The teachers’ unions and their allies at Save Our Schools (SOS) have proven time and time again that they will do anything to kill universal school choice in Arizona.
They’ve fought expansion of the program. They’ve pushed to cap it. They’ve worked with activist reporters in the legacy media with ties to the Red for Ed teachers’ union to push false claims about it. And we all witnessed it four years ago when they made their not-so-triumphant proclamation that they had enough signatures to repeal the program—only to discover they had miscounted by more than 50,000 signatures.
But their latest attempt to overturn the program is their lowest yet.
Earlier this month, the teachers’ unions and SOS announced they had submitted more than 420,000 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universal eligibility of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program.
Given their track record, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club worked closely with the Goldwater Institute and other school choice advocates to review the petitions. What we found was far more disturbing than another failed signature count.
Dozens of Convicted Felons—Including Registered Sex Offenders—Hired to Collect Signatures
The teachers’ unions and SOS want Arizonans to believe that their “Protect Education Act” campaign is a grassroots effort led by concerned parents and educators. But they made a very different choice when it came time to build their campaign…
Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is blasting the anti-ESA ballot measure, which is currently facing a legal challenge from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute. Under Ducey’s leadership, Arizona became the nation’s leader in school choice.
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit earlier this week, challenging the validity of signatures submitted for the proposed “Protection Education, Accountability Now Act,” a ballot initiative that would place new restrictions on Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship (ESA) program.
According to the lawsuit, the initiative required 255,949 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot but allegedly submitted enough invalid signatures to fall below that threshold. It contends that tens of thousands of petition signatures are subject to disqualification and raises concerns about the campaign’s signature-gathering process.
Goldwater claimed that more than 75% of the signatures were collected by paid circulators rather than volunteers and questioned whether some petition circulators met legal standards.
Out-of-state special interests are spending millions to buy their way onto Arizona's ballot. Today, Goldwater filed suit challenging the invalid signatures submitted for this anti-school choice measure. We will keep fighting to defend the rights of Arizona families and protect…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 20, 2026
Ducey criticized the proposed initiative, arguing that it would eliminate educational options for families participating in the ESA program.
“Once again, we are reminded how little these out-of-state unions care about Arizona students and their parents,” stated Ducey. “This measure would strip tens of thousands of Arizona families of educational choices they have made for their children, forcing students out of the schools that are serving them well and back into schools they chose to leave. That is unacceptable, and we will vigorously challenge this measure at every possible step.”
Arizona’s ESA program currently serves more than 100,000 students, allowing eligible families to use state education funds for private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, and other approved educational costs.
Supporters of the program argue it expands educational opportunities and parental choice, while opponents have raised concerns about its cost and oversight.
The Goldwater Institute alleged that the ballot initiative is backed by out-of-state special interest groups seeking to limit Arizona’s school choice program.
“This is a shameless attack on Arizona’s parents, funded by an out-of-state union,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “They’re trying to game the system by turning in tens of thousands of invalid signatures in an effort to destroy the most successful school choice program in the country. This won’t happen on our watch.”
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced that it joined the legal challenge in support of the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit. Greg Blackie of the organization will serve as a plaintiff in the case.
They Claim to Protect Children. Look Who They Hired!!
Arizona Free Enterprise Club @azfec Joins Legal Challenge to Union-Backed Anti-ESA Initiative. Save Our Schools and the teachers unions claim their anti-ESA campaign is about protecting children.
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 21, 2026
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, it worked alongside the Goldwater Institute and other school choice advocates to review petition signatures and identify what they describe as “serious irregularities”.
The organization said the complaint also raises concerns about individuals hired to circulate petitions, including allegations involving circulators with criminal histories.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement, saying election laws should be enforced equally for all ballot initiatives.
“Save Our Schools and the teachers unions have spent years accusing ESA families of fraud and demanding greater scrutiny of parents, said Mussi. “Now, their own campaign is facing serious questions about the people they hired to gather signatures. Arizona’s election laws must be fully enforced. If this campaign failed to collect enough lawful and valid signatures, it must not qualify for the ballot.”
The challenged initiative is backed by Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Education Association, and other organizations that have, for years, supported additional limits on ESA eligibility.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A ballot initiative to end the state’s universal school choice program is facing a new challenge to the validity of its signatures.
The Goldwater Institute filed the challenge in court on Monday.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) also announced that it joined Goldwater’s legal challenge, with AZFEC Vice President of Policy Greg Blackie serving as a plaintiff in the case. According to AZFEC, it worked alongside Goldwater and other school choice advocates to review petition sheets, identify alleged irregularities, and help ensure Arizona’s ballot qualification laws are enforced.
The Goldwater Institute said “a large amount” of the more than 415,000 signatures submitted appeared to be “fallacious.” The initiative needs about 256,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The complaint raised more than 73,300 objections; the complaint asserted that, with all signatures removed as a result of the objections, the ballot initiative would be left with fewer than 256,000 valid signatures.
The 900-page complaint filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court stated that the signatures weren’t properly registered with the secretary of state’s office as required by law.
Specifically, the complaint raised objections including paid but unregistered circulators, signatures gathered prior to circulator registration, false residential addresses, permanent address contradictions, bad telephone numbers or email addresses, false identities, bad service addresses, and ineligible, missing, or mismatched IDs.
Additionally, the Goldwater Institute claimed that certain circulators were ineligible to collect signatures because they had been convicted of a criminal offense involving fraud, forgery, or identity theft; convicted of another felony offense in which their civil rights haven’t been restored; or adjudicated an incapacitated person.
Individuals named as ineligible circulators were convicted of felonies and other crimes related to drugs, human trafficking, manslaughter, sexual abuse of a minor, assault, kidnapping, weapons misconduct, forgery, false reporting, and credit card forgery.
Finally, the complaint claimed that certain circulators failed to write their full and correct assigned circulator identification number on multiple petition sheets.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said the allegations raised questions about the campaign’s vetting and oversight of paid petition circulators.
“Save Our Schools and the teachers unions have spent years accusing ESA families of fraud and demanding greater scrutiny of parents. Now, their own campaign is facing serious questions about the people they hired to gather signatures,” said Mussi. “Arizona’s election laws must be fully enforced. If this campaign failed to collect enough lawful and valid signatures, it must not qualify for the ballot.”
Goldwater Institute CEO and President Victor Riches criticized the initiative for its heavy sourcing of out-of-state special interest funding.
“This is a shameless attack on Arizona’s parents, funded by an out-of-state union,” said Riches. “They’re trying to game the system by turning in tens of thousands of invalid signatures in an effort to destroy the most successful school choice program in the country. This won’t happen on our watch.”
The Goldwater Institute also stated in a press release that the original title of the initiative was misleading.
If enough signatures are validated and voters approve the measure, the Protect Education Act would impose an income eligibility cap on the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
Doug Ducey, former Arizona governor, was quoted in the Goldwater Institute press release saying the entire effort to dismantle the ESA program proved the true intentions of teachers’ unions. Ducey signed the bill into law that made the ESA program open to all students.
“Once again, we are reminded how little these out of state unions care about Arizona students and their parents,” said Ducey. “This measure would strip tens of thousands of Arizona families of educational choices they have made for their children, forcing students out of the schools that are serving them well and back into schools they chose to leave. That is unacceptable, and we will vigorously challenge this measure at every possible step.”
In response to the submission of the ballot initiative signatures earlier this month, Ducey launched a political action committee to secure school choice accessibility for military families.
Protect Education, Accountability Now (PEAN), the organization behind the ballot initiative, filed a challenge last week to the competing legislature-referred ballot initiative that would negate their proposed ballot initiative.
A recent campaign ad from the Democrat incumbent governor cost her millions, but critics and past reporting indicate the ad is misleading and takes credit for work done by Republicans.
Gov. Katie Hobbs’ 30-second “Work” ad released last month claimed that she reduced electricity bills, cut red tape to build more affordable housing, and balanced the budget. Critics across the political spectrum assessed these claims as misleading.
Utility rates have increased by more than 25% under the Hobbs administration.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club calculated based on Energy Information Administration data that utility rates in Arizona have increased by an average of 27% under Hobbs’ tenure. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) sets rates.
The largest donor to Hobbs’ controversial inaugural fund, Arizona Public Service, also wants to increase the utility rates by 14%. That ratemaking case is ongoing with the ACC.
The Hobbs administration imposed more red tape on housing construction that had the effect of imposing a housing moratorium. A court struck down that red tape earlier this year as an unlawful overreach in agency rulemaking, a ruling which has the potential to put Arizona taxpayers on the hook for over $1 billion in compensation claims.
One developer duo, Buckeye Tartesso I and II, already filed such a claim last September with the help of the Goldwater Institute. The duo is seeking over $320 million in compensation for lost value, an amount their demand letter claimed was a compilation of conservative, not maximum, estimates.
Budget talks were repeatedly called off and subjected to a bill moratorium by Hobbs as she tried to impose what Republican lawmakers characterized as unrealistic revenue assumptions, hidden tax increases, and cost-raising policies.
In the thick of budget talks earlier this year, House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) commented that Hobbs’ budgeting style was reminiscent of the more liberal-style budgets coming out of California: fiscal approaches which increase government size and create inconsistencies within the tax system. Hobbs held out on securing tax conformity for months to align the Arizona tax code with many of the congressional changes passed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Hobbs has been accused by bipartisan critics of turning her inheritance of a $2.5 billion surplus from former governor Doug Ducey into a $1.6 billion shortfall.
Last summer, a report by the Common Sense Institute Arizona found that state spending outpaced the $3.3 billion in revenues that emerged following the passage of the flat tax in 2023.
Per the Hobbs campaign, the ad buys required millions from her campaign coffers.
Additionally, the Hobbs campaign press release implied that the Spanish-speaking version of her “Work” ad, “No Se Rinde” (“Doesn’t Give Up”), was uniform in its messaging. However, the ads contained key differences that indicated an awareness of Arizona’s split demographics.
Both opened with a characterization of Hobbs’ background as a mother who worked multiple jobs and as a social worker, but differed distinctly in their portrayals of Hobbs’ approach to governance.
The English-speaking ad, “Work,” depicted Hobbs as a budget and policy expert with key wins in electricity bill and red tape cuts, and school lunch and community college scholarship expansions.
The English ad described Hobbs as working fast food and Uber jobs to make ends meet. It included the misleading claims that Hobbs was responsible for balancing the budget without raising taxes, reducing electricity bills, and cutting affordable housing red tape, along with the valid claims that she expanded school lunches and community college scholarships.
The Spanish version of the ad, “No Se Rinde,” depicted Hobbs as a social worker with key wins in medical debt forgiveness, medical cost cuts, and salary boosts. Hobbs forgave $30 million in medical debts early on in her administration.
The Spanish-speaking ad similarly characterized Hobbs as having a background as a working mother, but only highlighted her past Uber driving work and expanded on her time as a social worker as mainly aiding female domestic violence victims. The ad further diverged in describing Hobbs as responsible for canceling tens of millions in medical debt, reducing medical costs with discounts up to 80 percent, and raising salaries.
A Centers for Disease Control report published in 2024 suggested that Latino and Hispanic women have a disproportionately higher risk of experiencing domestic violence: one in three, indicating an occurrence average up to three times higher than white women.
Close to a quarter of all Latinos in Arizona are uninsured, as are nearly half of all illegal aliens, according to a 2022 research analysis from the Latino Policy & Politics Institute. Approximately 80% of Latino families in Arizona reported financial trouble according to recent polling by UnidosUS; nearly half of Latinos across Arizona, California, and Texas reported medical debt in a 2024 UnidosUS poll.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
