by Ethan Faverino | May 15, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
On behalf of the Pima County Republican Party and Chairwoman Kathleen Winn, the Oversight Project, filed suit over the 2025 Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that grants election officials broad, vague authority to remove voters and involve law enforcement.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, with the approval of Attorney General Kris Mayes and Governor Katie Hobbs, issued the 2025 EPM through 2027. The document carries the force of law, with violations punishable by up to four months in prison.
The challenged provisions allow election officials to remove voters or summon law enforcement for actions such as wearing clothing, uniforms or official-looking apparel “intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters”; “aggressive behavior”; “raising repeated frivolous voter challenges”; and electioneering that is “audible” inside a voting location.
Critics argue these standards lack clarity and invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement under the pretext of preserving order at polling places.
“The Arizona EPM encourages arbitrary enforcement that results in politically motivated disenfranchisement, stated Oversight Project Director of State Litigation Neal Cornett. “The Oversight Project is always ready to help conservative leaders like Chairwoman Winn challenge government weaponization, especially when it involves such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and voting. The Secretary of State and Attorney General should disavow the challenged provisions and work with Arizona leaders to draft a fair manual that follows Arizona law.”
This is not the first time Arizona officials have faced legal pushback. The Secretary of State and Attorney General were previously enjoined from enforcing similar provisions in the 2023 Manual.
Pima County Republican Party Chairwoman Kathleen Winn emphasized the importance of clear rules for all voters: “Every Arizona voter deserves clear, consistent rules at the polling place that protect their right to vote free from arbitrary enforcement. Vague standards invite abuse, and when election workers are given unchecked discretion to remove voters or call law enforcement based on unclear or unspecified conduct, no voter or vote is truly safe. This lawsuit is about ensuring that the rules governing our elections are written plainly, applied fairly, and consistent with Arizona law, regardless of party.”
The lawsuit contends that the EPM’s vague language unconstitutionally threatens voting rights and free speech by empowering subjective decision-making that could disenfranchise eligible voters.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | May 3, 2026 | Education, News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Goldwater Institute has called on Arizona’s largest school district to immediately repeal a policy that prohibits “personal attacks” on school board members, staff, students, or members of the public during public comment periods, arguing the rule unconstitutionally silences criticism while allowing praise.
In a formal letter sent to Mesa Public Schools Governing Board President Courtney Davis, the Goldwater Institute contends the policy constitutes blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board adopted this policy in July 2024, banning any “personal attacks” during the public comment portion of board meetings. According to the Goldwater Institute, the rule effectively permits speakers to praise or thank board members, administrators, and teachers by name, but forbids any negative, critical, or challenging comments directed at the same individual—no matter how factual or civil the critique may be.
“This prohibition punishes a specific viewpoint insofar as it prohibits ‘attacks,’” the letter states. “It is not, then, the speaking about Board members, staff, students, or members of the public in general that the Governing Board is preventing, but only speech about those groups from a certain viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.”
Adam Shelton, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, who wrote the letter, told The Center Square, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that viewpoint discrimination is almost always unconstitutional.”
The Goldwater Institute became involved after concerned Mesa parents contacted the organization, requesting a review of the policy. Shelton noted that the board reads the restriction aloud before every public comment session.
“The policy has chilled the speech of some of the parents,” Shelton added. “They’re afraid to speak out and bring problems before the school board. These parents are concerned about being banned or punished for making negative comments about school board officials.”
Public comment periods at school board meetings serve as a vital democratic function, allowing parents and community members to bring forward issues, including complaints about teachers, policies, or administrative decisions. The Goldwater Institute argues that Mesa’s policy undermines this purpose by making it nearly impossible to discuss real problems without naming those responsible.
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar policies. In Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit invalidated a rule banning “antagonistic” or “abusive” speech personally directed at board members as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. More recently, in Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL v. Brevard Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a prohibition on “abusive” comments, noting that such policies effectively require “happy-talk”—allowing positive comments while suppressing negative or challenging ones.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that restricting “personally directed” speech obstructs the core purpose of school board meetings: educating officials and the community about legitimate concerns. The court observed that a parent complaining about a math teacher’s instructional methods would struggle to explain the issue without referencing the teacher.
The Goldwater Institute warned that maintaining the policy exposes the district to potentially costly litigation. Following its victory in the Brevard case, Moms for Liberty secured a settlement requiring the Florida school district to pay nearly $600,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
In addition to federal constitutional concerns, the letter highlights that the policy likely violates Article II, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides even broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.
The Goldwater Institute has requested that the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board promptly amend its policy by removing the prohibition on “personal attacks.” The organization expressed willingness to work cooperatively with the board to bring the rules into compliance with constitutional standards and noted that all options remain under consideration if the policy is not revised.
No response has been received from the Board President, Courtney Davis, or the governing board as of the time of publication.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Warren Petersen | Feb 23, 2026 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Earlier this year, I introduced a bill in the legislature to designate one of our state’s busiest freeways, Loop 202, as the Charlie Kirk Loop 202, in honor of the life, work, and legacy of an Arizonan whose voice, energy, and commitment to civic engagement resonated across this state and throughout the nation. Charlie stood unapologetically for free speech, open debate, and civic participation. For future generations to understand and celebrate those ideals, this bill must become law.
Charlie Kirk devoted his life to public discourse and political participation. He traveled the country—and even the world—engaging Americans, especially young people, in robust discussion on the issues that shape our future. Even as opinions diverged, he believed Americans could—and must—engage one another civilly and respectfully, anchored in the principles of free speech and civic responsibility. This belief has been under serious assault, with a growing number of Americans looking to silence their opponents and disagreeable viewpoints, rather than looking for common bonds that should unite us. Charlie rejected this dangerous mindset, and he relentlessly searched for avenues and platforms to reverse this dangerous trend.
On September 10, 2025, Charlie was speaking at an event in Utah when he was fatally and tragically shot—assassinated for exercising free speech in the heart of a college campus, which he had done hundreds of times during his shortened life. His death was an act of political violence and terror that shocked our nation and renewed discussions on the importance of preserving civil discourse. Millions across the country mourned his passing and sought to understand more about his thinking and prolific writings about countless issues of moral, societal, and political importance.
Charlie understood better than most the beauty and necessity of the First Amendment—even acknowledging that he might have to pay the ultimate price for his willingness to engage the masses. He believed disagreement should be met with dialogue, not division. He believed vigorous debate strengthens our republic rather than weakens it, and that Americans can still find common ground even when deep divisions exist. His dedication to these ideals inspired millions and encouraged countless individuals to participate actively in civic life. Few public figures reached young Americans the way Charlie did, and his influence was only growing as he worked tirelessly to re-elect President Donald J. Trump to the White House in 2024.
Arizona was not only Charlie’s home. It was where he built an organizational empire with international reach as a teenager, where he raised a family, and developed a national following among young Americans. Charlie’s tremendous impact on America was evident as two large stadiums of people showed up to pay their respects at his memorial. In fact, Charlie posthumously received the honor of the largest memorial service our state had ever seen in its history. Never has an Arizona citizen received so much respect and adoration from its citizens. And all of the bestowed honors were richly and rightly earned by a man who had done so much to restore our nation to the spirit of our Founding Fathers when they fought to give us a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Designating Loop 202—the roadway that carries hundreds of thousands of drivers each day—as the Charlie Kirk Loop 202 ensures that his contribution to civic engagement, free speech, and the public square will not be forgotten. This highway winds through the Valley of the Sun, which encompasses the fifth-largest city in the United States, serving not only Arizonans but visitors from across the nation and abroad. It would be a great tragedy if this legislation failed because of partisan obstinance. Instead, let us unite across party affiliations to resolve that this name will stand as a daily reminder of the principles he lived for and the importance of peaceful civic participation. It’s only right that the state Charlie called his home gives back to a patriot who sacrificed his life to promote and defend our God-given right to free speech.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Attorney General.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 11, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A federal judge has allowed key claims to proceed in the civil rights lawsuit filed by Rebekah Massie, a Surprise, Arizona, resident who was arrested after criticizing a city attorney’s salary during a city council meeting.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled this week that Massie’s First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Arizona Open Meeting Law claims will move forward into discovery. The lawsuit stems from an August 2024 city council meeting in Surprise, where Massie was removed, arrested, and charged with trespassing after criticizing the pay of a government attorney during public comment. She was later taken to a detention center.
FIRE said the city did not challenge Massie’s federal constitutional claims in its motion, allowing those claims to proceed. The judge also permitted Massie’s Open Meeting Law claim to move forward, noting that Arizona law places express limits on how government bodies may regulate public comment during meetings.
Several state law claims were dismissed, according to FIRE, after the court determined they were duplicative of the constitutional claims and barred under Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute.
FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said the organization will continue pursuing the case.
“We’re going to continue to fight not only to vindicate Rebekah’s constitutional rights, but to ensure that all Arizonans are free to speak their minds. All of us have the right to criticize our government without being arrested.”
The ruling marks the latest development in a case that has already prompted changes from the City of Surprise.
In September 2024, the Surprise City Council voted to repeal its policy prohibiting criticism of public officials during meetings following public backlash and the filing of the lawsuit. The following month, a judge dismissed the criminal trespassing charge against Massie, calling the government’s suppression of her speech “objectively outrageous.”
According to FIRE, body-camera footage later released showed a Surprise police officer responding to Massie’s complaint that she had been thrown to the ground during her arrest by saying, “That’s what happens when you’re resisting arrest.”
The civil lawsuit against the City of Surprise and individual officials remains ongoing as the case enters the discovery phase.
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 Warren Petersen | Oct 13, 2025 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility recommended the most drastic punishment—disbarment—for former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark over his private strategic counsel in the aftermath of the 2020 election. This complaint was pushed by liberal activists, showing the lengths they will go to punish individuals by going after their livelihoods despite the clear lack of criminal, unlawful, or unethical behavior.
Even past Attorneys General – William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey – filed an amicus brief to push back against this “dangerous precedent,” writing, “Disciplining Mr. Clark would open the door to charging federal lawyers with ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ for statements made during oral arguments, theories in briefs, legal advice provided in memoranda, or even (as here) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and discussions. Such acts of political retribution would severely discourage lawyers from serving in the federal government and invite extraordinary dysfunction as federal lawyers constrain the advice they provide for fear of political retaliation by the Bar.”
Over the past decade, radical politicians and interest groups have weaponized the key to attorneys’ livelihoods over partisan disputes, as in Clark’s matter before the DC Appeals Board. These parties seek to bring their vengeance on conservative attorneys’ bar licenses, which allow them to do their jobs and provide for themselves and their families. The obvious intent of these attacks—which echo other attacks from the left such as debanking conservatives, voting against company directors, and threatening doctors’ licenses—is to terrorize and chill any conservative voices.
Attorneys are one of the most important groups to protect from these attacks because their entire job is to open the courthouse doors for their clients; if they are chilled by the left from representing certain groups, those groups will lose their constitutional rights to access the courts and have their causes zealously argued or even to receive legal advice in the first place. Simply put, if our nation is to exist in a society where attorneys feel free to perform the services their clients expect and deserve, we must enhance the protections for their licenses – especially from outside agitators who have no business engaging in this interference.
Perhaps no greater example can be found of this abuse of our judicial system than after the 2020 election in Arizona, when two respected attorneys found themselves facing legal complaints for their work to represent the Arizona Republican Party, as political officials across the country worked to hash out challenges to the hotly contested General Election. The most insidious part of the claims against these men wasn’t simply about the filings, but that a New Jersey Congressman, U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell, led the official accusations.
Most people, regardless of their understanding of our legal system, can apply good-old-fashioned common sense to conclude that lawsuits must be waged between two sides with a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct. Yet, Pascrell had no connection to the case. He filed a complaint against the Arizona-based attorneys, which was ultimately dismissed. However, the damage was done to these attorneys’ reputations because of their fight to beat the frivolous charges from an unconnected, unhinged, partisan Democrat thousands of miles away.
Whether you agree or disagree with the efforts to extend litigation in the courts in the aftermath of the 2020 election, it is uncontestable that the left and their allies grossly abused their powers to assault, undermine, and intimidate attorneys who were attempting to do their jobs within a legal system enshrined by the American Constitution and laws. These tactics were experienced across the country, as President Trump and Republican-affiliated attorneys – like Jeff Clark – found themselves not only defending their clients but their livelihoods against increasingly personal and vicious attacks – from parties that, again, had no direct interest or tie to the case.
This reality was also seen more recently in the State of Montana, where dozens of charges were leveled against the Attorney General, the honorable and respected Austin Knudsen. The allegations were, in part, brought against Montana’s Attorney General for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize justices on the state’s Supreme Court as he worked to execute his constitutionally appropriated responsibilities to the people and legislature. Again, what was most egregious about this case was that one of the earliest steps was an ethical complaint being lodged by a California-based attorney – hundreds of miles away from the action. Because of this complaint, Attorney General Knudsen is now fighting a serious suspension that could complicate his abilities to represent Montanans.
These cases, and plenty more, are why I have been working on legislation in Arizona to protect well-meaning, law-abiding, and ethical attorneys from fear of reprisal from outside radical left agitators. If eventually passed and signed into law, the bill would mandate [is it now law now? – no] that the State Bar of Arizona and the Supreme Court immediately dismiss all complaints against attorneys, where the complainant does not have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney or another substantial nexus to the attorney’s alleged violation or conduct, and where it is clear that the complaint is simply a difference of political opinion. In addition, I collaborated with the Arizona Supreme Court to change its rule that had allowed this persecution to take place. This reform is necessary for many good conservatives who deserve to work their profession without fear of political persecution. I’m grateful that the court made the right decision to strike the balance of protecting the public from bad attorneys while defending good attorneys from frivolous complaints.
If the events of the past decade, as our nation becomes more politically polarized, have taught us anything, it is that we must guard the legal profession to ensure that bad actors are not permitted to chase away good attorneys who are committed to doing their jobs. Not everyone will agree with the cases those attorneys assume — and that’s okay. Our nation’s judicial system, which allows parties to peacefully work out their disagreements, is part of what makes our nation the envy of the entire world. We should resolve to defend this proud institution from nefarious agitators who must not be allowed to interfere with or manipulate our hallowed judicial system.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14.
Page 2 of 10«12345678910»
