by Ethan Faverino | Jun 30, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Prescott City Council has voted down a proposed General Plan on Tuesday, rejecting what critics said contained “woke policies.” If the proposal had been approved, it would have made its way to the ballot for the next election.
The proposed General Plan included policies such as Vision Zero, road diets, and pricey, unreliable energy. These were just a small part of the “woke proposal,” according to critics, that seemed to change the dynamic of the city, rather than shape the future in a way that reflects the community’s vision and priorities.
Vision Zero aims to eliminate all traffic deaths and injuries, which may seem noble on the surface, but is designed to ultimately eliminate the use of fossil fuel vehicles.
Road diets have a similar goal, reducing vehicle lanes to add bike lanes or wider sidewalks.
Prescott Mayor Phil Goode, along with two city council members, opposed the original proposal, citing its misalignment with the city’s conservative values and practical needs. Mayor Goode spoke strongly against this proposal, which he believed reflected policies that could transform the small, historic town into Los Angeles or San Francisco.
In the final vote, the original plan failed to obtain the five-vote supermajority needed to be referred to the ballot. A revised version, which made minor adjustments but retained many of the original policies, was also brought forward but failed again, this time with a 4-3 vote.
Prescott City Council is running out of time to agree on a General Plan that best describes the community’s needs for future development. If they do not vote and decide soon, they may likely miss the ballot for this fall’s general election.
Associate of Government Affairs for Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Mylie Biggs appaluded the move, saying, “This is a major win for the people of Prescott and the members of the Council that stood firm. Every other city in Arizona should be cautious of the language in their own General Plans and follow Prescott’s lead in rejecting wokeness in their cities.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Jun 23, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona voters will weigh in next year on a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar the state and local governments from taxing drivers based on how many miles they travel, as well as from placing limits on an individual’s vehicle mileage.
The proposed amendment, which will be placed on the November 2026 ballot, would make Arizona the first state in the nation to constitutionally prohibit vehicle miles traveled (VMT) taxes and related mileage restrictions.
VMT taxes—also referred to as mileage-based user fees—charge drivers a per-mile fee for use of public roads. While proponents argue the system offers a fairer alternative to traditional gas taxes, especially as electric vehicles become more common, opponents have raised concerns about privacy, government overreach, and potential impacts on rural and suburban drivers.
Currently, 24 states are testing or have launched VMT programs, according to the Tax Foundation. Most are voluntary and focus on electric or hybrid vehicles. Only Hawaii has a mandatory VMT program scheduled to take effect in stages, beginning with electric vehicles by 2028 and light-duty vehicles by 2033. Oregon was the first to implement a voluntary VMT system in 2015.
Supporters of Arizona’s constitutional amendment say it’s a preemptive strike to protect driver freedom and block what they see as a growing trend of government intrusion.
“As we have seen in other states, governments left to their own devices will succumb to radical attempts to track, tax, or limit their citizens’ transportation miles,” said Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which has long opposed VMTs. “The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has been fighting for the Freedom to Move Act since 2023,” Mussi added. “We are thrilled that our Republican-majority legislature chose to give voters the ability to protect their way of life by preserving our freedom to travel by personal vehicle in our state.”
SCR 1004 marks the legislature’s second attempt to advance such a measure. A similar proposal—House Concurrent Resolution 2018—passed the House in 2024 but failed in the Senate in a 15–15 tie. Under Arizona law, constitutional amendments approved by the legislature do not require the governor’s signature to go to the ballot.
SCR 1004 is the first measure officially certified for the 2026 ballot. Lawmakers are still considering 20 other proposals—eight constitutional amendments and 12 referred statutes—that could also appear before voters next year. If voters approve SCR 1004, Arizona would become the first state to embed a ban on VMT taxes and mileage limits into its constitution—setting a potentially influential precedent in the national transportation policy debate.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 21, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Around the country, the “war on cars” has become apparent. From New York’s congestion pricing scheme to the onslaught of road diets and protected bike lanes to “reallocate” the public space away from cars, there is hardly anywhere you can travel without experiencing the increased hassle and cost of driving your personal vehicle.
Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse the woke transportation trends at the U.S. Department of Transportation under former Secretary Pete Buttigieg, many state and city governments remain committed to punishing drivers.
One specific tool being used to implement the anti-car, woke transportation agenda is vehicle mileage limits and taxes. For example, in Washington State, they passed a law that sets a target of reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita by 50% by 2050. Their department of transportation is empowered to create policies and strategies that would effectively force people to give up their cars. And of course, for our neighbors to the West, California lawmakers have proposed a mileage tax or “road charge” determined by how many miles a person drives in an effort to reduce carbon emissions and endlessly subsidize their failed transit system. Implementing this would require invasive measures such as reporting odometer readings or installing “special plug-in devices.” This kind of Orwellian intrusion on our freedom to travel privately has no place in any American city, even in California…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Jun 18, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Corporation Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson responded to reports of an upcoming primary challenge from State Representative Dr. Ralph Heap and running mate Rep. David Marshall with a surprising attack against both candidates and two of the most prominent conservative organizations in the state. After Heap confirmed his 2026 candidacy for the Commission in a call with the Arizona Republic, incumbents Thompson and Myers reportedly blasted Heap and Marshall as “special interest proxies who have been recruited to return politics into ratemaking.”
Myers would even go as far as to claim that the two GOP challengers are in the service of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) and Turning Point USA (TPUSA), telling the Republic that both want “good puppets” on the Corporation Commission.
Responding to the remarks, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi told the Republic that Myers and Thompason were “pretty on brand,” and added, “They always resort to attacks and attacking whoever they can to avoid having to address the substance of what’s being brought to them.”
Turning Point Action spokesman Andrew Kolvet told the outlet, “We have no idea what the commissioner means by ‘puppet,’ as we have had zero contact with any current commissioners since they have taken office.” He stated that TPUSA considers AZFEC to be “an ally.”
Although the Corporation Commission came fully under Republican control in January, the stakes for Arizona voters are high given that APS has requested yet another rate increase on top of the 8% increase it was given in 2024.
Commissioners Thompson and Myers have also drawn the ire of many Republicans by echoing the talking points of APS and Tucson Electric Power (TEP), when both utilities refused to comply with President Trump’s Executive Order to reactivate the Cholla and Springerville coal-fired power plants. As previously reported by AZ Free News, Thompson claimed that doing so would “jeopardize the grid and burden ratepayers with millions of dollars in short-sighted costs.” He also criticized the President’s intervention saying, “The Commission must hold utilities accountable and ensure that we have reliable and dispatchable generation to meet the load demands of the future. We also have to make sure we accomplish that goal in a manner that doesn’t jeopardize the grid and burden ratepayers with millions of dollars in short-sighted costs that fail to meaningfully address our long-term energy needs.”
He added, “Managing highly intricate systems like our electrical grid is far more complicated than a slogan on a bumper sticker. Continued calls from certain elected officials to reopen Cholla does nothing more than promote financially reckless solutions.”
The Commission’s refusal to follow the Trump administration’s energy agenda and pushback toward efforts to eliminate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies has placed it at odds with the Republican-controlled state legislature—along with the Arizona Freedom Caucus, AZFEC, and the Goldwater Institute.
Speaking to reporters, Myers accused AZFEC and TPUSA of “making things up,” claiming, “They’ve basically been trying to run us through the mud for every little thing they can drum up.”
However, Mussi explained that the Free Enterprise Club has had “a multitude of issues,” with the Commission. “There’s been a multitude of issues that they have shown no interest in working on,” he said. “And when these issues are brought up, rather than engaging on them, they have usually gone and attacked not just us, but whoever is bringing the policies that they disagree with addressing.” In particular he pointed to APS and TEP’s integrated resource plans, which lean heavily on wind and solar generation as opposed to coal, natural gas and nuclear, and AZFEC’s drive to terminate “California-style, Green New Deal policies.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | May 10, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona State Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in the case Center for Arizona Policy v. Hobbs, which revolves around Proposition 211 and the right of political donors to privacy.
The case, brought by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the protections of the Arizona Constitution, which are stronger than even the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbid Prop 211’s forced disclosure of donors and nonprofits who support or oppose ballot initiatives. The Goldwater Institute cited the Arizona Constitution in a press release, “The state constitution, after all, provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than does the federal constitution—promising both that ‘every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,’ and that ’no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs.’”
In Goldwater’s case summary, the organization warned, “Everyone has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being canceled. Unfortunately, a new measure in Arizona—Proposition 211—tramples on this foundational right. It requires individuals who donate to nonprofits to risk having their private information reported to the government and disclosed to the public. It was sold to Arizonans under the guise of transparency and ‘disclosure.’ But voters weren’t told the full story.”
Goldwater Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman explained, “This is a very exciting development. There are few rights more precious to Arizonans than their rights to free speech and to the ballot initiative process. The anti-privacy law undermines these freedoms by telling people that if they dare to support a political position, they have to give up their confidentiality and potentially become a target for retaliation and even violence.”
A lower Arizona court rejected the Goldwater’s arguments under the guise that “having an informed electorate,” in service of the government’s interests overrides campaign donors’ right to confidentiality, claiming that they can simply “opt out of contributing to campaign media spending.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Andrew Gould, disagrees. Back in legal practice with the law firm Holtzman Vogel, and representing the plaintiffs alongside the Goldwater Institute, Gould said, “That’s just not true. Even under the law’s ‘opt-out’ provisions, some donors’ information must still be made public, and donors don’t really have a way of controlling how an organization spends donations, which means they can’t really control whether their information is made public.”
Because the case raises claims based on the Arizona Constitution, the burden of protecting donors’ privacy is even greater than in other states according to Gould who wrote, “Our state constitution provides stronger security for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution does. The authors of the state constitution intended to protect the right to donate to ballot initiative campaigns and the right not to have one’s ‘private affairs’ made public by the government. This law violates both those promises and says that if you donate to a nonprofit group that supports or opposes a ballot initiative, the government’s going to paint a target on your back.”
The Goldwater Institute referenced several serious incidents in the past decade which saw political donors and non-profits become targets for threats, vandalism, and violence from radical political extremists. It noted that donors to California’s anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008 became targets of property destruction and physical assault when they were effectively ‘doxxed’ by the state. A similar incident in 2020 unfolded when a group of non-profit organizations engaged California in a lawsuit after Sacramento published approximately 2,000 documents with donors’ personal identifying information. Inevitably this led to a campaign of violence and harassment by far-left extremists.
The California law that allowed this to happen was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
