For decades, Arizona has been a national model for how to responsibly manage and develop water resources. As a result, our state has enjoyed years of economic growth while welcoming millions of new residents to live and work here.
Then, Governor Katie Hobbs came along.
In 2023, the Hobbs administration imposed sweeping new water rules that effectively halted new home construction across much of the Valley, under the guise that it was needed to “save water.”
Now, a court has struck down the policy, ruling that state regulators ignored the law when creating the rules behind it. But the fallout from this disastrous decision is only beginning. And Arizona taxpayers could soon be forced to pay more than $1 billion for the damage.
Arizona Is Not Running Out of Water
Despite the alarmist rhetoric coming from Hobbs and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), our state is not running out of water.
In fact, our state uses less water today than it did in 1990—even though our population has doubled to more than 7 million residents. That’s not a typo. Over the past three decades, Arizona has welcomed millions of new residents while reducing total water consumption.
How is that possible? Through better water management, technological advancements in conservation and reuse, and the gradual conversion of agricultural land to residential development. The result is a system that has allowed Arizona to grow responsibly while protecting its long-term water supply.
But instead of building on this successful model, Hobbs declared a sweeping housing moratorium—halting new single-family housing construction across much of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
A Manufactured Crisis With Real Consequences
In addition to destroying billions in economic activity and further exacerbating the housing shortage crisis, Hobbs’ moratorium created a number of additional problems…
For years, Americans were told our schools existed to expand minds, encourage debate, and prepare young people to think independently. Today, too many do the opposite.
Conservative voices are being shouted down, disinvited, or silenced by radical activists and administrators more interested in appeasing the far left than defending free speech. What happened recently in South Carolina is just the latest of numerous incidents across the country.
Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, a successful businesswoman, unapologetic conservative, and strong supporter of President Trump, was pushed out of delivering the commencement address at South Carolina State University after activists objected to her political beliefs. University officials cited “security concerns,” but the real issue was ideological intolerance.
From Ivy League institutions to taxpayer-funded public universities to our K-12 schools, activists increasingly dictate who may speak, which ideas are acceptable, and what students are allowed to hear.
Administrators routinely surrender to pressure from the left while treating conservatives as threats rather than participants in open debate. That should concern every American.
Our education system has drifted far from its mission. Instead of teaching students how to think critically, schools now teach them what to think. Activism has replaced scholarship, and ideological conformity has replaced intellectual diversity. And taxpayers are funding it.
The time for cosmetic reform is over. America needs structural change.
First, tenure at publicly funded colleges and universities must end.
Tenure was intended to protect academic inquiry. Too often now, it protects ideological activists from accountability while classrooms become platforms for political agendas unrelated to education.
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year, several professors openly celebrated or excused political violence against someone they opposed politically. That moment exposed how radical parts of academia have become.
Lt. Governor Evette rightfully called for the end of tenure because employment should be based on performance and professionalism, not guaranteed lifetime protection.
Second, our schools must return to education instead of indoctrination.
Parents expect schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, and critical thinking. They do not send their children to be immersed in divisive identity politics, anti-American rhetoric, or gender ideology.
Students should graduate understanding the principles that built this country, capable of thinking independently, and able to engage with opposing viewpoints.
Finally, parents must have real authority over their children’s education.
For too long, bureaucracies and special interests trapped families in failing schools. Every parent deserves the freedom to choose the educational setting that best serves their child, whether public, charter, private, technical, or homeschool.
Choice creates accountability. Competition drives improvement. Parents, not government officials, should make these decisions.
This is not just a South Carolina problem. It is happening nationwide.
We need conservative leaders like Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, who are willing to confront these problems directly. She understands what is at stake and has consistently fought for parental rights, accountability, school choice, and classrooms focused on education instead of activism.
If we fail to reclaim our schools and universities now, the consequences will reach far beyond the classroom.
Mick Zais is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and has been a dedicated conservative voice in the fight for education reform. Zais served as Acting Secretary of Education and as Deputy Secretary under the first Trump Administration. He also served as Superintendent of Education in South Carolina from 2011 to 2015 and President of Newberry College from 2000 to 2010. Zais retired from the Army as a brigadier general.
A recent op-ed in the Arizona Republic by the Arizona Center for Economic Progress argued that the legislature’s budget “doesn’t add up” and that Arizona needs a “reality check.” We agree a reality check is in order, but definitely not the kind being offered.
The argument, which has become the standard refrain from the Left on tax policy, is that Arizonans have enjoyed too many tax cuts over the years (the fault of Republican lawmakers), and that this has left the state anemic in revenues and starved of the ability to provide essential government services.
But the average middle-class, tax-paying resident would probably scratch their head at this. They still have roads to drive on. The police still come when they call (except maybe if they live in Tucson). There are still bureaucrats employed to receive their tax filings and permit fees.
No matter how much the Left likes the story that government is running on fumes, people don’t believe it – and their intuition is right, because none of the actual data supports it. The reality is the very opposite. Arizona’s state budget has been ballooning for years. Our welfare programs have never been more riddled with fraud. And governments of every size in the state just keep sizing up. But most concerning about the myth that state government is poor and taxpayers are too rich is that it belies a philosophy that every Arizonan should find alarming…
A new round of videos confirms that the spread of misinformation is extensive on both campaigns.
The entire Arizona school choice coalition opposes both measures because they would curtail the ESA program, which enables the families of more than 102,000 Arizona students to choose the learning environments that work best for them.
The initiatives would greatly disrupt their education by imposing new restrictions on how families can spend their funds, layering on bureaucratic red tape, and—in the case of the union-backed measure—kicking tens of thousands of children out of the program entirely.
In the latest clips, signature gatherers working for Protect Education Now, a joint project of Save Our Schools Arizona and the Arizona Education Association, and Fortify AZ, backed by the American Federation for Children, misrepresent the basics of the initiative and the ESA program itself.
Surprisingly, the talking points used by the supposedly pro-school choice campaign frequently mirror those used by ESA opponents.
Both Campaigns Grossly Exaggerate Misspending
In video after video, signature gatherers working for both initiatives wildly exaggerate the prevalence of fraud in the ESA program and hype the supposed purchase of “luxury” items such as jewelry, lingerie, trips to Disneyland, and other tabloid-ready spending that are forbidden under the ESA regulations.
One signature gatherer wearing a badge for Petition Partners, the group hired by the American Federation for Children-backed campaign, claimed that the ESA funds were used for jet skis and vacation rentals.
Another signature gatherer wearing a Petition Partners badge claimed there was $10.3 million in misspending in 2025. She failed to note that that accounts for barely 1% of total ESA spending, and that the vast majority of unallowed expenses were innocent mistakes, such as backpacks, lunch boxes, and water bottles.
Although there is room for improvement, Arizona’s ESA program is among the most accountable of any Arizona government program.
The Arizona Department of Education has confirmed that only 0.3% of ESA spending has been flagged as fraudulent or egregious—and nearly all of that occurred in the ClassWallet Marketplace channel that the American Federation for Children-backed initiative would preserve, while eliminating the debit card and reimbursement options that have almost no fraud at all.
Both Campaigns Spread Misinformation
Some gatherers from both campaigns have gone further still, telling voters verifiably false information in order to induce them to sign their petitions.
One Petition Partners signature gatherer told a voter that ESA parents were not required to submit receipts and that they could “buy a puppy” with their ESA and “say it’s for science class.” In fact, parents are required to provide receipts and other documentation. Moreover, the Arizona Department of Education confirmed that no ESA funds have been spent on puppies.
Another Petition Partners signature gatherer told a voter that parents were using ESA funds on cruises and home remodeling, while yet another claimed they were buying “cars and houses” with ESA funds. The Arizona Department of Education confirmed that no ESA funds have been spent on cruises, cars, houses, or home remodeling.
In some cases, the signature gatherers misrepresent the ballot initiatives to make them appear to be providing more education options for students.
In one video, a signature gatherer wearing a badge for FieldWorks, the group hired by the union-backed campaign, falsely tells voters that signing the petition would “help low-income students go to college.” The ballot initiative does no such thing.
In another video, a signature gatherer wearing a Petition Partners badge claims that the ballot initiative was “for everybody to be able to qualify for the [ESA] program.”
When the voter pushed back, noting that all students already qualify now, he replied (incoherently), “Because there’s something that’s against it already, so we [are] trying to get it on the ballot to be voted on instead of it just being changed.”
Ballot initiative workers have even spoken falsely to voters about the nature of their employment. In one video, a signature gatherer wearing a FieldWorks badge falsely tells a voter that he works for the Secretary of State’s office.
FieldWorks, the Arizona Education Association, and Save Our Schools Arizona did not respond to a request for comment.
It is unsurprising, if dishonest, when a teachers’ union and an avowedly anti-choice group resort to these tropes. It is genuinely appalling when a campaign backed by a self-described school choice organization spreads misinformation about a popular school choice program.
The American Federation for Children did not respond to a request for comment.
Previous videos have shown workers from the two campaigns colluding to gather signatures. In a new video, a signature gatherer with a FieldWorks badge that identifies her as a “team leader” introduces a voter to her fiancé, whom she claims is working for the “other education petition,” seemingly referring to the American Federation for Children-backed campaign.
The FieldWorks worker claims to be the “top signature gatherer in the state.” Her fiancé does not appear to be wearing a badge identifying the campaign for which he works, but he is holding a clipboard for the Fortify AZ petition.
When asked for comment, the owner of Petition Partners, Drew Chavez, deferred to their spokesperson David Liebowitz, who runs a self-described “public relations, political and crisis communication firm.”
The spokesperson declined to answer questions about the involvement of the American Federation for Children in crafting the messaging provided to the Petition Partners signature gatherers, instead providing the following statement: “Petition Partners has hands down the most thorough training program in the industry. Each of the more than 800 circulators hired for this effort has spent hours training on how to comply with state law and the facts of the measure itself.” The Petition Partners spokesperson said that they “have had reports of people pretending to be [Petition Partners] team members in an effort to discredit our work.” When asked to confirm or deny the employment of individuals who appeared in the videos, the Petition Partners spokesperson declined to answer.
Jack Reany, an ESA parent from Tucson, says that he has spoken with more than a dozen signature gatherers. He expressed shock at how little they tend to know about the ballot initiatives they’re asking people to sign.
“The public is being dangerously misled,” says Reany. “The fraud-and-accountability narrative is a smokescreen obscuring a deeply consequential piece of legislation: one that would strip legal protections from private schools, remove children from educational environments where they are thriving, and raid savings set aside by disabled students for their future.”
Arizona law is clear. Under A.R.S. § 19-116, knowingly misrepresenting an initiative’s subject matter to induce a signature is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The videos keep accumulating. Whether Arizona’s anti-ESA attorney general acts on them is another question.
In the meantime, the advice from Arizona’s school choice advocates remains unchanged: If a gatherer approaches you with either petition, decline to sign.
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
In 1949, George Orwell wrote the novel 1984, in which the fictional character Winston works for the Ministry of Truth in a totalitarian government. His job is to manipulate historical records to justify the Party’s present and future actions. Orwell captures this idea in the chilling line: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Today, there is a growing concern that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could play a role in shaping and distorting our understanding of history. AI systems rely on vast and ever-expanding databases of information to generate responses and conclusions. As more data is added the interpretation of what is considered “true” shifts over time.
We can already see examples in modern society where new revelations about historical figures lead to dramatic changes in how they are remembered. Statues are removed, holidays reconsidered, and achievements reevaluated or diminished. In Orwell’s dystopian vision, this process was called being “unpersoned”—erased from history altogether.
Orwell’s story was influenced in part by real events, particularly the manipulation of information in the Soviet Union. It served as a warning about the dangers of centralized control over truth and historical narrative. Today, while our society is very different, some see parallels in how information is shaped and distributed through AI and social media, raising concerns about influence over public thought.
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, an important question emerges: will our nation’s rich historical heritage remain intact, or will it be reshaped by evolving interpretations amplified by AI? Some critics argue that certain modern historical narratives present interpretations that are more opinion-driven than fact-based. An example is the book 1619 that paints a distorted view of the history of the United States of America. This type of invented history is part of the data base AI uses to determine truth
Truth is a human characteristic. The Constitution of the United States contains passages that reflect truth. The words in the Declaration of Independence that refer to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” reflect absolute truth as does the reference to “Unalienable Rights”. As AI becomes a more prominent tool in our daily lives, it is essential that we remain aware of its limitations.
AI can be a powerful resource, but it does not replace human judgment, critical thinking, or a commitment to truth. If we are to preserve an accurate understanding of history, we must remain engaged, thoughtful, and discerning in how we use and interpret the technologies shaping our world.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
On May 12, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board voted 5-0 to place a $375 million capital bond on the November 2026 ballot. Five months earlier, the same body voted 3-2 to close Pima Elementary and Echo Canyon K-8 over declining enrollment and its poor fiscal management.
SUSD has lost roughly 6,250 students since 2010-11, a 24% decline. Applied Economics, the district’s own demographer, projects another 2,400-student loss by 2035-36. Six additional campuses sit on the Phase II repurposing list and are likely the next to close. Yet, the district wants a bond 64% larger than the last one approved by voters to renovate buildings it is in the process of closing.
In 2019, Pima was rebuilt with funds from the last school bond approved in 2016 to boost the school’s enrollment. Seven years later, the Pima renovations are a startling example of hubris that comes at a colossal cost to taxpayers.
State-funded enrollment is down7.19% over four years, which directly reduces the per-pupil dollars the district receives.
The day-to-day operating reserve lost nearly half its value in a single year, falling from $18.86 million to $10.60 million.
SUSD spent more than it took in two years running, by 4.14% in FY25 and 8.52% in FY24.
The General Fund savings account fell 25% in FY25 and 31% in FY24, a combined $28 million drawdown.
SUSD pulled $4.2 million of its state capital aid, money meant for buildings, technology, and buses, and used it to cover payroll and operations instead.
In other words, SUSD is so operationally distressed that it is cannibalizing its capital fund to make payroll. A bond cannot fix that. By law, bond proceeds can only be spent on capital projects, not on salaries or classroom costs.
If this bond is approved, SUSD will still have to make cuts, most likely to staff while throwing away money to maintain spaces it cannot afford to operate.
This pattern is statewide. Chandler Unified has similarly delayed school closures and narrowly forced through a bond in 2025 after a 2024 bond request led to the district’s first school bond rejection in 30 years. Kyrene passed a $161 million bond in 2023 and is still closing six schools. Bonds do not solve enrollment declines, nor do they save jobs. Scottsdale Governing Board member Pittinsky put it plainly in the December 2025 closure vote: “SUSD is nearly 25% smaller than we were 15 years ago, yet we have closed only one program in that timeframe.”
The political machinery behind school bonds runs on the profit motives of vendors and not on the genuine needs of students, families, or the school district. The Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting documented that three architects, three construction firms, and three subcontractors captured more than half of Arizona K-12 contracts from 2013 to 2016, doing so through hundreds of thousands in political contributions to pro-bond PACs statewide.
SUSD voters have seen the worst side of school bonds co-opted by the greed and financial interests of vendors. In 2018, former Superintendent Denise Birdwell steered architectural work to Hunt and Caraway without competitive bidding, accepted $30,000 in payments during contract negotiations, and appointed an unlicensed architect with a prior felony theft conviction on the contractor selection committee. She was later indicted on 18 felony counts. Yet, the same conditions that enabled this malfeasance still remain in place with no real guardrails to protect taxpayers from the too cozy relationship between district leaders and vendors.
Before SUSD asks taxpayers for $375 million, the Governing Board and Superintendent Scott Menzel owe the district three deliverables that address the Auditor General’s findings.
Complete Phase II closures before any new funding request.
Align capital planning to the 2035-36 enrollment projection of 17,340 students.
These actions would constitute rightsizing in earnest through fewer schools, a smaller operational footprint, and a proportionally smaller payroll.
A district carrying five high-risk flags from the Auditor General has not earned the right to ask voters for $375 million. Scottsdale voters would be well-advised to reject the request this fall.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizonan, a professional educator, and a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University, where his research focuses on school bonds and K-12 education funding. The opinions presented are solely his own.
