The Goldwater Institute has filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to intervene on behalf of two Air Force veterans in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect certain scholarship funds for children of military families.
The motion was filed on behalf of Nickolas Kupper and Robert Figueroa, whom Goldwater identified as Air Force veterans whose children currently participate in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The proposed intervenors are seeking to defend House Concurrent Resolution 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which the Legislature recently referred to the November 2026 ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona, and voter Linda May Lyon against the State of Arizona and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. According to Goldwater’s motion to intervene, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block HCR 2048 from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona's military families don't deserve to have their children's educational opportunities ripped from their hands. That's why we're stepping up to defend them. https://t.co/ayRcX5JbBE
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 2, 2026
Goldwater said in a July 2 announcement that Kupper and Figueroa are seeking to defend the measure because their families have used ESA funds for years and have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
“Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as Defendants to defend the constitutionality of House Concurrent Resolution 2048 (‘HCR 2048’), the ‘Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,’ which is a legislative referral passed to protect the educational stability of military families,” the motion states.
HCR 2048 proposes adding a new section to Article XI of the Arizona Constitution. Under the measure, the state could not confiscate funds from the scholarship account of a child of a military family if the account is maintained under a state program that designates such students as eligible and allows the funds to be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student who is the child of a person serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, who was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or who was killed in the line of duty.
The proposed amendment also contains a nonseverability provision. If a future law or voter-approved measure violates the military-family scholarship protection, the entire conflicting law or measure would be void, and a court could not sever only the offending portion.
The House passed HCR 2048 initially on March 2, the Senate passed it on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote, and the House passed the final reading on June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
Goldwater’s motion argues that Kupper and Figueroa have a right to intervene because the lawsuit directly threatens their ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s education funding.
“By seeking to keep HCR 2048 off the ballot, Plaintiffs directly threaten to block Proposed Intervenors’ ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s educational funding,” the motion states.
The filing also argues that the existing government defendants cannot adequately represent the families’ specific interests. Goldwater said Fontes is defending the measure as a neutral election administrator, while Kupper and Figueroa are defending the substantive validity of the proposed amendment because their children rely on ESA funds.
In its July 2 statement, the Goldwater Institute said, “The Arizona Constitution is clear: Arizona voters have the right to amend the state constitution, and the Military Families Protection Act would trump the activists’ efforts to cripple the scholarship opportunities currently afforded to Arizona military families and others.”
The lawsuit comes as ESA opponents are also seeking to place the Protect Education Act on the ballot. Save Our Schools Arizona says the proposal is intended to “reform Arizona’s universal ESA voucher program” and increase transparency and accountability.
The Protect Education Campaign announced last week that it submitted 421,451 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The Protect Education Act proposal would require unused ESA money to revert to the state and be directed to public schools, and it would bar families making more than $150,000 annually from joining the program. It would also ban ESA spending on non-educational or luxury items and require the Arizona Department of Education to report how much voucher funding each school receives.
HCR 2048 could conflict with the Protect Education Act because the proposed constitutional amendment would block future laws or ballot measures from changing the protected scholarship-account funds for military families.
Goldwater argued in its motion that the litigation is directly tied to that conflict, saying an adverse ruling could remove HCR 2048 from the ballot and leave the families’ ESA accounts vulnerable to “regulatory and financial rollbacks” under the competing Protect Education Act.
“Without HCR 2048, Proposed Intervenors’ educational accounts will remain highly vulnerable to systemic legislative and political volatility, including the exact regulatory and financial rollbacks slated under Plaintiffs’ competing ‘Protect Education Act,’” the motion states.
Kupper and Figueroa are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants, either as a matter of right or by permission. They also said they intend to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim rather than expand the litigation with counterclaims.
The case is assigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer.
The Arizona Supreme Court has kept a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s donor disclosure law alive, ruling that conservative organizations and anonymous donors may try to prove Proposition 211 violates the state constitution’s free speech protections as applied to them.
In its June 29 decision in Center for Arizona Policy Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State, the court did not strike down Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act. The justices rejected the plaintiffs’ broad facial challenge to the law, along with their claims under the Arizona Constitution’s Private Affairs Clause. But the court ruled that the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous donors sufficiently alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements could unconstitutionally burden protected political speech and association.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop their as-applied challenge and attempt to show that compelled disclosure of donors could expose supporters to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
Scott Freeman, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling “an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure.” He added that the court recognized that citizens are entitled to try to prove compelled donor disclosure violates Arizona’s free speech protections.
“From the very start, this case has been about protecting the freedom of everyday Arizonans,” said Peter Gentala, President of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). “No one should have to choose between supporting a cause they believe in and fearing harassment, retaliation, cancellation, or personal safety. Today’s decision affirms what we’ve always known to be true: our constitutional freedoms belong to every one of us, not just to those whose views happen to be popular at the moment.”
The Voters’ Right to Know Act requires nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
The court’s majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ann Timmer and joined by Justices James Beene and William Montgomery, along with retired Justice Rebecca Berch. Justice Kathryn Hackett King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Maria Elena Cruz was recused.
The majority held that Arizona courts must interpret the state constitution’s Speak Freely Clause independently from the First Amendment. The court said federal free speech cases may be consulted when helpful, but the Arizona Constitution remains its own source of free speech protection. “The Speak Freely Clause tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause’s protective scope,” Timmer wrote.
The court also concluded that donations made to an organization for the purpose of funding campaign media or knowingly allowing donations to be used for that purpose can constitute expressive conduct protected by the Arizona Constitution’s Speak Freely Clause.
For compelled election disclosure laws, the court adopted an Arizona-specific standard requiring the state or another defender of the law to show that the disclosure requirement meaningfully furthers election integrity or transparency and does not unreasonably burden or hinder protected expression.
Applying that framework, the court found that Proposition 211 meaningfully furthers election integrity and transparency. The court also found, however, that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the disclosure requirements may impose a concrete burden on their speech because public disclosure could expose donors or organizations to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
The court cited allegations that CAP and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) had faced threats and harassment connected to their issue advocacy. The opinion noted that CAP alleged it received a message stating, “Sooner or later, you will die, and some of us pray it is sooner,” and “You are a cancer that will soon be sliced out of our nation’s sick body. I will make it my personal mission to bury every single one of you.” AZFEC reported that staff had received threats of violence and that one staff member’s car had been vandalized in retaliation for communicating AZFEC’s message.
The two anonymous donors alleged that they had previously donated more than $5,000 to nonprofit organizations involved in campaign media and would limit future donations to avoid disclosure. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to allow the as-applied free speech claim to proceed.
“Free societies depend on people being willing to speak, advocate, and support important causes without fear of retaliation,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Today’s decision ensures that Arizonans will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Arizona Constitution protects those freedoms.”
Andrew Gould of Holtzman Vogel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, said the decision establishes that the Arizona Constitution is an “independent source of liberty” and confirms that Arizona courts are not required simply to follow federal free speech doctrine, adding it “recognized that plaintiffs may challenge compelled donor disclosure when it chills protected expression.”
The Goldwater Institute’s case page states that the organization represents the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two private donors in the lawsuit against the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, and public officials charged with implementing and enforcing Proposition 211.
Campaign Legal Center, which represents Voters’ Right to Know, framed the ruling as a victory for disclosure. In a statement, the organization said the court affirmed Proposition 211’s constitutionality by rejecting the broad challenge to the law while allowing the plaintiffs to attempt to prove serious harm from the disclosure requirements as applied to them.
Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter said the ruling affirmed “Arizonans’ right to know” who is spending major money to influence elections. The organization said Proposition 211 was supported by 72% of Arizona voters in 2022 and was designed to trace original sources of money spent in elections.
Justice King’s partial dissent, joined by Lopez and Bolick, would have gone further than the majority. The dissent argued that political advocacy before an election is core political speech and that anonymous speech contributes to liberty.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ as-applied Speak Freely Clause claim. The court did not strike down Proposition 211, and the plaintiffs still must prove that the law unconstitutionally burdens their speech as applied to them.
This November, voters will decide on a resolution amending the Arizona Constitution to further prevent noncitizen voting and foreign influence in elections.
House Concurrent Resolution 2001 passed the legislature along party lines last week. The Arizona Secure Elections Act, also known as the FAST Election Results Act, will appear on the general election ballot.
The resolution would amend the state constitution to repeat an existent declaration that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections. The resolution would also ban foreign nationals from contributing or expending money or anything of value to influence an Arizona election, and would require voters to show valid government-issued proof of identity for all voting methods prior to casting their ballot — including mail voting.
Republican State Sen. Alexander Kolodin (LD3), the resolution sponsor and secretary of state candidate, issued a press release describing the legislation as an opportunity for voters to establish better safeguards for elections by enshrining these proposed rules in the state constitution.
“For years, Arizonans have watched the same election problems repeat while trust in the system has eroded,” said Kolodin. “Election laws should be written by Arizonans, not dictated by bureaucrats, activists, or outside interests.”
Democrats and Republicans argued over the impact of the resolution during the Senate vote last Friday.
Senate Democrats criticized the legislation as redundant at best and a fatal threat to voting by mail at worst.
State Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-LD8) claimed the resolution was a “backdoor attempt” to end mail-in voting. Kuby accused Republicans of being stooges for President Donald Trump’s election policy preferences at the expense of Arizona voters.
“It’s disturbing to see the legislature put the desires of a sad, desperate man above their very own constituents,” said Kuby.
State Sen. Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18) called the bill “unnecessary” and filled with “vague” language, saying the state constitution’s present voter ID and citizenship proof requirements were enough.
State Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-LD24) said the bill was “voter suppression” and “a state-level SAVE Act.” Ortiz argued the resolution would enable lawmakers to repeal mail-in voting in the future. Ortiz claimed Trump was “plotting to meddle in the 2026 midterms.”
“The real goal of this is to make it harder for eligible voters to vote,” said Ortiz. “Our democracy is being systemically dismantled across the country.”
State Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D-LD12) said the legislation’s declaration that only citizens were eligible to vote was not only redundant and unnecessary, but that the other provisions would create an undue burden on mail-in voters.
“This bill opens the door to no more mail-in ballots,” said Epstein.
State Sen. Theresa Hatathlie (D-LD6) claimed the resolution was a template to “lay the groundwork for Project 2025.”
Republicans countered that existing voter registration requirements already require proof of citizenship, and that voters already anticipate security measures when casting ballots.
Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) accused Democrats of “confusing the issue” and misleading voters.
“You’re only scaring people and creating a false argument,” said Kavanagh.
State Sen. David Farnsworth (R-LD10) said an increasing number of Arizonans have lost faith in their elections, and that this resolution was the means of remedying that sentiment.
“Our motive is not to make it more difficult to vote, but to make our elections more secure so that all of us can have confidence that those who vote their votes will be counted properly, and that those who win the most votes will be elected,” said Farnsworth.
State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) argued that the “overwhelming majority” of Arizonans support these proposed provisions within the resolution.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A Goldwater Institute-backed measure to constitutionally protect Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) funds for children of military families will go before Arizona voters in November after receiving legislative approval.
House Concurrent Resolution 2048, sponsored by Rep. Michael Way (R-LD15), asks voters to amend Article XI of the Arizona Constitution by adding a new section prohibiting the state from confiscating money from certain scholarship accounts of students who are children of military families.
Under the resolution text, the prohibition would apply if the scholarship account is established and maintained by the state under a program that designates children of military families as eligible to receive scholarship money, and if the student may use the money for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary educational institutions. The resolution states that the provision is not limited to scholarship account programs established and maintained by the state only for children of military families.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student whose parent is serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or was killed in the line of duty. The measure defines “confiscate” as seizing, transferring, or otherwise taking money from a scholarship account.
The resolution includes exceptions for closures of accounts tied to individualized findings of illegal activity or wrongdoing after due process. It also accounts for routine account closures, including voluntary closure or failure to renew an account, graduation from an eligible postsecondary institution, or loss of eligibility after a student fails to enroll in an eligible postsecondary institution for at least four consecutive years after graduating from high school.
HCR 2048 also states that if a bill enacted into law or a voter-approved measure on or after Nov. 1, 2026, violates the proposed constitutional provision, the entire bill or measure is void and a court may not sever any portion of it. The resolution directs the Secretary of State to submit the proposition to voters at the next general election.
The measure passed the Senate on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote and passed the House on final reading June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
The Goldwater Institute described the measure as its “Military Family Protection Act” and said it is intended to protect military families participating in Arizona’s ESA program from future efforts to redirect or reclaim scholarship funds.
The Arizona Department of Education (AZED) currently lists 100,713 students enrolled in the ESA program this school year. The department’s Fiscal Year 2026 Quarter 1 report, covering July 1 through Sept. 30, 2025, counted 93,993 ESA students, including 975 students in the category for students whose parent is active-duty military or was killed in the line of duty.
Goldwater’s Director of Education Policy, Matt Beienburg, told lawmakers that military families should not lose scholarship funds through a separate ballot proposal aimed at the ESA program.
“There is a current ballot measure being proposed to attack the scholarship funds and confiscate the scholarship funds of children, including military families,” Beienburg said. “These families should not be treated as a piggy bank to raid. These are families who have protected this nation.”
Rep. Way said the measure is intended to prevent Arizona from reclaiming scholarship money after families were promised access to the program.
“This measure asks a very simple question: should Arizona be allowed to take scholarship money from military families after we promised them? My answer is no,” Way said.
The referral comes as opponents of the ESA program are circulating the Protect Education Act, a proposed ballot initiative that would impose new restrictions on the ESA program. The campaign says the measure would require background checks and safety standards for voucher-funded schools, add spending transparency rules, prohibit non-educational and luxury purchases, cap family income for ESA eligibility at $150,000 with annual inflation adjustments, require unused ESA funds to be returned, and require voucher-funded schools to be accredited or administer approved assessments. The campaign says students with disabilities would be exempt from the income cap and assessment provisions.
In an op-ed for AZ Free News, Matthew Ladner and Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation wrote that AZED published the results of a random audit of the ESA program in March 2026, “finding very low rates of misspending relative to other publicly funded programs and even lower rates of fraud. Less than 2% of ESA funds were spent on unallowed items, and 0.3% of the funds were spent on items considered ‘egregious’ or fraudulent.”
AZED disputed claims that the ESA program had a 20% fraud rate in a March release, saying about 2.0% of dollars spent by ESA account holders were for items deemed unallowable under program rules and that actual fraud or egregious purchases accounted for 0.3%.
“The submission of a purchase that is deemed unallowable does not constitute fraud,” AZED said. “Most are innocent mistakes, such as an error in a form that must be resubmitted, or educational items that are not on the allowable list but that the user could have in good faith believed were permitted. Some examples would be backpacks, lunch boxes and water bottles.”
AZED said the 20% figure represented program participants selected for risk-based auditing and “had nothing to do with fraud.” The department said action is taken to recover or collect funds or refer matters to law enforcement when necessary, and that more than $1.2 million had been recovered through that process.
Opponents of HCR 2048 have argued that its voidability provision could invalidate ESA reform proposals if voters approve conflicting measures. ABC15 reported that critics said the measure is aimed at blocking the Protect Education Act, while supporters said it is intended to protect scholarship funds promised to military families.
HCR 2048 was one of three education-related ballot referrals approved before the Legislature adjourned. Senate Republicans said the measures were intended to protect military families, direct more education dollars into classrooms, and restrict the use of taxpayer-funded school resources for labor organization activities.
“These scholarship funds were created for helping the children of military families pursue higher education,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman David Farnsworth said. “When government faces budget pressures, dedicated funds can become tempting targets. Arizona should never balance its books on the backs of military families or treat money set aside for their children’s futures as a piggy bank.
“This referral permanently protects those funds and ensures they remain available for the students they were intended to serve.”
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix seeking to block a proposed sale of downtown city-owned land to Pennrose, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the deal violates the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause and a state law governing municipal housing requirements.
The complaint, filed May 26 in Maricopa County Superior Court, challenges the city’s proposed sale of public land located at 1016 North 2nd Street for approximately $1.5 million. The lawsuit alleges the sale price is less than one-third of the property’s fair market value and would benefit a private developer in violation of Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution.
According to the complaint, Pennrose proposed what the lawsuit describes as “a blend of LGBTQ+ affirming affordable housing and a tuition-free preschool for under-resourced children,” with the preschool component to be offered by Bezos Academy. The Bezos Academy is a nonprofit organization founded by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com and owner of The Washington Post.
Court filings describe the property as consisting of three parcels totaling approximately 0.4 acres, or about 17,500 square feet. Goldwater attorneys allege the property was appraised at the direction of the city at approximately $4,812,500 in June 2023.
The Arizona Constitution requires government entities to receive a direct and proportionate return when they sell public assets. But Phoenix leaders are attempting to give Pennrose, LLC a massive discount on prime downtown real estate, agreeing to sell property worth at least…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 1, 2026
The complaint states the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 2023 seeking proposals for the purchase and development of the property. According to the lawsuit, the RFP set the minimum purchase price at $4,812,500, the property’s appraised value, while allowing proposers to offer a combination of cash payment and other purported public benefits to meet or exceed that amount.
Pennrose submitted a proposal in January 2024 to acquire and develop the property, according to the complaint. Goldwater attorneys allege the developer proposed purchasing the land for approximately $1.5 million and acknowledged, according to the complaint, that the proposed purchase price represented more than a $3.3 million discount below the RFP’s minimum purchase price.
City records show the Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-51809 on April 9, 2025, authorizing the sale and redevelopment agreement for the property, and later adopted Ordinance S-52672 on March 4, 2026, approving an amendment to the development agreement with Pennrose modifying the purchase price.
In a statement released June 1, Tony Napolitano, Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute, wrote, “Pennrose claims that the development will create public benefits worth more than the massive subsidy. But there’s a major problem: no valuable public benefit is identified, much less required, in the final agreement. In fact, the developer suggests the city should consider Pennrose’s own private gains from the project as public benefits. That theory turns the Arizona Constitution on its head.”
The lawsuit argues the proposed transaction would provide a subsidy to a private developer without the city receiving direct and proportionate consideration in return, as required under the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Goldwater also alleges Phoenix imposed an unlawful inclusionary housing requirement on the sale and development of the property. The complaint argues the city violated A.R.S. § 9-461.16, which restricts municipalities from requiring residential units to be designated for sale or lease to particular classes of residents as a condition of development approval.
Napolitano explained, “Pennrose initially proposed building a mixed-use development on the site, which would include low-income housing and a tuition-free preschool provided by a nonprofit. While the inclusion of a private nonprofit would not remedy the Gift Clause deficiency, it’s not even relevant because it was not included in the final terms of the deal.”
“That leaves the sole remaining alleged public benefit Pennrose claims: the residual value of the housing project once the agreement expires,” he continued. “However, the city retains no ownership interest in the property, and taxpayers will never receive any of their money back from the developer. Those assets remain with the private special interest—exactly what the Gift Clause was designed to prevent.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the proposed sale violates the Gift Clause, block the city from completing the transaction or conveying the property, declare the inclusionary housing requirement unlawful, and enjoin the city from enforcing such a requirement as a condition of development approval.
“Simply put, Arizona law does not give way just because city officials find a particular project desirable.
“Public property belongs to the public. When government officials transfer millions of dollars in public value to a private developer, the Arizona Constitution requires a genuine public purpose and a proportionate exchange—not deep discounts justified by speculative or illusory benefits that taxpayers will never see.”
AZ Free News did not locate a public response from the City of Phoenix regarding the lawsuit prior to publication.
Editor’s Note: Following publication, a representative for Bezos Academy contacted AZ Free News and said that Bezos Academy does not plan to open a location at the proposed Pennrose development in Phoenix.
