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.
The proposed ballot initiative would have required the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to establish an online marketplace payment system next year for all ESA purchases with approved vendors, and would have eliminated the current reimbursement and debit card system.
The initiative would also have further restricted allowable expenditures, and required valid fingerprint clearance cards for qualified tutors and school personnel. Any parents who intentionally misuse funds would have been disqualified permanently from the ESA program.
Under the canceled initiative, the ESA program would have had to submit quarterly reports addressing vendor payments, disqualifications, and recovered funds to the attorney general as well.
Fortify AZ was supported in its signature-gathering efforts with millions from the American Federation for Children (AFC). Arizona campaign finance records reflected $1.2 million to their political action committee, but AFC said they invested over $5.3 million into the ballot initiative.
AFC said the proposed reforms were aligned with best policy practices implemented in other states: Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Utah, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
In a press release issued on Tuesday, AFC CEO Tommy Schultz said their organization backed the ballot initiative as the “best opportunity to save school choice in Arizona,” which they say is under threat by school choice opponents behind the other proposed ballot initiative which would end universal school choice, the Protect Education Act.
“After a small number of individuals acted to sabotage this chance for the school choice-gutting petition to be pulled and commonsense reforms enacted, we are evaluating our best next steps to ensure the union-backed petition does not rip school choice away from thousands of Arizona students overnight and fundamentally break the program for the rest,” said Schultz.
As the Arizona Agendareported, Republican lawmakers and the Arizona Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, nearly reached a secretive school choice reform deal to end both the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Reform and Accountability Act as well as the Protect Education Act.
However, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club raised concerns over the impact of the secretive deal on the ESA program.
Don't Cut a Deal that Kills ESAs — Lawmakers are negotiating a secret bargain with teacher unions tonight. Over 100,000 Arizona students hang in the balance. https://t.co/dToo9ac4uQ
— AZ Women of Action (@AZWomenofAction) June 12, 2026
Ultimately, lawmakers voted against the proposed deal.
Matthew Nielsen, founder of the Educational Freedom Institute, called the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Reform and Accountability Act an “ill-conceived, and now ill-fated […] waste.”
The other ballot initiative to end the universality of the ESA program will continue. The Protect Education Act would place a $150,000 income cap for ESA program enrollees.
Additionally, this initiative would not only require qualified tutors and schools to have valid fingerprint clearance, it would subject them to Arizona State Board of Education discipline and require them to pay a fee and register annually with ADE.
Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political action committee behind the still-active ballot initiative, has spent about $2.7 million of the nearly $4.6 million it has raised.
98% of those funds (more than $4.4 million) came from the National Education Association, a national teachers’ union and the largest labor union in the nation.
As of this report, the ESA program has over 100,700 students enrolled.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The housing moratorium crippling new construction in the Valley imposed by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ administration may not go on for much longer.
The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the moratorium on Tuesday in Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, et al.
Under Hobbs, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) issued new groundwater regulations rolled out in November 2024 dubbed the “Unmet Demand Rule” and the “Depth-to Water Rule.”
Per the court, these rules went impermissibly beyond the longstanding obligation for builders outlined in Arizona law, which required assurance of sufficient groundwater supply in order for each development to take place (100 years’ worth).
ADWR imposed the rules based on a groundwater model claiming that unmet demand and exceedance of the 1,000-foot depth-to-water limit existed throughout Phoenix. In other words, their regulations meant a developer seeking a certificate for one subdivision had to answer not just for their development area, but for the water status of the entire Valley. This resulted in ADWR’s indefinite suspension on granting certificates to any developers.
The consequence of these regulations brought new home construction to a halt throughout Maricopa County. The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA), a trade association for the residential construction and development industry, challenged ADWR’s authority to impose new rules.
ADWR attempted to style the Unmet Demand Rule as a new implementation of an old rule, but the Maricopa Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney rejected that view as an undoing of the necessary limitations of administrative agency powers.
“‘To permit this would neuter all statutory limits on agency rule-making[,]’” stated Blaney in his ruling, quoting HBACA’s argument.
Blaney also found that ADWR didn’t follow state law on agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act. Blaney invalidated both rules.
“ADWR acted unlawfully by implementing two agency rules without first complying with the mandatory provisions of the APA[,]” wrote Blaney.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) called the court ruling a win and criticized ADWR’s model justifying the overturned regulations as flawed.
“The Maricopa County Superior Court has struck down the Hobbs Administration’s attempt to impose a sweeping housing moratorium based on its flawed water model — a stinging loss for Katie Hobbs and a ruling that the state failed to follow proper legal procedures,” stated AFEC. “This is a major victory for transparency, accountability, and Arizona homeowners.”
🚨BREAKING🚨: The Maricopa County Superior Court has struck down the Hobbs Administration’s attempt to impose a sweeping housing moratorium based on its FLAWED water model—a STINGING LOSS for Katie Hobbs and a ruling that the state failed to follow proper legal procedures.
Jonathan Riches, vice president for litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute, represented the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona. Goldwater Institute’s vice president for legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur, hailed the ruling as a necessary check on an administrative state attempting to impose greater burdens than that which the law requires.
“The case is also a reminder of the dangerous power that the pervasive ‘administrative state’ wields over our daily lives — as unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies exert authority over every detail of construction, business, and property ownership, to cite just a few examples,” said Sandefur. “The only solution to the arbitrariness and lawlessness of these agencies is to rein in their power — and for courts to ensure that they obey the law.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
