by Matthew Holloway | May 10, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona State Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in the case Center for Arizona Policy v. Hobbs, which revolves around Proposition 211 and the right of political donors to privacy.
The case, brought by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the protections of the Arizona Constitution, which are stronger than even the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbid Prop 211’s forced disclosure of donors and nonprofits who support or oppose ballot initiatives. The Goldwater Institute cited the Arizona Constitution in a press release, “The state constitution, after all, provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than does the federal constitution—promising both that ‘every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,’ and that ’no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs.’”
In Goldwater’s case summary, the organization warned, “Everyone has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being canceled. Unfortunately, a new measure in Arizona—Proposition 211—tramples on this foundational right. It requires individuals who donate to nonprofits to risk having their private information reported to the government and disclosed to the public. It was sold to Arizonans under the guise of transparency and ‘disclosure.’ But voters weren’t told the full story.”
Goldwater Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman explained, “This is a very exciting development. There are few rights more precious to Arizonans than their rights to free speech and to the ballot initiative process. The anti-privacy law undermines these freedoms by telling people that if they dare to support a political position, they have to give up their confidentiality and potentially become a target for retaliation and even violence.”
A lower Arizona court rejected the Goldwater’s arguments under the guise that “having an informed electorate,” in service of the government’s interests overrides campaign donors’ right to confidentiality, claiming that they can simply “opt out of contributing to campaign media spending.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Andrew Gould, disagrees. Back in legal practice with the law firm Holtzman Vogel, and representing the plaintiffs alongside the Goldwater Institute, Gould said, “That’s just not true. Even under the law’s ‘opt-out’ provisions, some donors’ information must still be made public, and donors don’t really have a way of controlling how an organization spends donations, which means they can’t really control whether their information is made public.”
Because the case raises claims based on the Arizona Constitution, the burden of protecting donors’ privacy is even greater than in other states according to Gould who wrote, “Our state constitution provides stronger security for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution does. The authors of the state constitution intended to protect the right to donate to ballot initiative campaigns and the right not to have one’s ‘private affairs’ made public by the government. This law violates both those promises and says that if you donate to a nonprofit group that supports or opposes a ballot initiative, the government’s going to paint a target on your back.”
The Goldwater Institute referenced several serious incidents in the past decade which saw political donors and non-profits become targets for threats, vandalism, and violence from radical political extremists. It noted that donors to California’s anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008 became targets of property destruction and physical assault when they were effectively ‘doxxed’ by the state. A similar incident in 2020 unfolded when a group of non-profit organizations engaged California in a lawsuit after Sacramento published approximately 2,000 documents with donors’ personal identifying information. Inevitably this led to a campaign of violence and harassment by far-left extremists.
The California law that allowed this to happen was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Apr 27, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Maricopa County Supervisor Mark Stewart is hoping the latest Shared Services Agreement (SSA) approved unanimously this week by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors wins approval by Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap.
In a statement, Stewart wrote, “Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to send a new draft of the Shared Services Agreement (SSA) concerning election responsibilities to Maricopa County Recorder, Justin Heap. This updated draft incorporates feedback from the Recorder’s Office. To be clear, this is not the final version of the SSA. The Recorder will now have the opportunity to review the document, propose additional revisions, and return it to the Board for further consideration.
He added, “Based on my discussions with Recorder Heap and members of the Board, we are 95% of the way towards finalizing the SSA. I am more optimistic about this process than at any point previously and am confident that we will reach a signed agreement in the near future.”
Board Chairman Thomas Galvin wrote in a statement Thursday, “For months, the Board and its staff have been negotiating details of a new SSA in good faith. It’s time the public knows the full story, and this latest agreement includes many concessions from our Board.”
In a statement released the same day, and later retracted, shared by several outlets, Heap wrote, “The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors presentation today was one side of an ongoing negotiation. Recorder Heap disagrees with some statements that were made; however, his focus remains on getting an elections agreement in place that best serves the voters of Maricopa County. The agreement put forth by the Board today represents the framework of a deal, but the devil is in the details, and those details still need to be ironed out. Recent delays in the negotiation stem from the Recorder’s need to secure more adequate counsel.
“With the appointment of former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould to assist in the negotiations, Recorder Heap anticipates and looks forward to a successful resolution and agreement in the near future.”
Under Arizona law, the responsibility for the management of elections falls between the County Boards of Supervisors and County Recorders. Ostensibly Shared Service Agreements delineate the responsibilities of each body to increase efficiency and prevent unnecessary spending.
Supervisor Debbie Lesko expressed herself as being “beyond frustrated,” with the process saying, “After the April 11th meeting between Recorder Heap and Supervisors Galvin and Brophy-McGee, Justin texted me saying the meeting ‘went very well, we seem to be in agreement on 95% and are only discussing minor details on how to effectively split the IT team.’ Our lawyer writes up the agreement based on the meeting and then, next thing I know, Justin fires his attorney and we seem to be back to square one.”
Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee laid the difficulties directly at the feat of the County Recorder saying, “Recorder Heap has not been a trustworthy partner in these negotiations. He doesn’t seem to know what he wants. He doesn’t seem to understand his statutory responsibilities. The only thing he seems to be really good at is threatening lawsuits. But there’s time for him to change. He can come back to the table and sign this agreement. I hope he does. Successful elections in Maricopa County depend on it.”
As of this report Recorder Heap has not released a revised statement, nor explained why the initial statement was taken down.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
- Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
- Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
- Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
- Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
- South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
- Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
- Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 30, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced his opposition to Proposition 140 in a press release from the ‘No on Prop 140’ Committee last week. Prop 140 would convert the Arizona elections system into what has been referred to as “a California-style election scheme built around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries.”
“Prop 140 would hand the keys to our elections over to a future Legislature, and potentially give a blank check to one partisan politician — the Secretary of State — to determine on his or her own which candidates advance to the general election,” Ducey said.
“Like many Arizonans, I am open to reforms, but this is a recipe for disaster and unintended consequences. We can do better. Join a bipartisan coalition of Arizonans in voting No on Prop 140.”
“We are grateful for Governor Ducey’s staunch opposition to Proposition 140,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Governor Ducey, like many Arizonans of varying political persuasions, realizes the irreversible harms this ballot measure would inflict on our state. We must not allow Arizona to fall prey to this dangerous election scheme. Vote NO on Prop 140!”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the efforts to impose this new system of voting on Arizona is being bankrolled by a group known as ‘Unite America’ (formerly known as the Centrist Project) which gave over $1.7 million to boost the Make Elections Fair PAC earlier in October.
This group, headed by Kent Thiry, a wealthy political figure who has spearheaded progressive political causes in Colorado, has and is still pushing similar reforms in states such as Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The committee explained that Prop 140 would add 15 new amendments to the Arizona Constitution. It would:
- Allow one partisan politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race.
- Result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot.
- Force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates under a rank choice voting system and others that do not.
- Increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.
Ducey, returning to political news after an extremely public and acrimonious split with Trump-supporting Republicans, endorsed both President Donald Trump and AZGOP Senate candidate Kari Lake for the 2024 election in August. “Much is on the line this election year & I’m encouraging all eligible Arizonans to vote & prioritize the issues that most affect our state & nation. I will be voting for Republicans up & down the ballot in November — and both Donald Trump and Kari Lake have my endorsement,” he wrote in a social media post.
Ducey explained:
- “The border must be secured.
- Inflation must be tamed.
- America must be respected around the globe and World War III must be avoided.
- The Supreme Court should not be restructured by Chuck Schumer.
- The TCJA [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] must be extended and made permanent.
- School choice must be supported.
Differences aside, there is too much on the line and only a Republican in the White House and a majority in the House and US Senate can ensure it.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 13, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona may soon be faced with an overhaul of its election system if a current ballot measure passes this November.
In the upcoming General Election, state voters will decide the fate of Proposition 140, which would transform Arizona’s election system into what has been referred to as “a California-style election scheme built around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries.”
According to the No on 140 campaign, which is being co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, if passed by voters, Prop 140 would:
- “Allow one partisan politician (the Arizona Secretary of State) to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race.
- Result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot.
- Force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates under a rank choice voting system and others that do not.
- Increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
Just recently, this opposition group released a bipartisan list of organizations from around Arizona that were encouraging their followers to vote against Proposition 140. These groups included the Coconino County Democrats, the Gila County Democratic Party, Heritage Action for America, Goldwater Institute, Republican Party of Arizona, League of Women Voters, and the Libertarian Party of Arizona.
In a piece for the Goldwater Institute, Gould wrote, “Americans are understandably concerned about the current acrimony and division in politics. But rather than addressing this problem in a focused, thoughtful manner, Prop 140 takes a sledgehammer to the Arizona Constitution by imposing ranked choice voting and jungle primaries on Arizonans.”
Trent England, the founder and executive director of Save Our States and co-chairman of the Stop RCV Coalition, added, “Ranked-choice voting makes the entire election process more complicated and less transparent. That is why so many places that have tried RSV have gotten rid of it – something Alaska voters are poised to do this year. Yet the onslaught continues, thanks to just a few billionaires who would make our elections worse.”
Thanks to a heated legal battle that ping-ponged between the state’s supreme court and superior court, both sides have an extremely limited window to make their case to voters why Arizona should or should not enact this system to replace our current elections operations.
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court made its final ruling in a matter concerning tens of thousands of duplicate signatures that threatened to upend this measure for voter consideration. Despite a special master’s determination that 99% of the signatures were, in fact, duplicates, the state’s high court allowed Prop 140 to go forward before the Arizona electorate. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club accused the proponents of this proposition of “obstruct[ing] and delay[ing] the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
