by Matthew Holloway | Jul 3, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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.
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 | May 19, 2026 | Economy, News
By Staff Reporter |
Arizona’s rising marriage rate is having a positive impact on its poverty rate, according to a new study.
The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) and the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) published a 75-page report last week assessing the impact of family structures on childhood outcomes, academic performance, and community prosperity across the state.
CAP said the report indicated marriage to be an exceedingly powerful, though heavily underutilized, anti-poverty and life success tool.
Since the first year of the pandemic, 2020, Arizona rose from 39th to 35th on the nation’s Family Structure Index, which measures healthy family structure trends.
In 2011, 58 percent of children in Arizona lived with married parents. In 2024, that number rose to 62 percent.
From 2022 to 2024, 85 percent of Arizona children ages six to 17 living with married parents received A’s and B’s in class, whereas only 64 to 65 percent of children in that age range who lived with a single mother or other family structures received those higher grades.
15 percent of Arizona children living with married biological parents received poor grades (mostly B’s and C’s or lower). Comparatively, over one-third of children from single-mother or other homes received those poorer grades.
Additionally, reading proficiency scores tended to increase within districts with higher shares of married-couple households. 60 percent of students within the Higley Unified School District (HUSD) tested proficient in reading; 77 percent of households with children in that district have married parents.
The Flowing Wells Unified School District — which spends about 60 percent more per student on classroom support than HUSD — had a student reading proficiency rate of 35 percent aligning with its married-parent household with children rate of 54 percent.
The report found that the correlation between higher reading proficiency rates and higher marriage rates proved to be true regardless of race.
Marriage rates also proved to have an impact on Arizona children’s mental health. In non-intact families, girls were 60 percent more likely to be depressed and boys were 57 percent more likely to be depressed.
Arizona children in intact homes were less likely to be living in poverty. Less than one in 10 children from married homes were found to be living in poverty, compared to more than one in five children with cohabitating parents and one in four children in single-mother homes.
Unlike with academic outcomes, race did appear to have an impact on poverty. White children in Arizona had starkly lower poverty rates within both married and unmarried households than non-white children.
Three percent of white children living in intact homes were in poverty in Arizona, compared to 14 percent of Hispanic children, 20 percent of Native American children, and 22 percent of black children.
15 percent of white children living in non-intact homes were in poverty in Arizona, compared to 23 percent of Hispanic children, 27 percent of Native American children, and 31 percent of black children.
CAP President Peter Gentala said in a press release that Arizona, historically a frontier state, has a new frontier with building families.
“The American Dream — the Arizona Dream — is still within reach for every Arizonan, and strong families are how we get there together,” said Gentala. “This report isn’t partisan. It’s a data-driven invitation to every Arizonan who cares about the future of our state.”
The report, titled “Renewing Arizona Families: Why Strong Families Are Central to Arizona’s Future,” was co-produced with University of Virginia researcher and National Marriage Project director W. Bradford Wilcox.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 23, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Republican-led Senate is poised to vote on multiple bills that would impose greater restrictions on gender transition procedures in Arizona.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed four bills targeting different aspects of gender transition procedures: Senate Bills 1014, 1177, 1094, and 1095. All with the exception of SB 1095 were heard in committee last week. All were passed without the support of Democratic lawmakers.
Progressive activists lined up to testify against the bills during the several committee hearings.
SB1095, which would ban gender transition procedures for minors, provoked testimony from several activist adults who identify as transgender.
Former Liberty Elementary School District governing board member, Paul Bixler, said SB1095 would harm, not help, children. Bixler, a man, identifies as a transgender woman.
Ruth Carter, an attorney, said SB1095 amounted to discrimination. Carter, a woman, identifies as a nonbinary individual.
Marilyn Rodriguez, Creosote Partners founder and lobbyist representing the ACLU, said SB1095 was impermissibly broad as written.
Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-LD8) called the bill discriminatory, and argued that lawmakers shouldn’t ban gender transition procedures since certain healthcare experts support those procedures as treatments for gender dysphoria.
“These are private, personal decisions, healthcare decisions, we shouldn’t be discriminating against transgendered youth or those who have gender dysphoria as is described,” said Kuby.
Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-LD24) said the legislature would be better focusing on making healthcare more affordable. Ortiz said the legislation was not only discriminatory but violative of parental rights laws.
“It bans healthcare for a specific group of people solely based on gender identity; that is discrimination no matter how you want to paint it,” said Ortiz.
Sen. Mark Finchem (R-LD1), the bill sponsor, disputed the narratives of his Democratic colleagues that healthcare experts were to be trusted fully and that gender transition procedures were appropriate for minors.
“To those who worship the grounds that doctors walk on: they also said cigarettes were good for you,” said Finchem. “[Permanently altering treatments like mastectomies] are decisions that kids are being talked into, in some cases. I didn’t just dream this bill up myself. This came from kids and parents. More kids than parents.”
Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) questioned the logic of his Democratic colleagues that parents had a right to submit children to irreversible medical treatments, but not the right to decide whether their children should be called by certain pronouns or alternative names in school.
SB 1014 would require health insurers to offer coverage for detransition procedures should those insurers provide coverage for gender transition procedures. It would also issue reporting requirements on insurance claims for gender detransitions.
“Detransitioners are people too; they deserve the same care as those who are manipulated into believing they have gender dysphoria, which leads them to undergo gender transition surgery that they later regret,” said the bill sponsor, Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29), in a press release. “This legislative package puts their long-term well-being above politics and ideology.”
Jeanne Woodbury, a lobbyist for the ACLU, argued the reporting requirements within the bill would result in discriminatory outcomes.
Bixler, the transgender-identifying former school board member, claimed the bill would result in providers refusing to provide gender transition procedures.
SB 1177 would ban public funding for gender transition procedures.
Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), the bill sponsor, explained during Wednesday’s HHS hearing that she discovered taxpayers were funding gender transition treatments for prisoners. Rogers also discovered that individuals were being arrested on purpose in order to receive free gender transition treatments.
“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to bankroll irreversible procedures on children,” said Rogers in a later press release. “This legislation draws a hard line and makes clear that public funds will not subsidize experimental or life-altering interventions on minors.”
Ashton Allen expressed support on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy. Allen said subsidies should be tied to valid medical treatments, which he said gender transition procedures weren’t.
Woodbury, the transgender-identifying ACLU lobbyist, argued against Rogers’ claims and said the treatments were affordable. Woodbury also said an end to subsidization would lead to excessive medical risks associated with forced detransitions.
Minority Whip Rosanna Gabaldon (D-LD21) said ending subsidies was “extreme and punitive,” as well as “unfair and dangerous.”
Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) accused Rogers of faking a story that individuals were getting themselves arrested in order to receive free gender transition treatments. Gonzales called the bill discriminatory.
Sen. Shamp questioned why drugs historically considered to be dangerous were suddenly ethical in the context of gender reassignment.
“Lupron was deemed cruel and unusual punishment being utilized in the prison system for sex offenders, rapists. But now we want Arizona taxpayers to pay for that drug to be utilized for gender reassignment? How the heck did we get here?” said Shamp.
SB 1094 would allow individuals to seek damages in court against physicians who performed gender reassignment surgeries on them as minors. Kavanagh sponsored the bill.
“When permanent procedures are performed on minors who suffer harm, there must be consequences,” said Kavanagh in a press release. “These reforms restore transparency and provide a pathway to just compensation for those harmed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, joined former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould on Thursday to challenge Proposition 211. The measure, called the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” is being contested on the grounds that it violates the state Constitution’s protections for free speech and privacy.
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and a decade marked by attacks on political figures—the security risks of effectively doxxing political donors loom large in the case.
If upheld, the law would force 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.
In today’s climate of escalating political violence—from death threats and swatting to vandalism, arson, and even assassinations—a database like this could essentially become a “hit list.”
In a press release the Goldwater Institute explained its position stating, “While proponents of the Voters’ Right to Know Act say they’re simply combatting so-called ‘dark money’ in politics, it is clear to Goldwater and its clients — the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors — that their real intent is to intimidate their political opponents into silence.”
“Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in,” said Jon Riches, Goldwater’s Vice President of Litigation. “The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211.”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi added, “They’re afraid of the activist organizations out there. They’re afraid of politicians and others that want to exact retaliation because they simply support a position or belief that they disagree.”
Mussi characterized the law as “a dangerous threat to our right to free speech and association.”
“As drafted, the law can be used to unconstitutionally target and harass private citizens, including our organization and our supporters,” Mussi stated. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this law poses and will rule in our favor.”
In a statement to AZ Free News in May, Mussi elaborated on the potential for political intimidation: “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.”
Peter Gentala, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated in a press release that Proposition 211 “creates an atmosphere of fear among those who support nonprofits that engage in the most pressing issues in Arizona today.”
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 | Sep 1, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Goldwater Institute attorneys and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould are set to argue against Proposition 211 at the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11th. The Goldwater attorneys and Justice Gould argue that Prop 211, which requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the personal information, including names and addresses, of all their donors, violates the Arizona State Constitution’s guarantee of privacy.
According to Goldwater, “Under that law, donors to organizations that spend money on initiative campaigns must have their names, addresses, phone numbers, and employment information placed on a publicly accessible government list—thereby inviting retaliation, ostracism, and even violence.”
Goldwater Vice President of Litigation Jon Riches told AZ Free News, “Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in. The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution.”
He continued, “That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211 and offer the first clear roadmap for mounting state constitutional challenges to donor-disclosure laws across the country.”
The legal challenge was brought by Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, working on the basis that “Arizona’s constitution forbids the state from stripping people of their confidentiality as the price of supporting or opposing a political view.”
The Arizona State Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, offers explicit protections for privacy in Article 2, Section 8, which reads, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Likewise, under Article 2 Section 6, the right for all Arizonans to “freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,” when coupled with the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would seem to overwhelmingly uphold the right of Arizonans to donate privately to support or oppose a political cause.
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed, “The dissent says that ‘speech’ refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the freedom of the press.”
In May, Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, echoed that sentiment writing, “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.
