Every election cycle, out-of-state special interest groups spend millions of dollars in Arizona to buy their initiatives onto our ballot. It often takes just a couple million dollars—pocket change to California billionaires—to pay a few hundred circulators to collect signatures. And they usually flood the streets with paid circulators in just Phoenix and Tucson, stripping all other Arizonans from having a voice in the process.
Not every state has a citizen initiative process. In fact, less than half (20) allow for citizen initiative amendments to state law. Arizona is even more unique because in 1998, the Arizona voters amended the constitution with the “Voter Protection Act,” preventing the legislature from amending any measure passed on the ballot unless they obtain a ¾ majority and the amendment “furthers the purpose” of the initiative. In effect, this means that anything passed on the ballot must go back to the ballot for future changes, much like a constitutional amendment.
Of those 20 states with a citizen initiative process, 11 have a signature distribution requirement. This means that in those states, the signatures cannot all be collected in just one city or major county, like they currently can here in Arizona. Instead, initiative proponents need to gain support from diverse regions of the state.
A modern-day example of voter integrity is the picture of an Iraqi woman holding up her finger colored in purple indelible ink, indicating that she voted. In 2005, an Iraqi woman posed for an iconic picture after leaving a polling station in Southern Iraq in the country’s first free election in over a half-century. She did so in defiance of deadly suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations.
The recorded history of democracy dates back to the 5th century in ancient Greece. The word democracy is derived from two Greek words – demos, which means people and kratos, which means rule. In the first elections in Athens, only the ruling class could vote.
Even though the United States of America is a democratic country, the path to “one person, one vote” has been a checkered one. In 1789, when the US Constitution was ratified, most states only allowed white landowners to vote.
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1870, gave Black men the right to vote. It wasn’t until 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed that women in all states were allowed to vote. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put teeth in prohibiting racial discrimination when voting.
Though we have come a long way since the concept of democracy was born, voter integrity is still on the forefront. The recent phenomena of widespread mail-in ballots have created a whole new potential of voter fraud. Ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states, puts the concept of the secret ballot into question. Is the person filling out the ballot actually the person registered to vote?
Congress has recently passed the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility Act (SAVE). This bill is waiting to be heard in the Senate. The act requires that all people registering to vote provide proof of citizenship in federal elections. Though it’s already against the law for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, the National Voter Eligibility Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status in federal elections.
On August 1, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court put a stay on a recent Arizona law that required showing proof of citizenship in all elections including federal. In 2020, 11,600 individuals voted in Arizona on federal only ballots without showing proof of citizenship. The 9th Circuit Court decision is now being appealed to the US Supreme Court.
With the recent influx of undocumented individuals entering the United States, the importance of citizens only voting is a front burner issue that the SAVE Act might resolve. Just showing ID when registering to vote and casting your ballot at the polls will bring back a level of confidence in our elections.
With stronger legislation addressing voter integrity, Americans may have even more trust in our elections—akin to the Iraqis proudly holding up their purple-stained fingers.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are free, fair, transparent, and lawful. As the top election official in our state, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes should be working every day to ensure this happens. And he should be providing an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that gives impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law.
This shouldn’t be that hard…or controversial.
But Adrian Fontes took it upon himself to produce one of the most radical EPMs in Arizona’s history. In fact, several of the “rules” in his EPM even go as far as to criminalize activity that is protected under the First Amendment—creating an unconstitutional chilling effect on protected political speech. Apparently, Adrian Fontes hasn’t read the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.
Because of this illegal EPM, we sued him. And last week, a Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in our favor, finding that Fontes’ EPM contains speech restrictions that violate the Arizona Constitution, misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
So, how did Fontes respond? Did he realize the error of his ways? Will he now properly understand his role and amend the EPM to align with the law? No. Instead Adrian Fontes has responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He’s resorted to maligning our organization in the media…
America’s athletes once again excelled at the 2024 Olympic games. Without the benefit of massive government-controlled sports programs enjoyed by many of their competitors, they proved their superiority while representing their homeland with sportsmanship and respect.
It’s not jingoistic to point out that America, in spite of some worrisome decline, is still number one in many other spheres. In terms of military might, industrial capacity, and technological innovation, we enjoy preeminence.
Yet our educational system, which in the long run may matter most, is below mediocre. We consistently score below average in math and literary achievement tests versus students from other developed countries.
Worse, we are producing graduates with scant knowledge of their own history, ignorant of the political and economic principles that created their privileged world. Many seem emotionally fragile, enthralled with identity politics and unable to tolerate those with opinions different from their own.
The reason for this is no mystery. American education policymaking is dominated by the federal Department of Education (DOE). The department was created by President Jimmy Carter in gratitude to the teachers’ unions for their support in the 1976 election. It has been the gift that keeps on giving as the DOE has faithfully represented the unions’ interests ever since.
Unfortunately, the union/DOE priorities are more directed to sweeping left-wing political agendas than the education of America’s school children. For example, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona enthusiastically supports radical gender ideology.
At this year’s “Trans Day of Visibility,” he advised children that choosing and changing their own gender is expressing the “gift to see things as they could be.” Our chief educator would better serve children by encouraging them to see things as they are and avoid life choices they may bitterly regret later.
Cardona also has strong feelings that teachers, not parents, should direct children’s education, even where values and morals are concerned. “Teachers know what is best for their kids because they work with them every day,” he assured us in a since deleted tweet.
The two largest teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), exposed their near total disregard for the educational progress of their charges during the recent Covid epidemic. They refused to provide in-person teaching long after the scientific evidence was clear that no harm came to children from school attendance.
AFT President Randi Weingarten, in her address at its recent annual conference, didn’t bother to address the enormous educational deficiencies caused by the lockout or exhort her members to focus on the needs of students struggling to catch up academically. Instead, she ranted hysterically about the “violence and fascism” looming if Trump were to win the presidential election. The main obstacle to educational success she perceived was those who question the resource materials that her unionized teachers select for their students of any age.
These unions’ all-purpose remedy for academic shortcomings is more funding. Yet decades of funding increases have produced no positive results.
For example, the Chicago Teachers Union, holding that testing is “junk science rooted in white supremacy,” argued against reopening schools on the grounds that resuming teaching was mere “sexism, racism and misogyny.” Instead, they demanded a $51,000 salary increase, 45 additional days off, and more annual LBGTQ training.
The result: the district now spends $29,028 per student, a 97 percent increase since 2012. Yet during that time, proficiency in math has dropped 78 percent from an already low level and reading proficiency has declined 63 percent. In other words, Chicago public school students are being sent into the world illiterate and mathematically incompetent. But their teachers are well paid.
America has no prospect of improving our educational system until the DOE and the unions are stripped of their influence. It won’t be easy. Realistically this is totally impossible under a Democrat administration, given the strong bonds between the unions and their captive party.
In its 60 plus years of existence, the DOE has failed to provide any academic benefits for our students. The consequences are now becoming apparent. Somehow, we must find the will to eliminate the Department and move forward.
It’s for the children. And the future of America.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
In the evolving landscape of Arizona high school sports, one organization stands as a relic of a bygone era, clinging to monopolistic control and outdated practices: the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA).
The origins of the AIA are important to note due to the group’s strong initial connection with three of the most pervasive forces for the center-left in Arizona K-12 politics: The Arizona School Administrators, the Arizona School Board Association, and the Arizona Educators Association, the local teachers’ union affiliate. In addition to sharing space, it is apparent that the AIA shares similar views as these three organizations in the protection of its monopoly of Arizona high school sports.
Like its original policy partners, the AIA has become synonymous with overreach, authoritarianism, and a childlike resistance to change. As more Arizona athletes and their families opt for alternatives such as Canyon Athletic Association (CAA) schools and independent prep schools, the AIA increasingly finds itself at an existential crossroads.
Its response? Double down on draconian policies that dash the dreams of student-athletes and undermine the dedication of coaches who are often underpaid and overworked. The systemic problem of AIA overreach in the decisions of Arizona families is bad enough that there are lawyers in our state that specialize in AIA conflict and dispute resolution, a troubling realization for an organization that claims to work on behalf of Arizona kids.
A Culture of Overreach and Punishment
The AIA’s authoritarian style is most evident in its relentless enforcement of rules that punish rather than promote the best interests of student-athletes. Consider the tragic case of Desert Edge High School in Goodyear, where the football and track programs were placed on probation due to a social media post by a successful coach who dared to advocate for his school’s athletic and academic quality when asked by a parent that was already seeking a transfer for their child.
The incident led to a harsh punishment that barred Desert Edge from playoff participation in both football and track. It took two hard working and dedicated coaches to fall on their sword to assuage the feckless AIA amid complaints from neighboring schools, who embrace a robust and shameful snitch culture to make up for the inadequacies of their own teams.
Why should the coaches that pour their souls into their athletic programs be barred from advocating for their schools? What harm is done by high school coaches explaining to prospective student-athletes and families the benefits of their program and school amid a generational shift that poses a long-term threat to public school enrollment in Arizona?
This decision not only penalized the coaches and players who had worked tirelessly to excel but also showcased the AIA’s ruthlessness in quashing any perceived challenge to its control. It is the duty of the AIA and its senior leadership to explain what they are so afraid of when parents and student-athletes vote with their feet and elect to make moves in their best interests, as opposed to the members that make up the AIA’s Soviet-style politburo, who would prefer to handcuff each and every kid to their assigned school to preserve its membership base and grow its payroll with additional bureaucrats.
The AIA’s overreach was most recently witnessed in its unfair and controversial decision regarding the Williams Field High School boys’ volleyball team, which had its state championship vacated after the AIA deemed the team ineligible due to an unsanctioned scrimmage shortly before playoffs commenced.
Never mind the fact that these young men were challenging themselves by taking the time out of their day to train against a better team in preparation for the playoffs, the AIA’s Stalinist approach takes precedence. Even though Williams Field High School self-reported the incident, it still took a legal battle by parents to allow the players to compete.
By allowing Williams Field to play, the AIA wasn’t exhibiting any kindness. Instead they did so as a legal strategy, before ultimately deciding to strip the team of its well-deserved title and expunge the team’s participation from the record books. If that isn’t reminiscent of Stalin, what is?
Valley Christian High School has also found itself in the AIA’s crosshairs, with investigations into alleged bylaw violations concerning student-athlete participation in non-AIA activities. The school’s basketball and baseball programs were subject to scrutiny simply for engaging in activities that promote player development and community service, which included a single Valley Christian basketball player living his dream to try out for the Italian national team and the audacity of the young men of Valley Christian’s baseball program who dared to engage in community service during a mission trip to the Dominican Republic, where the AIA struck down the chance for the team to scrimmage against Dominicans. Unless you happen to be privy to the inside baseball of the AIA’s autocrats, the logic and transparency behind such decisions is sorely lacking.
What the examples of Desert Edge, Williams Field, and Valley Christian cumulatively demonstrate is the fact that if the AIA can’t put their fingerprints all over an event and milk it for money while offering their papal-like blessing, then we have evidently reached the Armageddon of amateur athletics.
A Monopoly Built on Exploitation
Beyond punitive actions, the AIA has exploited its position to secure financial gain at the expense of Arizona families and student-athletes. One glaring example is the AIA’s concessionary monopoly on photography at state tournaments, where it has barred local newspaper photographers from prime locations, instead reserving these spots for a single private company to dig deeper into the pockets of Arizona families. This coming from the same organization that dragged its feet for two years at the idea of children retaining the rights to their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), a concept that should be automatically ubiquitous for all Americans of all ages without exception.
The association’s lack of care for student welfare was also evident in a 2012 lawsuit brought against the AIA under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit alleged that the AIA discriminated against a student-athlete with a disability by refusing to allow a sign language interpreter during tennis matches. The case was settled, with the AIA agreeing to policy changes and training to ensure compliance with the ADA. However, the incident underscores the AIA’s long history of prioritizing its rigid rules over the needs of individual students, even for common sense rights like the right of a deaf student-athlete to have access to a sign language interpreter.
With evidently little to do other than riding the coattails of the real legwork done by coaches and school athletic directors, the AIA generates its own work by targeting and investigating children and their families for making the best available choices to them. Is such an organization worthy of the voluntary participation of most Arizona schools?
The AIA has repeatedly targeted families and students who exercise their right to choose the best educational and athletic opportunities available. Longtime AIA Executive Director David Hines has been at the forefront of this campaign, having advocated for policies that would make student-athletes who dare to transfer schools ineligible for postseason play—a clear attempt to deter families from seeking better options for their children. Such policies punish students for seeking opportunities that align with their aspirations, while further entrenching the AIA’s fear-driven monopoly over high school sports in the state.
The AIA’s thirst for crony capitalism extends to its launch of AZPreps365, a news service it manages as part of its public relations strategy, as well as shady long-term partnerships it has entered with private entities. The fact that the AIA employs a Business Development Officer, in addition to a Chief Technology Officer, a General Manager of AIA Sports Properties, a Director of Media Services, an Account Executive, and 3 senior-level directors in the Executive Office tells Arizonans all we need to know about the “no-show job” racket that is the AIA.
A Monopoly on the Brink of Collapse
The AIA’s authoritarian grip on Arizona high school sports is not unbreakable. As more families and school districts explore alternatives, the organization risks becoming increasingly irrelevant. The growth of the Canyon Athletic Association is but one bright spot. The emergence of private, independent prep schools and specialized sports academies, particularly in soccer and basketball, offers a free-market alternative that prioritizes student-athlete development over bureaucratic control. Even football is not immune from a challenge by entrepreneurial Arizonans seeking to do right by kids instead of the system.
Indeed, the AIA’s monopoly could crumble with the exit of one major school district or a coalition of competitive districts seeking greener pastures. The defection of districts like Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, which frequently dominate in terms of their playoff appearances and championships in the AIA’s top-tier divisions, would suffice on its own to force the AIA to do an about-face. The departure of East Valley powerhouse districts from the AIA would reorient a significant amount of the talent outside of the scope of the AIA, rendering it less and less relevant for NCAA recruiting and hitting the organization’s purse strings directly.
The time is ripe for a new era in Arizona high school sports—one that values competition, opportunity, and the well-being of student-athletes over the preservation of an outdated and authoritarian institution.
As families continue to seek alternatives, the AIA must either reform or face obsolescence. Parents of AIA schools would be justified in contacting their school board members to contest their district’s future participation in a league that frequently puts the dictums of adults over the dreams of student-athletes.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizonan and is a former Student-Athlete, Teacher, Coach, Athletic Director, and Principal. His views are solely his own.
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests that the ongoing illegal immigration surge at the southern border will reduce the federal deficit by a staggering $897 billion over the next decade.
At first glance, this figure might seem like a silver lining to this national crisis. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex and concerning picture and reveals this report to be another example of the government trying to conceal the truth from American citizens.
While the CBO projects an increase in revenues of $1.175 trillion and an increase in mandatory spending and spending on net interest of $278 billion over the next 10 years, these numbers fail to capture the full scope of the situation. The report’s limitations and glaring omissions paint an incomplete picture that may lead to misguided policy decisions if Congress does not understand the actual fiscal impacts of the border crisis. By publishing such an incomplete report, CBO is playing a role in covering up the Biden-Harris border crisis and not giving Congress the information it needs to fix the problem.
One glaring omission is the exclusion of discretionary spending impacts. The CBO acknowledges that the immigration surge will likely put pressure on many programs funded through discretionary appropriations. In fact, CBO estimates that increased discretionary funding as a result of the border surge could total around $200 billion over the 2024-2034 period. This substantial sum is mentioned but not factored into the deficit reduction calculation because, as CBO says, “no clear basis exists for projecting how the immigration surge will affect [congressional] funding decisions.”
Moreover, the report “does not include estimates of the surge’s effects on state and local budgets.” The CBO itself admits that “[r]esearch has generally found that increases in immigration raise state and local governments’ costs more than their revenues, and CBO expects that finding to hold in the case of the current immigration surge.” New York City alone spent $4.3 billion from July 2022 to March 2024 to accommodate immigrants and comply with existing housing policies. Extrapolating this to other cities over a decade paints a sobering picture of the financial burden on local communities.
The state of Texas was forced to take action on its own. First with Operation Lone Star (OLS), a response to the border crisis triggered by the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to enforce federal laws along the border. OLS has cost Texans about $11 billion and that’s just to secure the border. That does not include costs to the state’s health care, education, and criminal justice systems — which increase with the addition of aliens who have been let in by the Biden-Harris administration. The CBO report does not adequately assess or include these costs and they can be found in every state.
The revenue calculations assume lower tax compliance rates among the population who entered the nation via the border crisis. This raises questions about the accuracy of the projected $1.2 trillion in additional revenue.
Beyond the fiscal impacts, the report hints at broader economic consequences. The illegal immigration surge is expected to lead to lower productivity, reduce average wage growth (particularly for non-college educated workers), higher interest rates, and increased medical and food prices. These factors could have far-reaching effects on the American economy and the well-being of citizens.
Perhaps most concerning is the CBO’s own admission that its “estimates of the budgetary effects of the immigration surge are highly uncertain.” The report lists numerous “[m]ajor sources of uncertainty,” including the number of aliens who have entered the country, the duration of the border crisis itself, the changing immigration status of individuals, and their impact on productivity. Essentially, many metrics crucial to the estimate are shrouded in uncertainty and the authors of the report knew it and still published these estimates that claim mass illegal immigration is good for the deficit.
Making policy decisions based on such questionable projections, where the political left has clearly put its thumb on the scale, could have disastrous consequences and exacerbate existing problems. We must demand a more comprehensive analysis that accounts for all costs — both seen and unseen. Not a report that is politically appealing to the left’s narrative on illegal immigration.
The border crisis is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. As we debate immigration policy, we must consider not just the potential fiscal benefits but also the hidden costs and societal impacts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated there were 74,702 fentanyl overdose deaths in the United States last year — a drug we know flows in through our open southern border.
Human trafficking and smuggling into the United States is a booming multi-billion dollar business for Mexican cartels. We must end this crisis now. When comparing the fiscal impacts to the human toll, money seems secondary and that is true, but understanding the monetary effects is important to solving the larger problem.
The CBO report should be seen as deficient and, overall, as a liability since it does not give Congress the information it needs to take action. The future of our nation depends on getting this right.
With an honest and complete assessment, we can get good legislation like the Secure the Border Act signed into law, force strong executive actions from future presidents, and keep Americans safe. These policies will ensure our nation knows who is coming in, and what the impacts of that are to U.S. citizens. But we need the CBO and Washington to stop playing politics with vital information.
