by Matthew Holloway | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that prevailing wage ordinances enacted by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson violate state law, ruling in favor of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, represented by the Goldwater Institute in a lawsuit challenging those laws.
The decision holds that local ordinances requiring contractors on certain public works projects to pay “prevailing wages” are prohibited under a 1984 state statute, A.R.S. § 34-321(B), that forbids cities from imposing prevailing wage requirements. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the ordinances conflict with state law.
Goldwater’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Builders Alliance, and the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, who argued that the ordinances exceeded cities’ authority under Arizona statute.
In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, “The real winners in today’s ruling are Arizona taxpayers—as the court itself made clear.”
Sandefur then quoted the court’s language, writing: “The Cities’ interpretation would grant the Cities broad power. With that power, the Cities could dictate how much any employer pays any employee anytime an employer contracts or subcontracts with the Cities. Put differently, the Cities by ordinance could dictate pay whenever an employee works under a public contract, regardless of the contract’s value or the nature of the work performed.”
He added, “That, of course, would cost taxpayers more—reducing their freedom of choice and their ability to invest in their own futures—all for the benefit of politicians and politically well-connected lobbyists.”
In a post to X, he wrote, “The decision’s an important victory for taxpayers throughout the state, who’d otherwise be forced to pay inflated prices for public works projects even though a state law approved by voters abolished ‘prevailing wages’ over 40 yrs ago.”
Prevailing wage laws, distinct from minimum wage laws, require employers on public contracts to pay workers based on wage rates calculated by formula, often higher than standard minimum wages. The 1984 state law expressly prohibits cities from requiring public works contracts to include prevailing wage provisions.
In the case before the appellate court, Phoenix and Tucson had passed ordinances applying prevailing wage rates to city contracts exceeding defined monetary thresholds, $4 million for Phoenix and $2 million in Tucson, and set wage requirements by reference to federal Davis-Bacon Act wage schedules.
Attorneys for the cities had argued that subsequent voter-approved minimum wage measures, including the 2006 voter-approved Minimum Wage Act and subsequent amendments, allowed local governments to regulate minimum wages and thus could support prevailing wage requirements. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the statutory authority for cities to regulate minimum wage does not extend to prevailing wage mandates.
In its ruling, the appellate panel wrote that prevailing wage provisions do not qualify as “minimum wages” under the relevant Arizona statutes, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply only to a subset of workers on specific public contracts, whereas minimum wage laws apply generally to all employees once employed.
“Section 34-321(B) prohibits political subdivisions from requiring contractors or subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages on public works contracts,” the court wrote. The panel further held that Phoenix’s and Tucson’s ordinances “conflict with § 34-321(B) and are therefore invalid.”
The court concluded that the 1984 prohibition on prevailing wage requirements remains in effect and was not repealed by later minimum wage laws, determining that the newer statutes and the prevailing wage prohibition can coexist without conflict.
“The Local Permission Provision authorizes regulation of minimum wages,” the court wrote, referring to § 23-364(I). “Prevailing wages are not minimum wages.”
Prevailing wage ordinances have been the subject of multiple legal challenges in Arizona. In 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge similarly ruled against prevailing wage ordinances in Phoenix and Tucson, finding they violated the same state prohibition.
The appellate decision affects not only Phoenix and Tucson but also any Arizona city considering similar prevailing wage mandates under state law, consistent with the court’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 34-321(B) on municipal wage-setting authority for public works contracts.
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 Ethan Faverino | Jan 12, 2026 | Education, News
By Ethan Faverino |
Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne hailed a unanimous decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals that reinstates a lawsuit against the Mesa Unified School District (MPS), reinforcing parental rights in cases involving children’s gender identity.
The ruling allows parents to pursue legal action against public schools that withhold critical information about a child’s intent to identify as a gender different from their biological sex.
“Schools are not substitutes for parents, and they have zero right to withhold information that parents are entitled to know,” said Horne. “Arizona law is very clear on the right of parents, and they should be informed when a child expresses a desire to be identified as a sex other than the one to which they were born. The Court of Appeals was unanimous in their decision allowing a lawsuit filed against the Mesa school district by a parent to proceed. I am very pleased that the Court made the correct ruling to defend parental rights and remind schools they should follow the law or risk legal action.”
The case is of a parent whose daughter, referred to as “Megan” (a pseudonym), was a student at an MPS junior high school during the 2022-23 school year. According to court documents, MPS had implemented “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” since at least 2015. These guidelines included procedures for school staff to support students asserting a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth, such as updating their name or pronouns in internal systems without necessarily notifying parents.
In “Megan’s” situation, school personnel allowed her to use the male name “Michael” among teachers and students, while deliberately avoiding updates to the district’s electronic system to prevent automatic parental alerts.
The guidelines instructed staff not to disclose a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation without the student’s consent, even to parents.
This included options for students to specify whether their identity could be shared with school leadership, teachers, or peers—but parental notification was not mandated unless a change was requested in the school’s internal system.
“Megan’s” parents discovered the name change in October 2022 and confronted the school officials. In a December 2022 meeting with the principal, they learned that the school had intentionally bypassed the notification system to keep the matter secret.
The principal admitted that even if the parents had requested updates on name changes, pronouns, or gender-related issues, MPS policy prohibited informing parents.
The parents demanded that all staff cease using “Michael” and revert to Megan’s given name, but at a February 2023 meeting with teachers, all but one continued using the preferred name.
The parents further claimed that the school’s actions encouraged Megan to lie to her parents, straining the family relationship and delaying necessary mental health support.
Once her parents were fully informed, Megan was able to speak openly with them and a mental health counselor. Within a month, her issues were resolved, and she became comfortable presenting herself as female and using her given name. The lawsuit, joined by MPS board member Rachel Walden, alleges violations of Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights, which protects parents’ authority over their children’s upbringing, education, health care, and mental health. It also cites prohibitions against public employees compelling children to withhold information from parents, requirements for advance notification on sexuality-related instruction, and bans on mental health screening without consent.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party is calling a recent court ruling a major victory for election integrity, but how much the decision will actually change voter roll maintenance remains an open question.
In a statement released this week, Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda announced that the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Petersen, et al. v. Fontes, upheld an Arizona law that requires counties to begin the cancellation process when a voter swears on a jury questionnaire that they no longer live in the county. Swoboda described the ruling as a necessary correction that will help ensure clean voter rolls ahead of future elections.
“This ruling is a major victory for our state and for every Arizona voter,” Swoboda said in the update, framing the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the state’s elections.
“Cleaner rolls protect voters. That’s the bottom line. No more dodging the law, no more loopholes, and no more games with Arizona’s voter rolls. Republicans in Arizona are fighting to ensure our elections are secure and stopping extreme leftist policies that would have thrown our elections into chaos. This is a huge step forward, but our work continues. We’ll keep working to restore trust, enforce the law, and deliver an election system every Arizonan can count on.”
In the AZGOP statement, the party referred to the ruling as “a significant defeat for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes,” noting that the state’s second-highest-ranking Democrat was “forced to abandon his extreme rule that would have allowed counties to toss out every vote cast if a canvass was submitted late,” describing the policy as “reckless,” and saying it “jeopardized lawful ballots and undermined public confidence.”
Republicans are celebrating the decision as a significant victory for structural reform; however, the ruling itself paints a more nuanced legal picture.
On the jury-questionnaire issue, the court held that federal law does not preempt Arizona’s statute, A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(9)(b), which directs county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the voter fails to respond to a mailed notice after telling a jury commissioner they no longer reside in the county. The opinion explains that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows removal when a voter “confirms in writing” that they have changed residence and does not require that confirmation go directly to the county recorder. Instead, the court found that a signed juror questionnaire can qualify as that written confirmation:
“Because the Seventh Circuit precedent does not conflict with A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9, the NVRA does not preempt that Arizona statute. … Here, the county recorder sends the notice only when a person signs (under penalty of perjury) a written juror questionnaire saying the person no longer resides in the county. A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9(b). That notice satisfies the NVRA.”
Under the statute, the juror form does not lead to automatic cancellation. Instead, it triggers a process: the recorder must send a notice by forwardable mail warning that, if the voter does not respond within 35 days, “the county recorder shall cancel the person’s registration.” The 2023 Elections Procedures Manual had directed counties to move such voters to an inactive list instead of canceling their registrations, but the court concluded that approach conflicted with the statute and therefore exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
Swoboda and other GOP leaders also highlighted language in the 2023 manual that would have instructed the Secretary of State to proceed with a statewide canvass without counting any county whose official canvass arrived late. The appeals court, however, declined to rule on that provision, finding the challenge moot because Fontes had already replaced it in the draft of the 2025 manual with language committing to use “all available legal remedies” to compel a county board of supervisors to complete its canvass and “protect voters’ right to have their votes counted.”
While the ruling clearly reinforces that the Secretary of State’s election manual authority is bounded by statute, the judges also sided with Fontes on a key question involving the active early voting list. Upholding the superior court, the panel agreed that a separate statute governing removal notices for the active early voting list, A.R.S. § 16-544(H)(4), is not retroactive and applies starting with the 2024 election cycle:
“The 2023 Manual thus has the removal notice statute process start with the 2024 election cycle. The 2024 election cycle started on January 1, 2023. The superior court agreed with the Secretary. We thus affirm.”
Arizona counties regularly maintain their voter rolls using multiple data sources, including death records, address changes, and federal databases. Several prominent Republicans have argued that those procedures remain insufficient. The jury-form issue addressed in this case represents a narrow slice of that broader process. The practical number of registrations affected by the ruling is not yet known.
Arizona GOP leaders, including Swoboda, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate President Warren Petersen, and former Speaker Ben Toma, have pursued multiple legal challenges over election procedures and voter-roll maintenance in recent years. Some of those efforts have succeeded in forcing procedural changes, while others have been dismissed on standing or jurisdictional grounds.
That track record makes this latest ruling politically significant even if its technical impact proves limited. For election integrity activists, it represents steady, gradual progress toward tightening controls. Critics, meanwhile, characterize them as partisan attempts to re-litigate election processes long after votes have been cast.
Swoboda’s update also criticized past election-related deadlines and procedures that Republicans argue undermined public trust, particularly citing disputes over ballot processing timelines and late canvassing.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores a basic principle: if a voter swears they’ve left a county, that sworn statement can be used, under existing law, to start the notice-and-cancellation process so the registration does not remain active indefinitely, akin to voters trying to leave “the Hotel California,” as Swoboda quipped in a video posted to X. Opponents counter that aggressive roll maintenance must be handled carefully to avoid mistakenly removing eligible voters.
For now, the ruling directs how counties must treat sworn jury-form declarations moving forward, reaffirming the statutory process: notice, a waiting period, and eventual cancellation if there is no response. Whether that translates into large-scale voter-roll changes or simply a modest administrative correction will depend on how often such declarations occur and how county recorders opt to implement the ruling.
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 Staff Reporter | Sep 27, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept Attorney General Kris Mayes’ appeal to prosecute President Donald Trump’s 2020 electors.
The appeals court order said in a brief ruling that, based on its “discretion,” it would not overturn a superior court ruling requiring Mayes to again secure an indictment from a grand jury.
This determination comes just four months after the Maricopa County Superior Court remanded Mayes’ case back to the grand jury.
The judge found that Mayes violated due process when seeking felony indictments for conspiracy, fraud, and forgery against 11 Trump electors.
According to the ruling, Mayes’ failure to give the grand jury a document critical to the electors’ defense, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), before securing the indictment deprived the 2020 electors of due process. The ruling meant, effectively, that Mayes had to redo her entire case.
The 2020 electors argued they acted lawfully and in good faith under the ECA.
The attorney general attempted to justify withholding the full text of the ECA from the grand jury by citing the inclusion of “relevant portions” dispersed through memorandums, an interview, a letter, and an article from CNN. The judge declined to accept that select passages of the ECA contextualized in disparate works were equal to the document in its unabridged entirety.
“A prosecutor has a duty to instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case,” stated the judge. “Due process compels the prosecutor to make a fair and impartial presentation to the grand jury. … Because the State failed to provide the ECA to the grand jury, the Court finds that the defendants were denied a substantial procedural right as guaranteed by Arizona law.”
In order to prosecute the 2020 electors, the superior court ruled, Mayes would have to disclose the full ECA to a grand jury before securing an indictment.
Arizona GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda said Mayes is unfit for office due to her focus on lawfare against political opponents distracting from criminal prosecutions.
“Arizona families deserve an Attorney General who prosecutes criminals, not political opponents,” said Swoboda. “Five years later, Kris Mayes is still fixated on 2020 while violent crime, fentanyl trafficking, and border chaos threaten our communities every single day. This obsession is not justice — it’s politics.”
A spokesman for Mayes would not say to reporters whether they would appeal to the state supreme court. However, Mayes’ communications director, Richie Taylor, rejected Swoboda’s accusation in a statement.
“This case has never been about anything other than preserving democracy and upholding the rule of law,’’ said Taylor. “Pretending it’s politically motivated is just a convenient way for the GOP chair to distract from the facts of the case.’’
This statement was among the first public comments issued by Taylor since deleting his social media accounts after his online commentary emerged on Turning Point USA founder and CEO Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
Tyler Bowyer, the CEO of Turning Point Action (the political action arm of TPUSA) and indicted elector in Mayes’ case, expressed relief at Monday’s ruling and scorn for Mayes’ continued expenditure of public funding on this case.
“Another huge loss for the radical AG who has wasted millions of AZ taxpayer dollars!” posted Bowyer on X.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Aug 7, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Arizona Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on August 19 in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the state’s early ballot signature verification process—one that could reshape how election officials authenticate mail-in ballots. The case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, will be heard by Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which lifted a prior stay in the case following a joint request by all parties to move forward on the merits.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has unlawfully expanded the scope of documents used to verify a voter’s signature on early ballot envelopes. The plaintiffs—Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and Yavapai County voter Dwight Kadar—argue that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Governor Katie Hobbs, enforced EPM guidance that violates state law.
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 16-550(A), election officials are required to compare a voter’s early ballot envelope signature to the one in their “registration record.” However, the current EPM—originally authored by Hobbs in 2019 and maintained under Fontes—permits election officials to validate signatures by comparing them to any election-related document on file, such as early ballot requests, provisional ballot envelopes, or Active Early Voting List notices.
“The current election procedures manual adopted by the Secretary of State has rewritten state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi. “The result is a process that invites questionable methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process. It’s time for the courts to bring this illegal EPM practice to a halt.”
The case has had a turbulent procedural history. In 2023, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper initially ruled that the EPM violated state law, stating that the definition of “registration record” is neither vague nor ambiguous. Napper rejected the Secretary of State’s argument that the term could include any number of election-related documents. However, in a surprising reversal later in the proceedings, Napper ruled in favor of the state—prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
The outcome of this case could have major consequences for how Arizona handles the verification of early ballots in future elections. Arizona is a state with widespread early and mail-in voting, and signature matching is often the sole method for confirming voter identity on ballots returned by mail. Early ballot voters are not required to provide other identifying information, such as a driver’s license number, date of birth, or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
After months of delays—including a stay prompted by a separate ruling that invalidated the 2023 EPM for procedural reasons—the Court of Appeals has agreed to resume the case. All parties have urged the court to issue a ruling on the merits, regardless of the Arizona Supreme Court’s handling of a related challenge filed by the Republican National Committee.
The court’s decision will help clarify the balance of power between Arizona’s elected officials and its election laws, especially in the increasingly scrutinized area of early voting.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
