This week’s erroneous attack on Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) is another example of how biased reporting is misleading lawmakers and the public.
When the Arizona Auditor General last week released its Single Audit Report on the state for fiscal year 2024, Craig Harris of Channel 12 News had another fairy tale ready for viewers and readers. The ESA program, he claimed, is “plagued by weak controls, questionable spending, and internal management failures.”
No mention was made of the Arizona Department of Education’s recent finding that only 2% of ESA funds were spent on unallowed items (mostly innocent errors like backpacks and lunch boxes), and only 0.3% of ESA funds were spent fraudulently.
A new Arizona Auditor General report finds the the percentage of misspending in the state's Empowerment Scholarship program was a stunning 34 percent, based on a sample of transactions from July 23-October 25.
The report also is highly critical of @RealTomHorne management….
Both halves of that claim are false. And the falsehoods are not minor.
Start with “random.” The Auditor General’s report describes the relevant sample in unambiguous language: “we judgmentally selected 63 expenditure transactions for review occurring between July 2023 and October 2025 totaling $251,446.” [Emphasis added.]
A footnote on the same page adds, for the benefit of any reader who might be tempted to make the mistake that Harris did: “We selected our audit sample(s) to provide sufficient evidence to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Unless otherwise noted, the results of our testing using these samples were not intended to be projected to the entire population.” [Emphasis added.]
Judgmental sampling and random sampling are not synonyms. They are distinct methodologies with distinct inferential properties. A random sample can be projected to a population; that is its entire purpose. A judgmental sample cannot, which is why auditors use it to probe suspected weaknesses rather than measure their prevalence.
In this case, the auditor general was testing the robustness of the Arizona Department of Education’s review process, not trying to determine the prevalence of misspending in the ESA program.
More responsible journalists, such as Garrett Archer of ABC 15, made sure to clarify that the auditor general’s findings were not generalizable to the entire program.
Note: This is not a program transaction error rate. The Auditor General's focus was on the review process itself.
— The AZ – abc15 – Data Guru (@Garrett_Archer) May 12, 2026
In other words, Harris completely misrepresented the auditor general’s methods and findings. That is sloppy at best, dishonest at worst.
Not only is the “34% misspending” figure not generalizable, it’s also not all misspending.
The 34.4% figure comes from dividing $86,599 in flagged transactions by the $251,446 sample. But Table 2 of Finding 2024-04 breaks those flagged transactions into five categories, and only two of them — “unallowable expense” ($2,155) and “overpayment” ($9,977) — involve money the program should not have disbursed.
The other three — missing documentation ($42,760), missing accreditation ($14,175), and “indicators of possible misuse” ($17,531) — are paperwork and compliance gaps. A tutor’s accreditation certificate that wasn’t uploaded is not the same thing as a misspent dollar. The actual confirmed misspending share within the sample (combining 0.9% unallowable expenses plus 4% overpayments) is about 4.9%, not 34%. Moreover, as the report concedes, even the 4.9% figure cannot be projected to the entire program.
In short, Harris conflates paperwork issues with misspending and treats a non-generalizable sample as generalizable, even though the auditor general warned readers not to do exactly that. Then Harris’s manufactured anti-ESA talking points are repeated ad nauseum by politicians and political activists.
Harris built an entire investigative series on a Department of Education internal review that supposedly reported a 20% misuse rate — except the internal review, like the auditors’ sample, was not designed to be projected. Harris projected it anyway.
When the same Department then produced a separate analysis suggesting misuse was minimal, Harris turned around and faulted that study for over-generalizing from its sample. For Harris, non-generalizable findings become generalizable when they damage ESA. Generalizable findings become non-generalizable when they don’t.
The convenient feature of this method is that the error always points the same direction. A reporter who genuinely struggled with the statistics of audit sampling would make mistakes in both directions over time. Harris’s don’t. They cluster.
And they remain uncorrected. Harris’s original 20% claim has never been retracted. The “random sample” language and the 34% framing are now circulating through campaign statements, legislative press releases, and social media posts, citing Harris’s distorted reading of the Auditor General report.
One cannot help but notice that Harris’s manufactured anti-ESA talking points come at a moment when anti-ESA groups are gathering signatures for two ballot initiatives to curb and regulate the ESA program. One also cannot help but wonder whether the downstream political effect is more than incidental to the reporting.
The Auditor General’s findings on ESA are real and worth engaging on their own terms. The program’s risk-based audit methodology is likely better than any other program in the state, but it could still be improved. The auditor has some substantive criticisms, and ADE will have to answer them.
Arizonans deserve honest reporting on those findings, not statistical fictions dressed up as “journalism.”
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow and Corey DeAngelis is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
This November, Tucson voters are being asked (again) to approve a 25-year franchise agreement between Tucson and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Franchise agreements are generally standard arrangements that allow utilities to use public rights-of-way for poles, wires, and infrastructure. But there is nothing standard about this deal. Bundled with it is an “Energy Collaboration Agreement” that will quietly embed climate policy into Tucson’s governance for the next quarter century. Voters should read the fine print (and the price tag) before checking the box.
If Tucson voters are having déjà vu reading this proposal, it’s because it is awfully similar to what they have already said no to. In May 2023, Proposition 412 put a nearly identical TEP franchise agreement before the public, and voters rejected it by a 55-45 margin. That deal included a new 0.75% “community resilience fee” on top of the existing 2.25% franchise fee, with proceeds earmarked for undergrounding utility lines as well as funding the city’s Climate Action Plan. Despite voters already telling the city they don’t want it, city leaders and TEP have assumed residents really just want a more expensive version of the same thing – rebranding and trying to ream through for a second time the same agenda but at a cost of $64 million instead of $56 million.
What the franchise agreement really does is help TEP maintain infrastructure, expedite permitting, and improve outage response. But TEP can still operate without a franchise agreement, meaning this vote is not about whether Tucson continues receiving electricity. Instead, it creates the legal foundation for a broader political partnership between the city and the utility…
Most Arizonans are likely aware of the coup d’état to unseat Heather Rooks from the Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) board president position. Board members Becky Proudfit and Melissa Ewing requested the special meeting on May 5, 2026, with approval from superintendent Dr. KC Somers, and a guaranteed vote from board member Jeff Tobey. As I said in my recent Substack, Tobey would not have been elected to the board without Rooks’ help.
For those unaware of the backstory: two Centennial High School teachers, Haley Beck and Angela Burlaka, were credibly accused of sexually exploiting and abusing their students. What the public doesn’t know is the extent of Centennial High School principal Scott Hollabaugh’s knowledge of these alleged crimes. The 200-page Peoria Police report reveals Hollabaugh had “spoken to Beck” about student complaints of inappropriate behavior on campus.
Rooks sought an investigation into Hollabaugh’s potential failure to act as a mandated reporter pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3620. Arizona laws should have compelled Hollabaugh to report Beck to authorities, even in good faith. At the very least, an internal district investigation into both teachers’ actions should have been conducted to determine if children were safe around them. Instead, Beck and Burlaka remained in their classrooms.
PUSD leaders mistake the public for fools. They expect us to believe all the kids at Centennial knew about Beck’s alleged sexual relationship with a student, but all the adults in the school were too dumb to pick up on it. The progressive majority school board also wants parents to “wait and see” the results of pending investigations. However, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office confirmed to Rooks that they were not looking into mandated reporting violations.
During the April 23, 2026, board meeting, Tobey, Proudfit, and Ewing voted against an independent third-party investigation into Hollabaugh’s conduct, as well as all other employees who stayed silent. In regard to unseating Rooks, the progressive majority claimed they had “heard from so many in the community” that she was unfit to be board president. Rooks was elected by over 40,000 Peoria residents. So, unless Curly, Larry, and Moe are sitting on 40,000 emails, they didn’t hear from a majority of anybody. They acquiesced to the demands of teachers’ unions and certain turncoat Legislative District leaders.
The angle no one is talking about is how cover-up culture also marks the career of Dr. Somers. Before coming to PUSD, Somers was the superintendent of Lewis-Palmer School District 38 (LPSD) in Monument, Colorado, serving roughly from July 2019 to April 2024. During that time, students from Palmer Ridge High School accused the district of failing to act when a star athlete named Anthony Roberson allegedly harassed and sexually assaulted several female students without consequence. The alleged crimes reportedly took place between 2016 and 2020 when Roberson attended Palmer Ridge.
A former Palmer Ridge student named Jenna Baker started a Change.org petition that said, “Because of the allegations…it seems [Roberson] was pressured to graduate early instead of facing expulsion or exposure. The admin at the time gave him this choice as an easy way out. Justice was never served for his behavior.” The petition garnered over 5,700 signatures as it circulated among CU Boulder students who had attended high school with Roberson and were facing four more years with him at the college.
According to Fox 21 News, Baker came forward and “accused the school district of negligence and ignoring a litany of sexual assault and harassment reports filed by students.” During the April 17, 2023, LPSD school board meeting, Baker answered a call to the public and stated, in part:
“I was sexually assaulted at 15 years old by another [Palmer Ridge] student and still suffer from PTSD to this day, despite the fact [Palmer Ridge] was made aware of the student and at least five other sexual predators at large in the district in 2022. And no consequences were ever implemented, telling my parents the same thing they always tell victims, ‘It’s my word against his.'”
Shortly after Baker’s speech, Somers told LPSD board members that he was “looking forward to continuing the good work that’s in front of us and maintaining our focus on what’s most important.” He then read a prepared statement where he claimed to “stand wholeheartedly opposed to all forms of misconduct of a sexual nature, and take all reports of student and potentially staff misconduct seriously.”
Although some alleged sex crimes predate Somers’ time in LPSD, he was superintendent during the timeframe when Baker accused district administrators of allowing Roberson to quietly graduate early. Roberson was supposedly investigated by local law enforcement, but the allegations never led to formal charges. I found no record of LPSD conducting an internal investigation to know whether sex crimes had taken place on campus.
In light of all the controversy and contradictions, Somers popped up in Peoria and is now working with Tobey, Proudfit, and Ewing to silence the outcries and control the narratives surrounding Beck, Burlaka, and Hollabaugh. Now that his “good work” is almost finished in PUSD, Somers will soon be heading back to Colorado to serve as superintendent of the Eagle County School District. I hope those families know what kind of “leadership” is headed their way.
When Peoria High School basketball coach Patrick Battillo (Mr. ORNG) was arrested for child sex crimes, a teacher named Holly Holgate—who had been in the district for 20 years—tipped him off before police arrived to make an arrest. Battillo recently pled guilty to three counts of attempted exploitation of a minor but only received a three and half year prison sentence. I did not find court records showing Holgate was prosecuted for any crime.
Now do you understand why Rooks didn’t want to “wait and see” what happens with the other open investigations? Do you see why Hollabaugh should be placed on administrative leave until all investigations are concluded? Is it possible police investigators missed something during their initial interviews? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then you know Rooks was well within her First Amendment right as a mother, taxpayer, and resident to insist on an investigation into mandated reporter violations—and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office gave her the green light.
Rooks’ inquiry does not interfere with any other open investigation even though the three progressive board members are trying to make people think it does. At the same time Rooks is being accused of political grandstanding, it’s Tobey, Proudfit and Ewing who turned grooming and sexual assault into political theatre. Whatever Rooks’ aspirations or motivations may be, they are irrelevant to the fact that she’s trying to increase student safety on campus…which is one of the pillars Tobey ran on in 2024.
For the record, nobody has to follow any directives given by Tobey, Proudfit, Ewing, or Somers. Their positions and authority were given to them by voters, and they can be taken away by voters. If parents, including Rooks, want an investigation into mandated reporting violations, they should be able to submit a request without retaliation. The U.S. Constitution is higher than any district policy, and holding public office does not equate to a forfeiture of constitutional rights.
Aesthetics only matter to people who have something to hide. Those of us who put children’s wellbeing first don’t care how much money it costs, how much time it takes, or how much damage is done to the district’s reputation. We want all sexual predators, and all their accomplices, off the payroll and locked up.
Witnesses and victims of Beck and Burlaka are encouraged to contact the Peoria Police tip line. Anyone can also sign the Change.org petition calling for a full child safety investigation into PUSD.
Less than an hour had passed from when Republicans delivered a budget to Katie Hobbs desk yesterday to when she stamped it with a ‘veto.’ No one is surprised, since from the moment she walked out of negotiations six weeks ago and “challenged” Republicans to show their budget hand, she had already made up her mind about vetoing it. She just needed them to do all the work first.
Hobbs has grown far too comfortable being the only one setting conditions on budget negotiations, considering every condition she has set has been unreasonable, unworkable, or erratic.
She tried to anchor the entire budget to an unprecedented raid of the state land trust, speculative revenue requiring voter approval that could never functionally bridge her reckless spending. She wanted to deliver only half the conformity relief Arizona taxpayers are entitled to under the One Big Beautiful Bill, in direct contradiction to tax forms her own Department of Revenue already issued, creating tax filing chaos. She tried to “trade” not forcing that tax hike on Arizonans for kicking kids off the ESA program (insane). And when Republicans said no to all of it, she flipped the table and stormed off, openly admitting she was out of ideas, and demanding Republicans produce a budget on their own.
While the veto from Hobbs was largely expected, Hobbs’ explanation for her veto was such brazen hypocrisy that it raises the genuine question of whether she is being ironic or fails to see the numerous contradictions in her opposition to the GOP budget…
Over the past three years, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has been executing a political agenda.
She has refused to defend state laws—while going out of her way to attack common-sense federal policies—simply on the grounds that she personally disagrees.
She’s failed to uphold our values. She’s destroyed common sense. And she has pursued an extreme political agenda to appease her party leadership—all the while undermining President Trump’s efforts to make America great again.
Principled, hard-working Arizonans have paid the price for her politically motivated dereliction of duty.
I’m running for Attorney General because Arizona desperately needs a top law enforcement officer who will uphold our laws and fairly represent Arizona families.
As Senate President, I’ve taken part in over 110 lawsuits to ensure Arizona’s laws and interests are defended when the Attorney General wouldn’t act. We have led an unprecedented campaign to protect Arizonans, and our action has provided unparalleled experience.
I’ve defended Arizona’s sex offender registration laws. The case in question, Doe v. Sheridan, argues whether our state can mandate convicted sex offenders to keep law enforcement informed, including reporting online identifiers used on social media and other platforms, so officers can investigate crimes and prevent future harms. The Arizona Legislature stepped up and successfully defended the sex offender registration laws in court after the Arizona attorney general failed to carry out her responsibility to do so.
I’ve defended the integrity of girls’ sports. As Senate President, I’ve led the defense of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act in federal court against special interests seeking to allow boys to play in girls’ sports. We’ve taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and we’re waiting on a major ruling from the nation’s high court on similar cases that could affect Arizona’s law.
I’ve defended laws dealing with the First Amendment. One of those cases was Chiles v. Salazar, where the Arizona Legislature joined a challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban. Another was in NRA v. Vullo, where we challenged whether the State of New York could threaten banks with adverse regulatory actions if they provided services to the National Rifle Association.
I’ve defended laws related to the Second Amendment. One of those cases was Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, defending American firearms manufacturers from being held liable from frivolous lawsuits from foreign entities. Another was Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on the manufacture, distribution, importation, and possession of various firearms.
I’ve defended laws related to the Eighth Amendment. Under my leadership, the Arizona Senate filed briefs to allow cities to disband homelessness encampments, winning at the Supreme Court.
I’ve defended the state’s right to carry out justice regarding capital punishment.
I’ve defended election integrity. We intervened to defend Arizona’s ability to make sure only citizens are voting in our elections.
I’ve defended our state against radical environmentalists. In Petersen v. EPA, we sued the Biden-led EPA to overturn unattainable environmental standards that punished job creators, and detrimentally impacted America’s power grid. We joined a lawsuit to block a California rule forcing trucking drivers to use less efficient battery-powered vehicles, which would have further increased the costs of everyday items.
I’ve defended our state against unconstitutional executive overreach. We challenged then-President Biden’s executive order forcing federal contractors and their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
And I’ve defended our state against rampant government encroachment on our lands.
Thanks to my involvement in these—and dozens of other legal efforts—I’ve been called Arizona’s de facto Attorney General, stepping in where our liberal Attorney General has shamefully abdicated her role. Our engagement in these matters has allowed me to serve our great citizens and provide leadership where none existed. It’s time for Arizona to once again have an Attorney General committed to serving all the people—not just partisan special interests.
Arizona’s trailblazing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program enables the families of more than 102,000 students to choose the learning environments that work best for their children.
All Arizona K-12 students are eligible for an education savings account, which lets families direct their children’s education funding toward private schools, tutoring, curricula, therapies, and other educational expenses that fit their children’s unique needs.
Families love it. Three-quarters of parents of school-aged children in Arizona support it.
Yet, although the ESA program is very popular and highly accountable, special-interest groups pushing two separate ballot initiatives are seeking to curtail and regulate it. Advocates working on both campaigns have been caught on camera giving false information to voters whom they are soliciting to sign their petitions.
The initiative aims to regulate the Empowerment Scholarship Account program in several ways, including restricting eligibility to families earning under $150,000 annually—less than the median income of an Arizona firefighter married to a registered nurse—which could kick tens of thousands of children out of the program.
Although students with special needs would still be eligible, they would have to spend 45 days in a public school before getting access to the ESA.
As the Goldwater Institute detailed, the initiative would impose a host of unnecessary and harmful regulations on private schools and homeschoolers. It would also severely restrict what families can buy with their ESA funds, and it would confiscate any unspent funds remaining in a family’s ESA at the end of the year, punishing families who have spent wisely and saved. Those funds would be redirected to district schools that did not educate the ESA students.
The second campaign, Fortify AZ, is more surprising. It is backed by the American Federation for Children, a pro-school choice group.
Their initiative mostly mirrors the union-backed anti-ESA initiative, including a modified version of a provision that the Goldwater Institute has warned “[t]hreatens to block parents from buying basic school supplies and grind the ESA program to a halt with mindless bureaucratic red tape.” However, it would retain the ESA program’s universal eligibility and would not confiscate yet-to-be-used ESA funds.
Nevertheless, the American Federation for Children initiative is worse in other ways, as it would impose regulations and restrictions that the union-based initiative does not.
For example, it would require all ESA students to take a standardized test—something no school choice law in Arizona has required in three decades—and would eliminate two of the four ways that families can spend their ESA funds, leaving only direct pay and “Marketplace,” which is an online platform managed by ClassWallet.
The last provision is particularly puzzling, as the American Federation for Children claims its initiative is intended to “strengthen fiscal accountability and prevent fraud,” which it would supposedly accomplish through “an online marketplace payment system.” According to the Arizona Department of Education, only 0.3% of ESA funds have been spent on fraudulent or egregious purchases, and nearly all the fraud was in Marketplace.
Meanwhile, the two payment methods that the American Federation for Children would inexplicably eliminate—debit cards and reimbursements—have almost no fraud. It makes zero sense to eliminate the more accountable payment options in the name of “accountability.”
The American Federation for Children ballot initiative goes against the wishes of nearly every ESA family, 90% of whom say they support having ESA debit cards.
Arizona School Choice Advocates Oppose Both Initiatives
“The entire Arizona school choice coalition opposes both anti-ESA initiatives,” explains Jenny Clark, the founder and executive director of Love Your School, a local school choice group.
“These initiatives have the potential to disrupt the education of tens of thousands of students,” warned Clark. “They would make it harder for families to use their ESAs, impose unnecessary regulations of private schools and homeschoolers, and even throw children out of the program and potentially out of the schools that serve them.”
Dan Kuiper, the executive director of the Arizona Christian Education Coalition, agrees. “These initiatives were crafted and funded by out-of-state special interest groups without any input from Arizona families or education providers.”
Kuiper worries that if either initiative were to pass, it “would force education providers who serve even one ESA family, including those who serve children with disabilities and special needs, to become part of the government bureaucracy that has already failed many of these families, causing them to seek the alternatives that the ESA offers their children.”
National school choice organizations are also weighing in. EdChoice, the nation’s premier school choice organization, also opposes both ballot initiatives because they would impose “new restrictions” that “would do little to improve accountability while directly reducing the flexibility that families value most.”
Caught on Camera: Initiative Backers Misleading Voters
Under Arizona law, citizens can bypass the Legislature by collecting enough signatures to place a measure directly before voters. Once enough valid signatures are gathered, the initiative goes on the ballot, and a simple majority decides the law.
The ballot initiative process depends entirely on voters understanding what they’re signing. That process is undermined when activists give false or misleading information to voters.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what signature gatherers working for both initiatives are doing.
In one video taken by an ESA parent, a signature gatherer working on behalf of the American Federation for Children initiative made it appear as though the ballot initiative was creating a new school choice program rather than curtailing an existing one. She claimed erroneously that the ballot initiative was “to help out with the cost of charter schools, private schools, tutoring, for the kids.”
Not only do charter schools not charge tuition, but full-time charter school students are not eligible for ESAs.
Worse, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer appeared to encourage Arizona voters to also sign the other, union-backed anti-school choice petition, claiming that it is “the same thing,” albeit with an income cap. “This is just to help get it onto the ballot,” she explained, “either or, whichever one you sign.”
When the ESA parent challenged the signature gatherer, noting that the ESA program already exists, she had no response.
This was no isolated incident.
In another video, a signature gatherer working for the American Federation for Children erroneously stated that their initiative was “to keep the ESA scholarship for families.” Of course, no initiative is needed for that.
Even more troubling, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer misrepresented the initiative, falsely portraying it as “not restrict[ing] ESA funds.”
As in the other video, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer told the voter that she could “sign both” anti-ESA petitions.
In a third video, a pair of signature gatherers representing each of the two initiatives falsely claimed that their ballot initiatives expanded school choice.
When asked what the ballot initiative would do, one signature gatherer misrepresented that it was “to support the children so that they get the funding … to receive the funding and expand the Empowerment Scholarship program.” The second gatherer also fraudulently asserted it was “to expand the [ESA] program.”
When the voter asked the first signature gatherer how the initiative would expand the ESA program, she replied, “By adding more funds.” That is false. The ESA program is already fully funded via the state funding formula. Neither initiative adds additional funding.
The series of false statements by the signature gatherers working for both anti-ESA initiatives could lead to legal trouble.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-116 states: “A person who is a circulator of an initiative or referendum petition and who induces any other person in the circulator’s presence to sign the initiative or referendum petition by knowingly misrepresenting the general subject matter of the measure is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”
Likewise, Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-119.01 states that “any fraudulent means, method, trick, device or artifice to obtain signatures on a petition” constitutes “petition signature fraud.”
Whether Arizona’s anti-school choice attorney general actually prosecutes the fraud is an open question. But one thing is certain: Both anti-ESA ballot initiatives would hurt the children who currently benefit from the ESA.
“Neither of these initiatives deserves to reach the ballot,” said Clark. “If you’re approached to sign either one, the right answer is simple: Decline to sign.”
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
