. Like the Arizona families at Thursday’s event, the South Dakota couple’s family have worked the land for over 100 years.
There is still so much more work to do.
Since launching USDA's Lawfare Portal last April, we've received more than 600 submissions from producers across 47 states—farmers and ranchers who have been unfairly targeted by their own government. We review every single case because… pic.twitter.com/KLg0w1ykR5
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 2, 2026
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A new ruling from the Supreme Court on absentee ballots won’t have any impact on Arizona’s upcoming elections, according to a state senator.
In the Watson v. Republican National Committeedecision issued earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law requiring the acceptance of absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five days after Election Day. Some refer to this post-Election Day acceptance of ballots as a “grace period.”
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that federal law prevents Mississippi from allowing a grace period.
“[W]hile federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law governs when they must be received,” stated the court. “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”
The ruling declared that states have the authority to establish their own laws and regulations concerning deadlines for receiving ballots.
While this may have an impact on elections elsewhere, State Sen. Vince Leach (R-LD17) issued a press release advising that this ruling wouldn’t impact Arizona because state law doesn’t allow for a grace period. Instead, state law requires county election officials to receive early ballots by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.
Therefore, Leach advised Arizona voters to exercise caution by relying on in-person voting rather than mail-in voting should they cast their ballots closer to Election Day. Election officials recommend voters return their primary ballots by July 14 at the latest to allow sufficient time for the primary election, which is scheduled to take place on July 21. As of this report, early voting is underway.
“Ballots that arrive after that deadline cannot be counted, regardless of when they were mailed or postmarked. Returning ballots early helps ensure every legal vote is counted while supporting the timely administration of Arizona’s elections,” said Leach. “If you’re getting close to Election Day, don’t take chances with the mail. Use an official ballot drop box or vote in person. The rules are clear, and following them is the best way to make sure your vote is counted.”
President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court ruling a “tremendous loss” for voters’ rights. Trump advocated for the passage of the SAVE America Act, which would establish federal requirements for voter ID and proof of citizenship as well as limiting mail-in ballots to those with illnesses, disabilities, military deployment, or approved travel.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) seconded Trump’s call to action.
— RNC Election Integrity (@RNCVoteProtect) June 29, 2026
The Supreme Court issued its decision the same day it announced it would take up the RNC’s case defending Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said the Supreme Court decision had risked the country’s ability to implement fair and secure elections.
“Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots,” said Gruters. “Republicans are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day as Americans want.”
Activists reported that they have turned in more than 420,00 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universality of Arizona’s school choice program.
Supporters wearing red shirts reading “Public School Proud” affiliated with Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSA) gathered outside the secretary of state’s office to watch the box truck delivery of the boxes containing the signatures for the ballot initiative. Both SOSA and the Arizona Education Association (AEA) were behind the initiative.
SOSA and the AEA contend the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program diverts far too much in funding away from public schools. Families within the program don’t have to depart their public schools; however, since the expansion of the ESA program to all students in 2022, enrollment in public schools has declined. Defenders of the ESA program counter that per-pupil spending in the program costs less than in public schooling.
ESA program funds may be used for private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, homeschool curriculum, educational therapies, textbooks, educational software, testing fees, and college courses.
The Protect Education Act (PEA) would impose income restrictions on the ESA program.
Estimates show that approximately 20,300 current students in the ESA program would be disqualified under the PEA initially, though that number would grow to exclude more than half of Arizona’s families with school-aged children due to inflationary impact on incomes outpacing the income cap adjustment.
The act would also impose accreditation requirements and further restrictions on spending.
The ESA program has reported the enrollment of more than 100,000 students. More than 8,200 were listed as new students enrolled for the next school year.
Those who support keeping the universality of the ESA program have been maneuvering to preserve protections for some member families.
The Republican majority in the state legislature passed a ballot measure of their own last month: HCR 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the confiscation of ESA program funds from students belonging to military families.
Should voters approve both the lawmakers’ measure and PEA, it is likely the latter would be voided under language included in the former.
In addition, Doug Ducey, the former governor who signed universal school choice into Arizona law, made an announcement Thursday of a political action committee dedicated to securing school choice protections for military families. Ducey was announced as the chairman of the Protect Military Families PAC.
“Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families,” said Ducey.
Serving alongside Ducey on the political action committee is Ashley Ragan, president of InCompliance AZ.
Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families.
That is why today, we are proud to launch Protect Military Families PAC @ProtectMilFam.
The Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank and litigation organization, filed a motion in the Maricopa County Superior Court earlier this week on behalf of two military families involved in the ESA program.
The organization said that about 1,000 other military families stand to be disqualified from the ESA program should the universalization end.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s unemployment rate has now hit a new high following the COVID-19 pandemic.
The state’s unemployment rate neared 5% according to a new data analysis report from the Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSI). Based on this newly calculated rate, Arizona has the 12th-highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Unemployment hit 4.8% in May, with CSI saying broader data indicators have revealed the state’s labor market to be cooling despite job growth.
The addition of 2,000 non-farm jobs in May put Arizona at 30th for national job growth. Overall, the nation experienced growth with the addition of 172,000 jobs.
As for job growth year-over-year, Arizona added over 21,200 jobs. That qualified the state as the 10th best in the nation for job growth year-over-year.
Mining jobs increased by about 1,300 over the past year. CSI attributed this growth to the increased demand for copper by electric vehicles, artificial intelligence technology, and data centers.
Manufacturing jobs also increased by 500 over the past year. Trade, transportation, and utility jobs declined by 1,600 over the past year.
Arizona’s labor participation also hit a post-pandemic milestone. The state’s labor force participation rate fell just below 61 percent: the lowest level seen since 2020. Last May, the labor force participation rate was over 62 percent.
Along with rising unemployment and compressed labor participation, Arizona’s private-sector wages increased by over three percent over the year to $35.78. However, that total lags behind the national average of $37.53.
Arizonans may have felt these changes to Arizona’s employment climate more acutely due to major year-over-year changes with state spending.
CSI attributed the state’s budget shortfall to overspending.
Another recent analysis released earlier this month by CSI found that the state budget has experienced rapid growth over the past decade.
In just 10 years, the state budget doubled and now amounts to more than 10% of the state’s gross domestic product.
Per CSI, spending pressures have remained elevated despite normalized revenue growth.
Some items that CSI said to blame were the disparities between Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) enrollment and member costs, elevated demands from the Development Disabilities Program (DDP), and federal payment error rates impacting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) obligations.
AHCCCS enrollment fell by about 10% (over 200,000 people) but average per-member costs increased by 14%.
DDP was projected to require an additional $400 million in state spending by next year.
And the state may have to cover $300 million in annual SNAP cost-sharing obligations should federal payment error rates fail to be reduced in the near future.
Total state spending reached over $70 billion in the 2026 fiscal year, and estimates projected spending to approach $75 billion in the 2027 fiscal year. Of the 2026 fiscal year total state spending, close to $50 billion is expected to come from non-appropriated funds.
CSI found that spending not subject to regular legislative appropriations has grown by more than 150% over the past decade, though appropriated spending grew by about 100%.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
