Nothing undermines confidence in elections quite like discovering they can be compromised by foreign billionaires or botched altogether through complex schemes like ranked-choice voting.
This year, legislatures across the country took aim at both of these urgent threats to election integrity, as outlined by a recent report from Honest Elections Project. Altogether, eight states closed a critical legal loophole allowing foreign billionaires to flood ballot measure campaigns with foreign dark money. Meanwhile, six more states banned ranked-choice voting, the most legislative bans in a single year. In other words, conservative states have made 2025 a banner year for election reform.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn how vulnerable our elections are to foreign influence. Federal law forbids foreign nationals from donating to candidates or political parties yet offers no such protection for state or local ballot measures. This means that a foreign billionaire cannot influence a particular race, but he can spend millions to pass a constitutional amendment that rewrites the rules of the entire election system.
That loophole has been a gift to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss. According to the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, Wyss has directed roughly $280 million into the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has simultaneously spent more than $130 million in foreign-tied funds into ballot campaigns in 26 states. As shocking as these figures are, they likely represent the tip of the iceberg. After all, the same loophole can just as easily be abused by foreign nationals doing the bidding of China and Russia.
Fortunately, conservative states are taking action to ensure that ballot measures are no longer a Trojan Horse for foreign interference. After Ohio led the way in 2024, eight states this year—Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wyoming—enacted new laws to ban foreign nationals and the groups they finance from funding ballot measure campaigns. Even Kentucky’s Democratic governor signed the bill into law, proof that defending elections from foreign influence should not be a partisan proposition.
That hasn’t stopped many on the left from fighting to keep these loopholes open for purely partisan gain. Marc Elias, Democrats’ top election lawyer, went to court in Ohio in 2024 and again in Kansas this year to block these bans. He lost both times, once in front of an Obama-appointed judge. States clearly have the authority to ban foreign funding, and every state should.
The same is true of ranked-choice voting, and 2025 was an incredible year in the ongoing fight to stop its spread.
Under ranked-choice voting, voters are asked to rank multiple candidates. Ballots are counted in rounds as losing candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed. If a voter fails to rank enough candidates, the ballot is “exhausted” and thrown out. Candidates can win the most first-place votes but lose the election. Delays are inevitable; Alaska’s ranked-choice voting tabulation does not even begin until 15 days after Election Day. In California, a tabulation error once led to the wrong candidate being certified. Ranked-choice voting turns what should be a straightforward election into a complicated black box.
Fortunately, the public has seen the problems with this system from the start. In 2024, ranked-choice voting advocates spent nearly $100 million dollars on ballot measures promoting the scheme in six states. All failed. Only the District of Columbia adopted it, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Between 2022 and 2024, 11 states banned ranked-choice voting. And this year, six more – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming – acted to make the scheme illegal. And in Utah, lawmakers allowed a failed pilot program to expire, meaning ranked-choice voting will come to an end there, too.
As extraordinary as this progress is, conservatives must not become complacent. States like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, Montana, and Arizona have all seen significant amounts of foreign-tied money pumped into ballot issue campaigns, but so far have not acted. And progressives remain committed to pushing ranked-choice voting, especially after witnessing the scheme elevate a Democratic Socialist in New York. Ranked-choice voting lobbyists are working legislatures nationwide, and activists are already gathering signatures for another ballot measure in the presidential battleground of Michigan.
That should serve as a warning. When it comes to securing our elections, the job is never done. This was a banner year for election integrity. Conservative leaders must keep the momentum going in 2026 and beyond.
If Katie Hobbs is thinking about what to do after her time as Governor is up, one option would be to test her skills in the Hide and Seek World Championships. After all, she proved during the 2022 gubernatorial election campaign that it’s what she’s best at.
After dodging any request to debate her opponent Kari Lake during her campaign, Hobbs also ducked reporters who dared to question her about it. She even hid in a restaurant bathroom after another reporter asked her why she didn’t like discussing politics.
All this hiding should have resulted in a simple decision. According to long-standing Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (AZCCEC) rules, an opponent (in this case Kari Lake) should have been provided with airtime when a candidate (in this case Katie Hobbs) refused to debate. And the AZCCEC planned to do just that. But hours before Kari Lake’s interview was scheduled to take place, the AZCCEC learned that Arizona PBS went behind their back to schedule an exclusive interview with Katie Hobbs—moving them to postpone Lake’s interview.
If you think all this reeks of collusion, you’re right. And now, a public records request has made it clear. Katie Hobbs wasn’t playing hide and seek alone. She was purposefully aided by leadership at Arizona State University (ASU) and at PBS…
If Peoria Unified residents were skeptical about students being brainwashed with diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologies, rewatching the August 28, 2025, school board meeting should remove all remaining doubts. Current students delivered a majority of the 63 public comments against the cancellation of DEI-infused performing arts programs. The only problem is that these programs were never slated to be eliminated. Listen to PUSD school board members’ comments here.
A passionately misinformed parent created a Change.org petition claiming that the PUSD school board planned to cut ties with the Educational Theatre Association (EdTA), the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), and the National Dance Education Organization (NDEO). Unfortunately, this parent took no initiative in contacting the board before circulating the petition. The parent also failed to direct activism efforts toward those organizations that practice discrimination against white students. It would have been great for the kids to bombard them with calls, emails, and demands to remove the racist policies from their websites.
Oh, well. Maybe next time…
Those who have actually followed the 2025 PUSD school board meetings understand that a majority of the board is working to eradicate DEI from school programs in compliance with President Trump’s Executive Order. Since the Department of Education prioritized the order, why wouldn’t school districts follow suit to protect federal resources? PUSD board members did their due diligence in contacting the Arizona Department of Education and consulting their lawyer in a closed session to ensure they weren’t jeopardizing Title II funding by renewing the agreements.
Not surprisingly, AZ State Superintendent Tom Horne and PUSD Superintendent K.C. Somers were in favor of keeping the programs despite these organizations’ defiance of federal mandates. The following screenshots are sourced directly from their websites. It only takes one or two clicks to find this information.
NDEO’s racial equity statements are currently parked behind information walls. Internet archives from 2020 reveal that the Advisory Board Director and CEO both met with equity consultants and agreed that NDEO should undergo a diversity audit to “help provide a roadmap for organizational and programmatic changes over the next few years, as NDEO embodies its commitment to becoming an anti-racist organization.” Their statement on social justice can be viewed below.
One leftist who instigated the PUSD protest was Washington Elementary School District (WESD) Board President Kyle Clayton. In 2023, Clayton was one of five board members who voted to terminate an 11-year relationship with Arizona Christian University due to the college’s stance on traditional marriage. At that time, Clayton—who identifies as an LGBT community member—said he was worried that Christian student-teachers would proselytize his children and make them feel bad about having two dads. It didn’t matter that ACU had never received a single complaint like this in 11 years.
Past board members in Clayton’s district signed anti-racism and LGBTQ+ affirming resolutions. The youngest WESD students are barely potty-trained. Let that sink in. Clayton willingly discriminates against people who believe in God and disagree with his lifestyle choices. This is the definition of bigotry. Clayton is not the kind of person who should be leading an elementary school district. WESD residents should be asking how and why radical, anti-Christian activists are sitting on their school board.
Ultimately, the PUSD school board protest made the adult activists look a bit foolish. Board Member Becky Proudfit—who historically supported DEI for students—clarified that the programs were “not in danger of being cut” but that the district endeavored to operate “in the bounds of legality.” She also reiterated that Title II funding is not a permanent solution and encouraged every speaker to contact the noncompliant organizations (as the petition starter should have done). Board Member Janelle Bowles—who is strongly against DEI— wholeheartedly agreed with Proudfit’s sentiments.
Although the students performed well during public comments, it was sad and exhausting to see so much misguided passion and wasted energy coming against leaders who are all working in their favor. Even conservative board members voted to keep programs with DEI components—albeit Board President Heather Rooks vehemently denounced EdTA’s racist ideologies, and another board member motioned to approve the programs with an attestation as part of their agreement with PUSD.
It’s a shame that the adults who gaslighted the children and influenced this demonstration lacked the foresight to protest the culprits causing the federal funding dilemma. If you’re going to encourage students to engage in activism, at least point them in the right direction. Of course, theatre, dance, music, and other artistic expressions provide students with an enriching experience and some lucrative post-secondary school opportunities.
Nevertheless, K-12 students don’t need to learn how to be “anti-racist” while playing a wind instrument. Gender identity is not a prerequisite for memorizing and delivering well-executed lines. And although the good Lord graced His black and brown people with more rhythm, white students shouldn’t be cut from recitals just because they’re born with melanin deficiency. Why any board member, superintendent, parent, or educator would advocate for DEI is beyond the comprehension of those who love all children the same, regardless of their ethnic background.
A final word to DEI champions: You would do best to listen to conservative black people instead of emotionally inserting yourselves into historical civil rights conflicts that don’t concern you. No one asked white liberals to fight battles or take on identity-based issues that didn’t affect their community 250 years ago. If leftists want to protest something, there is plenty of hatred directed at white, heterosexual, Christian conservatives today. People like me are doing just fine. We don’t need any handouts. The world would be a better, safer, more sane place if the adults on the self-righteous left took some time to study the true definition of diversity.
The legacy media seem to be on a mission: tear down Arizona’s groundbreaking school choice program with false accusations and inaccurate reporting.
Fortunately, facts don’t lie, even if the media does.
The Arizona Capitol Times declared this week in astonishing terms, “Education department under fire for approving $124M in improper ESA [education savings account] purchases.”
Such astronomical levels of fraud would seem to threaten the very foundations of the historic school choice revolution that has swept the nation. There was just one problem, the headline was completely false.
Not only were the supposed dollar amounts exaggerated up to 100 times greater than the amounts of improper spending actually reported by the department, but these purchases weren’t even approved in the first place.
Here’s the story the media won’t tell: Arizona’s 2022 adoption of a fully universal ESA program has been a nation-leading success, allowing parents across the state to give their children an education best suited to their needs.
To its credit, the Times quickly retracted its original headline and issued a formal correction admitting “an inaccurate dollar amount” in its first draft and eliminating the suggestion that the purchases were “approved.” Unfortunately, such journalistic ethics appear not to be shared by the Times’ more ideological media counterparts in Arizona, particularly those of the teachers’ union-aligned 12News team, who have resolutely declined to correct or retract their false reporting.
12News’ Craig Harris, for instance, has repeatedly and falsely declared that the state has “approved” ESA purchases for iPhones, televisions, and other non-educational items over the past year.
But all those purchases haven’t been approved, as the State Board of Education’s ESA Handbook—ratified by members appointed by both former Gov. Doug Ducey and Gov. Katie Hobbs—makes clear. The document expressly states that while families’ ESA purchases under $2,000 are promptly reimbursed by the state, these items “are not deemed ‘approved’ by the Department, until they are audited OR the timeframe to audit the orders has passed [2 fiscal years].” Just like their tax returns filed with the IRS, these families’ ESA purchases are processed up front and subject to enforcement afterwards.
Yet, 12News either knowingly misrepresented the status of these orders or else incompetently failed to perform basic due diligence to learn how the program operates.
By 12News’ anti-ESA logic, the IRS should apparently also withhold refunds to taxpayers until their tax returns have been audited potentially years later, rather than promptly when the returns are filed.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that 12News’ anti-school choice reporters have been exposed in such light. In 2018, Harris (then with the Arizona Republic) falsely reported that Arizona charter schools produced worse student graduation rates and worse outcomes on the state A-F letter grade system than district schools. Both claims turned out to have been fabricated results stemming from a faulty, agenda-driven data analysis by Harris’ team.
In 2024, 12News’ Joe Dana likewise doubled down on false claims that ESAs cost state taxpayers more than the public school system per student by conveniently ignoring major sources of public school funding. The state’s Classroom Site Fund, for example, allocates over $1,000 for every public school student in the state and gives not a penny to ESA families.
Undeterred by journalistic standards, Dana’s 12News team also went further, deceptively extracting a fragment of a statement given by the state’s budget director (given in response to a completely different question) to suggest the ESA program had created unprecedented strain on the state budget.
The Heritage Foundation’s Matt Ladner and Jason Bedrick have already exposed a litany of deceptive claims flowing from outlets like 12News, while more prestigious national news organizations like The Washington Post have seen their recent anti-ESA narratives similarly debunked. Yet none of these outlets have expressed any contrition for their deceptive coverage.
Indeed, in perhaps the richest of ironies, Harris’ 12News team recently attacked ESAs for “hurting” high-performing schools like Arizona charter network BASIS by competing with it for students. Never mind that Harris previously attacked BASIS for its alleged poor stewardship of taxpayer funds. Now that it is clear he and the media were on the wrong side of that school choice debate as well, they have simply shifted to a new enemy in their war on parents.
Looking at the whole of Arizona’s education landscape, there is no question that those who seek to defraud the state—whether via the traditional public school system or its competitors—should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But if there is a scandal in our education system, it is the dishonest reporting by journalists who are more disturbed by parental empowerment than by the tens of billions of dollars squandered year after year in chronically poor performing public schools.
Matt Beienburg is the Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute.
Let’s start with a very simple truism: you can’t have prosperity without people.
Human beings are the most valuable resource, because it is human ingenuity that creates and cultivates all other earthly resources. We as human beings are the custodians and protectors of the planet, not its destroyers, as the radical environmentalists would have you believe.
The richer and more technologically advanced we become, the more likely we are to avert a catastrophic event like a giant meteor crashing into the planet and destroying all life.
Which brings us to a potentially ruinous trend: many countries are literally running out of people.
This alarming chart on births and deaths in Europe is a terrifying glimpse into the future of a new dark age of the western world, if birth rates don’t start rising — and quickly. Europeans are becoming extinct.
Negative population growth is a sure killer of prosperity and human flourishing. It’s also contrary to Christianity and most other religions, which instruct us to “be fruitful and multiply.”
It’s not just Europe. Japan and Korea will cut their populations in half over the next 80 years if they don’t start moving away from one child per couple rates of propagating.
Why are rich countries depopulating the planet?
For 60 years, prophets of doom like Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”) and governments around the world — including our own — warned that we all had a moral obligation to save the planet by having fewer babies. There were periods of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, forced birth control, and — in advanced nations like in Europe and the U.S. — a cultural sneering at families with four or five or six kids.
That mendacious propaganda campaign worked all too well. Look what it has wrought.
There are other explanations. As we have gotten richer — and especially as women’s earnings have risen — the “cost” of having a child in terms of lost income, has risen. Women are less likely to have more than one or two children. To be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that women should be paid less!
Marriage rates have declined, and vows are coming later in life, so the median year for a woman to have a child keeps rising — leaving fewer fertility years left for multiple children.
Religiosity has declined somewhat in our more secular “me first” society. That’s sad because childless couples tend to be less happy. And why have kids if you don’t believe there is a divine reason we were put on this planet?
The solutions to this problem aren’t obvious. Pro-natalist government policies, like paying people to have kids and offering free childcare have had spotty levels of success.
The U.S. has delayed the demographic crisis happening in Europe and much of Asia through immigration of young workers. Not only do immigrants increase the population, but they tend to have more kids than native-born Americans.
But even with immigration, we in America have an obvious aging problem.
One simple step is to start celebrating as a society the virtues and the self-sacrifice of motherhood. Our schools and our teachers and our clergy and our political leaders need to keep pushing the message that the greatest contribution men and women can give to saving our species is to have more kids — as soon as possible.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.
The Common Sense Institute’s recent report, Echoes in the Halls: Arizona School Districts’ Growing Problem with Empty Buildings and Empty Buses (August 2025), quantifies a reality that many parents and educators in Arizona already sense: the traditional district school system is struggling to adapt to the new education marketplace. The report highlights a staggering mismatch between student enrollment and district assets. District schools across the state now operate with seventy-eight million square feet of unused space—capacity for more than six hundred thousand students who are not there—representing assets valued at more than twelve billion dollars. Since 2019, district enrollment has fallen by nearly fifty thousand students, while close to forty percent of incoming kindergarteners are now enrolling outside their local district.
The story of transportation is equally telling. Even as eligible bus ridership has dropped by forty-five percent, districts have added more than three thousand new vehicles, bringing annual transportation spending to more than half a billion dollars. At the same time, capital expenditures have surged by sixty-seven percent in just five years, reaching nearly nine billion dollars, with hundreds of new buildings added even as families continue to leave for other options. The evidence points to a system built on assumptions of perpetual growth, unable to pivot as students migrate toward charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling.
The question is not whether Arizona has too many empty classrooms and idle buses—the report makes that clear—but why the system finds it so difficult to adapt. The answer lies not in the commitment of teachers and administrators, but in the political structure that governs districts themselves. For more than a century, Arizona’s districts have operated under locally elected boards with broad political and taxing authority. This design once served an important democratic purpose, anchoring schools to their communities. But in an environment defined by choice and specialization, it has become a straitjacket.
What is clear for anyone with any visibility on the governance model districts operate within is that the political cycle ensures instability. Board turnover, electioneering, and the shifting priorities of competing constituencies disrupt long-term strategy. Every few years, districts are thrown off course by new agendas, new mandates, new programs, new superintendents, and a seemingly unending supply of divisive debates. In a consumer-driven education market, where parents prize clarity, stability, and quality, such volatility is profoundly counterproductive.
By contrast, Arizona’s most successful education providers—charter networks like Great Hearts and BASIS—operate under governance models insulated from political churn. Their boards are mission-driven and stable, enabling them to stay focused on long-term priorities and to deliver a coherent and trustworthy experience. Families know what to expect from a BASIS or a Great Hearts school. Each has built a distinctive value proposition and a consistent culture, refined over years without disruption from local political battles. Governance stability has been essential to their growth and attraction, and it is no accident that they are now among the most sought-after public schools in the state.
The one-size-fits-all assumption that once defined public education—that a child would simply attend the local district school—has evaporated. Today, nearly half of Arizona’s students are educated outside of their neighborhood district school. Parents are no longer defaulting to their assigned option; they are actively choosing models that align with their values and aspirations for their children. They want education providers that are both distinctive and stable—schools that can deliver excellence without being buffeted by every election cycle or politicized by the latest ideological controversy.
The traditional political governance of districts is increasingly out of sync with these expectations. It undermines the very qualities—consistency, coherence, and focus—that families prize. Meanwhile, two generations of charter operators in Arizona have demonstrated that nonprofit governance structures free from political cycles can create durable, attractive, and scalable school systems. These operators are not without challenges, but they have proven that clarity of mission and insulation from politics allow for the steady building of educational brands that families trust.
The lesson is plain: if Arizona’s districts are to thrive rather than decline, they must be unshackled from their archaic political governance model. Continuing to operate under structures designed for the early twentieth century ensures further erosion of parent confidence and continued inefficiencies in managing billions of dollars of underutilized assets. A new path is needed, one that allows districts to reimagine themselves as nonprofit education management organizations, brings simplicity and flexibility to sources and uses of capital, allows for the restructuring of real estate portfolios, and the establishment of governance models capable of long-term stewardship. It would mean shifting from political governance to mission-driven governance, from reactive cycles to strategic stability. Nothing about this would be easy. It will take a thoughtful integration of the tax and governance issues that are best considered by a new commission of governance transformation.
Such a transformation is not about abandoning public education but about liberating it. It would align districts with the same best practices that have made Arizona’s most successful charters so attractive to families. It would give teachers a more stable environment in which to do their work, free from the whiplash of shifting political priorities. It would give parents confidence that their schools are governed for the long-term benefit of students, not for short-term political gain. And it would give students schools that are full, focused, and flourishing, rather than echoing with the costs of inefficiency.
The Echoes in the Halls report demonstrates that Arizona has reached a tipping point. Families have embraced choice, and the state’s education landscape has been reshaped accordingly. What remains is for governance to catch up with this reality. The way forward is not to cling to political structures of the past, but to free districts from them so they can compete on the same terms as the schools parents are already choosing. Only then can the empty classrooms and idle buses be replaced with what every community wants most: the sound of students learning in schools built on mission, stability, and trust.
Erik Twist is the Principal Partner and President of Arcadia Education. He served as President of Great Hearts Arizona from 2017 to 2022.
