by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 1, 2026 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Over the last four years Governor Katie Hobbs, the teachers’ unions, and their allies in the corporate media have been relentlessly attacking Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) program, the most popular and successful school choice program in the country. Over 106,000 kids are currently using an ESA scholarship, with thousands more signing up each year.
Their most recent assault began last March, when the unions filed their ballot initiative in an attempt to gut ESAs. If passed, over 30,000 kids would have immediately lost their ESA scholarship or had their scholarship funds revoked because of the new restrictions. Another 400,000 children would have been permanently barred from participation in the program. The National Education Association (NEA) poured $7 million into this fight, hiring an army of paid circulators that were willing to say, and sometimes do, just about anything for a paycheck.
Interestingly, there were two different responses to this most recent threat. The response from most of Arizona’s school choice organizations and ESA families was a full-throated defense of the program. Within days, the AZ school choice coalition launched a countercampaign and made clear that ESAs would not go undefended. They fundraised, developed messaging, deployed grassroots “decline to sign” efforts, and crafted legislative countermeasures to put the unions on their heels.
And after the initiative was filed with the Secretary of State in July, a petition review was launched by the Goldwater Institute, which our organization helped support. That petition review revealed that thousands of signatures were either invalid or unlawfully collected by convicted felons. The result was that we proved in court that the NEA and Save our Schools was short of qualifying by nearly 15,000 signatures, and we knocked them off the ballot.
It was a pivotal victory in a long line of big wins for school choice in Arizona.
However, during this battle against the radical left, an alternative response to this attack emerged from the shadows: a belief that the only way to save the ESA program was to enact punitive regulations on the families that use the program. Rather than fighting back against the false attacks being levied against ESAs by the unions and the media, they preferred to make concessions that would make the program politically “attack-proof” in the future.
Sadly, this strategy has been tried in the past when dealing with the unions, and it almost resulted in irreversible disaster for our state.
Conceding the Issue to the Left Is the Quickest Way to Defeat
Our organization has seen this coordinated attack from the left before. Different issues, different talking points, but the same trajectory that involves goading us into accepting the other side’s terms of surrender…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by TJ Shope | Sep 29, 2026 | Opinion
By T.J. Shope |
Over the past few years, a government pay-to-play scandal has been brewing in Arizona that rivals the malfeasance we have come to expect from American bastions of improprieties like New York, Illinois, and California.
A couple of years ago, the state’s paper of record, The Arizona Republic, exposed a troubling relationship between Governor Katie Hobbs and Sunshine Residential Homes, LLC. The reporting revealed a suspicious link between political donations benefiting Hobbs’ inaugural fund and the Arizona Democratic Party and government-approved rate increases for Sunshine—at a time when similar increases were not being granted to other providers.
The revelation of a possible pay-to-play scandal at the highest levels of Arizona government sent shockwaves across the state and launched a quest for answers.
Thanks in large part to media reporting, we now know that more than $580,000 in political contributions from Sunshine Residential Homes and individuals connected to the company benefited Katie Hobbs and Democratic organizations. Then, the Hobbs administration approved rate increases that made Sunshine Arizona’s highest-paid group home provider per child. Internal messages uncovered over the past two years referenced Sunshine’s political connections and even discussed keeping its special arrangement quiet from competitors.
If that body of evidence doesn’t set off alarm bells, what will?
Following these revelations, three state and local officials sprang into action to investigate the allegations: Arizona’s Attorney General, the Auditor General, and the Maricopa County Attorney. Given the gravity of the allegations against Hobbs, each had a legitimate role to play.
But one of them—Attorney General Kris Mayes—publicly attempted to commandeer the investigation into her political ally, warning the other two against interference. Thankfully, the Auditor General and Maricopa County Attorney rejected this politically motivated power grab and continued exercising their lawful authority.
For more than a year, there was almost complete silence surrounding Mayes’ investigation, raising serious questions about her resolve to follow the facts wherever they might lead. Near the end of the investigation, we also learned that Hobbs had refused to sit down for an interview with investigators from the Attorney General’s Office.
Then, after two years—and conveniently just months before an election—Mayes cleared her fellow Democrat of wrongdoing, despite finding fault with numerous actions by the Hobbs administration.
In releasing her findings, Mayes suddenly announced a desire for reform. Even amid a matter as serious as this pay-to-play scandal, I had to laugh at the change of heart and sanctimonious posturing.
Over the past two legislative sessions, I introduced pay-to-play reforms designed not only to address concerns raised by the Hobbs administration’s conduct, but also to prevent future statewide officials from being tempted to travel down the same path. Hobbs vetoed both bills. Mayes stayed silent each time.
When Mayes had an opportunity to support meaningful reform, she said nothing.
That’s not leadership. That’s cowardice—and it helped set the stage for what has become a cover-up between Hobbs and Mayes.
As public servants, we have a responsibility to demand transparency and accountability from government. That obligation was not met by Hobbs, and it certainly was not met by Mayes’ sham report.
That’s why it’s time to shine some good old-fashioned sunlight on the Sunshine investigation.
Mayes must release the complete investigative file, including the evidence collected, relevant communications, interview and deposition transcripts, and the full rationale behind the decision not to prosecute. Arizonans deserve the opportunity to examine the facts for themselves. The other investigations with the Auditor General and Maricopa County Attorney remain open, and these must be allowed to continue without interference.
Transparency should not depend on political party. Accountability should not disappear when the person under investigation is a political ally. And reform should not suddenly become important only when an election is approaching.
Arizonans can rest assured that I will re-introduce these reforms again in the next legislative session—and I call on Attorney General Mayes to publicly support the policies ahead of time and work with me to ensure that these bills become law.
If she refuses, Arizonans will have every reason to conclude that this newfound concern for accountability was never really about reform.
It was election-year cover that would make New York, Illinois, and California mafia-style government officials proud.
T.J. Shope is the Arizona Senate President Pro Tempore and represents Legislative District 16.
by Mike Bengert | Sep 28, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
After investigating an Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint against the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) determined that Dr. Menzel and the SUSD Governing Board once again violated the rights of SUSD parents and the public. They were denied the opportunity to attend Phase II Design Team meetings and hear deliberations as the team developed recommendations on school closures and boundary changes for the Governing Board.
SUSD parents should be outraged that the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel denied them rights guaranteed by law while considering such impactful decision as closing schools.
And by “Governing Board,” I mean Members Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis. All three are union-backed Menzel supporters who consistently vote for his proposals, excuse the failures and consequences of his policies, and reward him with contract extensions and pay raises.
A.R.S. § 38-431.01(A), commonly known as the Open Meeting Law, states:
“A. All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be allowed to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.”
In its September 16 letter to the District, the MCAO stated:
“SUSD has already been warned by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that the Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by ‘informally’ forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public.”
Despite the Attorney General’s warning two years earlier, Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board disregarded it and again violated the public’s rights.
Any legal violation by SUSD is serious, but this one is especially egregious because it concerns perhaps the most consequential decision of Menzel’s tenure: school closures.
At the September 22 public hearing, parents described the profound effects the closures would have on their children and families.
Yet SUSD denied them the legal right to attend the meetings, hear the deliberations, and participate in the process. Had parents been allowed to attend, they could have raised questions and concerns for the board to address as the work proceeded.
The MCAO also stated in its letter:
“It is also advisable that the Governing Board acknowledge this investigation at the next public meeting and take steps to assure the constituents of SUSD that the intent of forming the Phase II Team was not to bar the public from the policy creating process.”
At what was the next meeting, held September 22, I was the only person to mention the OML violation. When I used that phrase, Dr. Lewis immediately interrupted and asked SUSD’s general counsel to stop the discussion, which she did. You can hear the exchange right here.
I understand why the Governing Board might hesitate to admit what it had done or try to assure parents that it never intended to exclude them and deny their rights.
At a December 2025 board meeting, the Board openly discussed how complying with the law, (i.e. posting an agenda in advance, keeping minutes, allowing public attendance, and enabling people to hear deliberations) would slow down the process, even if it was an acceptable alternative. Listen to the discussion here.
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that respects parents’ rights and will not sacrifice them for “flexibility and expediency” merely to allow the superintendent to be more “nimble.”
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that does not view a committee meeting behind closed doors as “much more interactive” than an open meeting where anyone who wishes to attend and listen to the deliberations can do so.
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that sees legal compliance not as a problem to solve, but as an opportunity to demonstrate they truly believe in the values of integrity, honesty, transparency, accountability, openness, and authenticity that SUSD espouses.
This is the kind of Governing Board SUSD parents should demand.
Unless the Governing Board fully understands and addresses the causes of SUSD’s declining enrollment and evaluates every viable option, it is unlikely to solve the problem. Closing schools under an ill-conceived plan, railroaded through behind closed doors, that fails to assess the full financial impact of the plan is irresponsible and will merely carry the district’s financial problems into the next budget cycle.
Parents, even if your child does not attend a school affected by this pending decision, do not assume you have nothing to fear. Menzel and his supporters on current and previous Governing Boards have repeatedly shown little regard for your rights. Without meaningful consequences, they will continue to ignore adverse legal findings and warnings and violate parents’ rights with impunity.
This Governing Board has failed the SUSD parents, and they must be held accountable.
Parents, will your school be next and your rights denied?
Attend the October 6 board meeting, voice your outrage, and urge the Governing Board to halt the school-closure process. Demand that it start over with a comprehensive plan that considers every option to deal with the declining enrollment.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Paul Parisi | Sep 25, 2026 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
On November 3, 2026, Arizona voters will decide the fate of Proposition 142. The measure would prohibit preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity in public institutions. Supporters call it a return to the constitutional promise that all Americans are equal under the law. Critics call it a rollback of programs meant to correct past inequities.
But there are two visions behind this fight, and they are older than the ballot measure itself.
One vision holds that the government should weigh group history to correct group-based disparities, a position shaped by theories of structural and systemic power. The other vision holds that equality means the law treats every person the same, without regard to group identity, a position shaped by classical liberal and natural rights philosophy. Merit, character, and individual effort determine outcomes under this view, not government classification.
Frederick Douglass, born a slave in Maryland who taught himself to read after his lessons were forbidden, had this exact vision. He fought for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, for equal protection under law, and for the plain idea that all men are created equal. He never asked the government to rank citizens by race. He wanted it to stop.
Karl Marx, born the same year as Douglass into comfort and support from Friedrich Engels, built a different framework, one where history is a struggle between oppressor and oppressed classes, resolved only through state power. He sought the type of government classification that is before Arizona today, where people are not seen as individuals but part of their respective collective.
Arizona Proposition 142 forces a choice between descendants of these two arguments, in the operation of public schools, employment, and contracting.
The ballot language is public record. The debate deserves the same clarity Douglass demanded in his own time. Read the text, weigh the history, and decide what equal protection actually requires.
Actual Referral Language
What Appears on Ballot
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 24, 2026 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
One by one, cities and towns across Arizona are abandoning their contracts with Flock Safety, the manufacturer of the controversial Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) you see around town. The black pole with a little solar panel on it? That is the infamous surveillance tool that has been taking over American communities in the name of safety at the small price of freedom.
These systems were not directly approved by voters or even the elected representatives. Many of these ALPRs likely would never have been approved by voters had they been given the choice. Privacy and government surveillance are across-the-board concerns. Whether on the right or left, Americans do not want their every move tracked.
Beyond privacy concerns, cases of law enforcement officers using Flock in inappropriate ways, such as stalking ex-wives or checking on family members, are not new. Across the country, Flock’s expansion has been accompanied by numerous cases of misuse.
Let’s take a look at where Arizona municipalities currently stand with Flock…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Mike Bengert | Sep 22, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Dr. Jennifer Johnson is the union-backed, Menzel-aligned progressive candidate for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board in the 2026 election. A career educator, she campaigns on the slogan “Experience Matters.” That is true, but parents’ experience with a public education system led by professional educators, like Dr. Johnson, also matters.
Americans’ satisfaction with K–12 education has fallen to 32%, the lowest level in Gallup’s 27-year trend, while dissatisfaction has reached a record 67%; only 8% are completely satisfied. These figures point to widespread concern about public education and growing demand for reform and alternatives. The survey is consistent with the results shown in the 2024 National Assessment of Education Progress.
Similar concerns are evident in SUSD: academic performance has continued to decline under Menzel, parents are withdrawing their children, and the district is closing schools. Yet Dr. Johnson’s website states, “SUSD is already recognized as a leader in academic achievement, and I am committed to ensuring that success continues for all students.”
A leader in academic achievement? In FY2025, fewer than half of SUSD eighth graders were proficient in math (49%) or science (47%). Among 11th graders, 55% were proficient in math and only 22% in science. Despite these low proficiency rates, SUSD advances or graduates 98% of its students. SUSD high school teachers say incoming freshmen are unprepared for high school course work, and college professors report the same. How does graduating academically unprepared students prepare them for life after school?
If Dr. Johnson, an experienced education professional, considers these results evidence of leadership, that’s a problem.
On top of that, Dr. Johnson’s only ties to SUSD are her relationships with Dr. Menzel and other district staff. She became a Scottsdale “resident” only recently and was recruited to run for the Governing Board to act as another rubber-stamp vote for Dr. Menzel’s agenda. Like current Board President Dr. Donna Lewis, also an education professional, Dr. Johnson has no prior history, experience, or connection with SUSD. She would further weaken meaningful board debate and again deny SUSD parents and the public the opportunity to hear opposing views on district policies and decisions.
In June, Dr. Pittinsky explained his vote to extend Menzel’s contract and approve a raise by citing surveys that described SUSD as well run. However, the Arizona Auditor General reported that district data showed SUSD moving toward the high-risk category because of declining enrollment and other financial pressures, including the transfer of more than 36% of capital funds to operations. Keep that in mind.
Yes, experience matters. And for decades Americans have experienced a steady decline in public education, a decline we have seen firsthand in SUSD under the influence of teachers’ unions and so-called education experts, like Dr. Menzel, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Pittinsky, and Dr. Johnson.
Scottsdale residents, SUSD students, and their families cannot afford another Governing Board mistake.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
