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.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jan 25, 2025 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An influential women’s organization is cheering on the passage of a key sex-definition bill in an Arizona House of Representatives Committee.
This week, the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Government passed HB 2062, the Arizona Sex-based Terms Act. The Independent Women’s Voice marked the occasion, sending out a press release to announce the progress of this legislation in the House chamber.
“Rep. Lisa Fink’s legislation to define ‘woman’ so women’s rights aren’t erased is so important. Last year the Arizona legislature passed similar legislation, but Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed the common-sense, pro-woman bill. Hopefully, after the election mandate of 2024, bipartisan passage of similar legislation in Congress, and executive action by President Trump, the legislature can pass this bill quickly, and Gov. Hobbs can make the right choice this year. 2025 is the year for women’s rights in Arizona to be protected,” said Paula Scanlan, legislative liaison for Independent Women Voice.
According to the press release issued by Independent Women’s Voice, this proposal, if enacted into law would do the following:
- “Define common sex-based terms, such as ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘female,’ and ‘male,’ for purposes of state administrative law;
- “Help protect single-sex spaces and opportunities; and
- “Require publicly collected sex-based vital statistics to accurately reflect biology.”
Freshman State Representative Lisa Fink, the bill’s sponsor, wrote, “I am honored to serve Arizona in my capacity as a new member of the Arizona Legislature and vowed to make it a priority to define sex-based words and women’s rights. In Arizona, common sex-based words are used in 107 state statutes and yet lack legal definitions. That is why I introduced House Bill 2062, inspired by Independent Women’s model to restore common sense and ensure our courts have clarity in how to interpret Arizona statutes. With the recent federal bipartisan support for the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, it should be easy for Arizona leaders across the aisle to support this legislation that helps to protect female spaces and opportunities.”
“Rep. Lisa Fink rightly recognizes the need for legislation that defines sex-based terms, and as an Arizona parent, I’m grateful she introduced Arizona House Bill 2062. It’s time to give Governor Hobbs another chance to do the right thing and ensure the 3 million women and girls—including my two daughters—across the state have equal rights and opportunities,” added Christy Narsi, the Phoenix, Arizona, chair and national chapter director of Independent Women’s Network.
HB 2062 advanced from the House committee with a party-line 4-3 vote – four Republicans in support and three Democrats in opposition. It now awaits a vote in the full chamber.
According to the Legislature’s Request to Speak system, a representative from the Center for Arizona Policy signed in to support the bill; while representatives from the AZ Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, National Association of Social Workers for the Arizona Chapter, American Civil Liberties Union of AZ, Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement, Living United for Change in Arizona, National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, and Human Rights Campaign signed in to oppose the legislation.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Garrett Riley | Jan 2, 2025 | Opinion
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life.
By Garrett Riley |
As Arizona grapples with the implications of Proposition 139, a new dynamic in the state’s legislative landscape is emerging. Passed in 2024, the Arizona Abortion Access Act radically expands abortion rights beyond viability, through nine months and up to birth for virtually any reason. We are looking at a future in Arizona that enshrines unrestricted and nearly unregulated abortions.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, and a key figure in the pro-life community, expressed concerns about the broad and ambiguous language of Prop 139. Herrod and her organization fear that such terms may overturn well-established measures like informed consent and parental consent laws, which are reasonable safeguards. These laws ensure that women fully know the implications and alternatives before making an abortion decision.
From the pro-life perspective, these measures are not merely legal hurdles but essential ethical considerations that respect both the life of the unborn child and the informed autonomy of women. Herrod’s commitment to challenging vague terms within the proposition underscores a broader dedication to engaging in the democratic process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
The legal battles anticipated over Prop 139 are not solely about restricting rights but are seen as a necessary defense of life and ethical medical practices. Of course, the emphasis on legal challenges to abortion laws must stem from the science that proves life begins from conception, and human rights must be conveyed to the unborn.
Tragically, the potential for existing laws to be swept away without thorough public discussion or consideration of the implications will begin unfolding in 2025 and beyond. As Arizona navigates these complex legal and ethical waters, all pro-life voices play an essential role in representing the electorate concerned with real healthcare, medical ethics, and human rights.
The passage of Prop 139 marks a critical juncture in Arizona’s history of abortion laws. This event not only triggers legal disputes but also offers our pro-life community a chance to promote a society that deeply values human life. Our advocacy transcends legal arguments, aiming to foster a culture committed to life’s intrinsic value, and the importance of the foundational roles children and family play in a healthy society. As we engage in these efforts, the goal is to nurture a community ethos that respects life from conception to natural end, thereby influencing legislative and policy frameworks.
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life. Arizona Life Coalition (ALC) is dedicated to changing the culture by encouraging pro-life choices through education, collaboration, and acts of charity. We believe that to be pro-life is to be pro-family. By supporting pregnant women and struggling families, we stand as a community that affirms life, strengthens families, and nurtures hope, advocating that one life saved from abortion is worth all our time, money, and efforts.
Garrett Riley is the executive director of the Arizona Life Coalition, with a mission of inspiring pro-life choices through charity, education, and unifying collaboration.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 2, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
With the certification of the 2024 Elections complete, the battle lines are being drawn in what could amount to a lengthy legal clash over abortion restrictions in the state.
As reported by the Associated Press, the next fight to break out will likely be to render the present abortion law, a 2022 ban on abortions after 15-weeks with the exception of saving a mother’s life, inoperative. Unless and until a court rules or the legislature passes a new statute to align with the newly minted amendment, the 15-week ban remains in effect. It is around this bulwark that pro-life parties are beginning to build a defensive case, or conversely one that attacks the constitutional amendment.
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes told reporters, “The position of the state of Arizona will be that we agree that abortion is legal in our state.”
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) told reporters with the AP that the group is working to anticipate any legal challenges to the current statutes and are preparing to legally “intervene where appropriate.”
Darrell Hill, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona told the wire service, “All the laws that have currently been on the books are under question and are subject to possible challenges at some point.”
In a post to X, the Center for Arizona Policy commented, “Today, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs ‘celebrates’ the passage of Proposition 139 to amend the Arizona Constitution to enshrine a constitutional, fundamental right to an abortion. It is not a time to celebrate. It is a time to mourn the legal taking of unborn children’s lives and the resulting harm to their mothers.”
The advocacy group warned, “Within days, Arizona will see one or more lawsuits that will prove the real intent of Proposition 139: to overturn up to forty of Arizona’s common sense safety standards. Standards that not only protect the viability of unborn children but also the well-being and lives of their mothers. These laws were passed to protect women and their unborn children. Prior to the election, Prop 139 proponents scoffed when we pointed out that the amendment would not only legalize abortion until birth but would put all of Arizona’s common sense abortion safety standards in jeopardy.”
In addition to the 15-week ban, as many as 40 additional statutes require abortion restrictions. They range from requiring pregnant women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound performed at least 24 hours beforehand, to forbiddding abortions explicitly performed due to the existence of a genetic abnormality in an unborn child.
CAP added, “The proponents of this disastrous amendment are revealing what their real agenda has always been: to expand abortion – and their profits – at any cost, even the cost of Arizona women’s health and lives. Governor Hobbs celebrates. Those who value the sanctity of human life at all stages weep. Our commitment remains what it had always been: protect both the woman and her unborn child. We will fight tirelessly to defend these critical, lifesaving measures. We will do all we can to limit the anticipated breadth of Proposition 139.”
Challenges to Prop 139 may range from the vagueness of its standard of “fetal viability,” to how “a compelling state interest,” is defined, with one argument being that preventing murder is in the state’s direct and compelling state interest. Further, allegations that the proposition was only approved through disinformation propagated by Governor Hobbs may lead to legal challenges as well.
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 | Oct 23, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
- Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
- Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
- Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
- According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
- Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
- Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
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.
