This week’s erroneous attack on Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) is another example of how biased reporting is misleading lawmakers and the public.
When the Arizona Auditor General last week released its Single Audit Report on the state for fiscal year 2024, Craig Harris of Channel 12 News had another fairy tale ready for viewers and readers. The ESA program, he claimed, is “plagued by weak controls, questionable spending, and internal management failures.”
No mention was made of the Arizona Department of Education’s recent finding that only 2% of ESA funds were spent on unallowed items (mostly innocent errors like backpacks and lunch boxes), and only 0.3% of ESA funds were spent fraudulently.
A new Arizona Auditor General report finds the the percentage of misspending in the state's Empowerment Scholarship program was a stunning 34 percent, based on a sample of transactions from July 23-October 25.
The report also is highly critical of @RealTomHorne management….
Both halves of that claim are false. And the falsehoods are not minor.
Start with “random.” The Auditor General’s report describes the relevant sample in unambiguous language: “we judgmentally selected 63 expenditure transactions for review occurring between July 2023 and October 2025 totaling $251,446.” [Emphasis added.]
A footnote on the same page adds, for the benefit of any reader who might be tempted to make the mistake that Harris did: “We selected our audit sample(s) to provide sufficient evidence to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Unless otherwise noted, the results of our testing using these samples were not intended to be projected to the entire population.” [Emphasis added.]
Judgmental sampling and random sampling are not synonyms. They are distinct methodologies with distinct inferential properties. A random sample can be projected to a population; that is its entire purpose. A judgmental sample cannot, which is why auditors use it to probe suspected weaknesses rather than measure their prevalence.
In this case, the auditor general was testing the robustness of the Arizona Department of Education’s review process, not trying to determine the prevalence of misspending in the ESA program.
More responsible journalists, such as Garrett Archer of ABC 15, made sure to clarify that the auditor general’s findings were not generalizable to the entire program.
Note: This is not a program transaction error rate. The Auditor General's focus was on the review process itself.
— The AZ – abc15 – Data Guru (@Garrett_Archer) May 12, 2026
In other words, Harris completely misrepresented the auditor general’s methods and findings. That is sloppy at best, dishonest at worst.
Not only is the “34% misspending” figure not generalizable, it’s also not all misspending.
The 34.4% figure comes from dividing $86,599 in flagged transactions by the $251,446 sample. But Table 2 of Finding 2024-04 breaks those flagged transactions into five categories, and only two of them — “unallowable expense” ($2,155) and “overpayment” ($9,977) — involve money the program should not have disbursed.
The other three — missing documentation ($42,760), missing accreditation ($14,175), and “indicators of possible misuse” ($17,531) — are paperwork and compliance gaps. A tutor’s accreditation certificate that wasn’t uploaded is not the same thing as a misspent dollar. The actual confirmed misspending share within the sample (combining 0.9% unallowable expenses plus 4% overpayments) is about 4.9%, not 34%. Moreover, as the report concedes, even the 4.9% figure cannot be projected to the entire program.
In short, Harris conflates paperwork issues with misspending and treats a non-generalizable sample as generalizable, even though the auditor general warned readers not to do exactly that. Then Harris’s manufactured anti-ESA talking points are repeated ad nauseum by politicians and political activists.
Harris built an entire investigative series on a Department of Education internal review that supposedly reported a 20% misuse rate — except the internal review, like the auditors’ sample, was not designed to be projected. Harris projected it anyway.
When the same Department then produced a separate analysis suggesting misuse was minimal, Harris turned around and faulted that study for over-generalizing from its sample. For Harris, non-generalizable findings become generalizable when they damage ESA. Generalizable findings become non-generalizable when they don’t.
The convenient feature of this method is that the error always points the same direction. A reporter who genuinely struggled with the statistics of audit sampling would make mistakes in both directions over time. Harris’s don’t. They cluster.
And they remain uncorrected. Harris’s original 20% claim has never been retracted. The “random sample” language and the 34% framing are now circulating through campaign statements, legislative press releases, and social media posts, citing Harris’s distorted reading of the Auditor General report.
One cannot help but notice that Harris’s manufactured anti-ESA talking points come at a moment when anti-ESA groups are gathering signatures for two ballot initiatives to curb and regulate the ESA program. One also cannot help but wonder whether the downstream political effect is more than incidental to the reporting.
The Auditor General’s findings on ESA are real and worth engaging on their own terms. The program’s risk-based audit methodology is likely better than any other program in the state, but it could still be improved. The auditor has some substantive criticisms, and ADE will have to answer them.
Arizonans deserve honest reporting on those findings, not statistical fictions dressed up as “journalism.”
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow and Corey DeAngelis is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has obtained election-related records from Maricopa County as part of an ongoing federal investigation connected to the 2020 presidential election. The confirmation followed independent reporting, which some members of the local press mischaracterized as describing a “raid.”
Petersen confirmed the action after a report from JustTheNews stated that federal investigators recently secured terabytes of election data from Arizona’s most populous county through a federal grand jury subpoena.
The subpoena sought election materials connected to Maricopa County’s administration of the 2020 election, according to the report. Sources familiar with the probe told the outlet that investigators obtained electronic election data as part of a broader criminal inquiry examining potential election-related misconduct.
The reported federal action follows other election-related investigations conducted in recent months involving local election administration across the United States, such as the FBI’s similar seizure of election records in Fulton County, Georgia.
Early responses to reporting from JustTheNews’ John Solomon included ABC15’s Garrett Archer mischaracterizing the report on the seizure under subpoena as describing a ‘raid,’ and as “either a full-throated lie, or something having to do with the recorder’s office.”
Solomon replied to the post, stating, “My story is accurate. When a grand jury subpoena is issued there isn’t usually a raid. The data is obtained usually from a third party. I’d ask your legislature what they know.”
Within minutes, a post from Petersen confirmed the JustTheNews article shared by President Donald Trump on Truth Social. Petersen posted to X, “President Trump is 100% correct. Late last week I received and complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records relating to the Arizona State Senate’s 2020 audit of Maricopa County. The FBI has the records. Any other report is fake news.”
President Trump is 100% correct.
Late last week I received and complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records relating to the Arizona State Senate’s 2020 audit of Maricopa County. The FBI has the records. Any other report is fake news.@realDonaldTrumppic.twitter.com/C2T202VgZP
Congressman Abe Hamadeh’s (R-AZ08) Rapid Response team was quick to point out, “John Solomon’s report never mentions a ‘raid’ at all. The actual term used is ‘subpoena.’ Garrett Archer appears to have invented the raid claim just to knock down an easy ‘straw man’ argument.”
John Solomon's report never mentions a 'raid' at all.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the contractors’ controversial report from the Senate-mandated audit documented multiple concerns about election administration procedures, while confirming that the overall ballot count remained largely consistent with the certified results.
Hamadeh issued a request for a full investigation into credible allegations that election security protocols in Arizona were breached during the 2024 General Election in June 2025 following reports alleging that large stores of printed blank ballots from several western states were “improperly mixed in a warehouse with returned voted mail ballots that were in the process of being prepared for tabulation” at Runbeck Election Services, a firm contracted by Maricopa County.
Blank ballots should never be mixed with live ballots. I’m urging the @DOJ to investigate Runbeck Election Services and Maricopa County’s role in Arizona’s 2024 election.
He wrote at the time, “This alarming situation raises serious questions about the security and integrity of the election process in Maricopa County and potentially beyond. The commingling of blank ballots with live ballots poses a significant risk to the accuracy and fairness of election results. It is crucial that we have confidence in the integrity of our elections, and any potential mishandling of ballots must be investigated to ensure that the will of the voters is accurately reflected.”
Federal investigators have not publicly detailed the full scope of the current inquiry involving the Maricopa County records. The FBI generally does not comment on ongoing investigations.
Officials with Maricopa County have not publicly released a detailed description of the materials obtained by federal investigators or the timing of the request. Federal authorities have not announced any charges connected to the reported subpoena for Maricopa County election records.
Maricopa County leadership is dissatisfied with the rejection rate of ballot signatures.
Following Wednesday’s canvass of this month’s election, Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin said the new signature verification policy was problematic for having yielded a much higher rejection rate compared to years past.
“At this rate, 15,269 ballots would’ve been rejected in ‘24 prez election,” said Galvin. “Only 7,220 were rejected in ‘24.”
At today’s Canvas, I expressed my deep concern that too many valid ballots were rejected by Justin Heap’s office because of the new signature verification policy. At this rate, 15,269 ballots would’ve been rejected in ‘24 prez election. Only 7,220 were rejected in ‘24. Stay tuned https://t.co/vmPWaa5XHi
— Thomas Galvin: Chairman, Maricopa County BOS (@ThomasGalvin) November 19, 2025
About 30,000 ballots were subject to further review, and of those 15,000 went through the curing process. Altogether, about 5,900 ballots were rejected following the curing process out of about 700,000 total cast ballots. An additional 1,000 ballots were rejected for having no signatures and the voter failing to respond to the county’s curing attempts by deadline.
The rejection rate rose to .8 percent this go around. Last year and in 2023, the rejection rate was .3 percent. It was .1 percent in 2022.
The recorder’s office also clarified that this was the first election in decades to send mailed ballots to all voters, which they say also contributed to the higher rejection rate.
Heap responded to Galvin’s criticism by accusing the chairman of deflecting from the county’s election bungles with fabricated, nonexistent issues in his office.
“Instead of holding his own staff accountable for misplacing thousands of Election Day ballots and illegally seizing control of the Recorder’s statutory responsibilities, Chairman Galvin chose to attack the only part of the process that worked flawlessly,” said Heap.
Instead of holding his own staff accountable for misplacing thousands of Election Day ballots and illegally seizing control of the Recorder’s statutory responsibilities, Chairman Galvin chose to attack the only part of the process that worked flawlessly.
— Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) November 20, 2025
Heap was referencing the misplacement of two sealed transport boxes with nearly 2,300 ballots by election workers this month. The ballots were discovered several days after the election occurred, on the day of the ballot curing deadline. This forced the recorder’s office to complete ballot processing in record time, and attempt to cure ballots in a matter of hours.
Galvin acknowledged the 2022 election was a disaster in private, sources say, but publicly he defended the county’s administration.
The Heap administration implemented certain changes to ease and strengthen signature verification efforts: side-by-side screen viewing of a voter’s on-file signature and their cast ballot signature, rather than having a worker scroll up and down; and requiring three separate levels of review rather than relying on the same person double-checking their work.
During Wednesday’s board of supervisors meeting, Heap repeatedly defended his position that the signature on the cast ballot must match the voter’s historic signatures on file in their record.
“In the end, if we have a signature, and the signature on the envelope does not match the signatures we have on file, and it’s now been reviewed through multiple phases, we cannot accept that signature unless that person calls,” said Heap. “We can make all diligent efforts to reach out but, in the end, the signatures either match or they don’t.”
The supervisors were divided on Heap’s approach — and whether the changes were worth it — although they did agree that the bipartisan review was a good step.
Supervisor Debbie Lesko approved of Heap’s signature verification process.
“I’ll give you credit when credit’s due, and I think if you’ve done it faster and it’s still accurate and you’re able to make it easier for the people, it sounds like a good thing,” said Lesko.
Supervisor Steve Gallardo questioned how time-consuming the process was in comparison to Heap’s predecessor, Stephen Richer. Heap responded that the signature verification has sped up due to the bipartisan team setup, and that they concluded their work the day after the election.
Some familiar voices chimed into the social media chatter over the bristling interactions between select supervisors and Heap.
Maricopa County’s former recorder, Stephen Richer, said Heap’s approach went against the state’s signature verification law.
“That’s not even how statute works,” said Richer.
Richer told KJZZ that election fraud through stolen mail-in ballots in an off-year election was so far-fetched as to be humorous.
“It’s laughable to think 5,000-plus people stole ballot envelopes and forged signatures so they could cast one more vote in a school bond election,” said Richer.
ABC15’s Garrett Archer said Heap’s multiple levels of review was problematic because matching signatures has a certain level of subjectivity that can cause individuals to disagree on what they’re seeing.
“In the old process, private information was on screen that could be used as a second check. This has been stripped to allow observers to be closer to the process,” said Archer. “If they so choose to proceed this way, there will likely be 80,000+ signature elevations in 2026. They need to staff accordingly or this could become a major problem.”
An elections advocate, Merissa Hamilton, countered that signature verification is “ultimately subjective,” and that the elimination of the private information component allows for a more unbiased review of the ballot.
DISINFORMATION PUPPET🤡
Here's the correct info:
1. Bipartisan teams don't review the signatures.
➡️ Two individuals from separate parties review the signatures independently. Not the same as duplication.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) has become the center of controversies in Arizona in the past few days, involving Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and a raft of reforms to the act proposed by Congressman Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ08).
According to a press release from State Representative John Gillette’s office (R-LD30), “Fontes ordered counties to abandon the secure, state-managed Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballot processing system and instead use a third-party platform controlled solely by his office.”
Gillette condemned Fontes, saying, “UOCAVA exists to ensure that our deployed service members, their families, and Arizona residents living overseas can securely exercise their right to vote. He explained, “It does not give voting rights to foreign nationals, illegal immigrants, or U.S. citizens with no prior Arizona residency. This directive is a reckless expansion of voting access beyond what the law allows.”
The release from Gillette’s office added, “The change undermines the clear intent of federal law, circumvents the Arizona Election Procedures Manual—which requires a public process and legislative oversight before such changes—and risks improper use of federal funds designated for legitimate UOCAVA services. Removing counties from control also weakens ballot verification and tracking safeguards that protect against fraud.”
In a statement released by the Secretary of State’s office, Fontes characterized his change as “the upgrade we’ve been working toward for 20 years.”
On the federal stage, the Proving Residency for Overseas Voter Eligibility (PROVE) Act, introduced by Rep. Hamadeh earlier this month, drew the ire of elections reporter Garrett Archer of ABC 15. The self-proclaimed “data guru” held the reforms to be unnecessary, according to the Arizona Daily Independent. Archer has been in an ongoing social media feud with Hamadeh and his staff regarding UOCAVA voting totals.
Here’s some actual data for the self-proclaimed “Data-Guru," @Garrett_Archer.
UOCAVA Voting: The Critical Numbers
The military and overseas citizen voting data reveals some concerning patterns:
Volume Stats: • Total UOCAVA ballots transmitted: 1,327,324
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) August 6, 2025
Introducing the measure, Hamadeh warned that the UOCAVA allows people who have never resided in the U.S. to vote in state elections, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. “The loophole in UOCAVA allows citizens living overseas, with no current ties to a state, to arbitrarily choose where their vote counts,” he said. “This threatens electoral integrity and is an affront to everyone who believes in fair and free elections. The PROVE Act will close this loophole and go far to restore trust in our elections.”
“The military and overseas citizen voting data reveals some concerning patterns: Volume Stats:
• Total UOCAVA ballots transmitted: 1,327,324
• Here’s the kicker: 70% went to overseas citizens, not military voters
• That’s the largest gap between overseas civilians and uniformed services since 2014.”
Archer accused the congressman of “still lying. Just with numbers this time.” He argued, “The four states with a concentration of UOCAVA voters are Virginia, Florida, Washington, and California. The UOCAVA voters in the first three are all majority military. Virginia is near the seat of government, Washington and California both have aerospace and tech industries. Abe is implying its suspicious that a random county in Oklahoma or Nebraska DO NOT have over 100 UOCAVA voters. Quite the opposite in fact. If a random county in Oklahoma or Nebraska had over 100 UOCAVA voters, that would be suspicious.”
In response to another post from Archer, who shared his breakdown of UOCAVA registrations in 2024 by Arizona counties, Hamadeh asked, “Why aren’t you using the military numbers? Is it because it completely invalidates your rebuttal? This bill ensures that military voters are protected and loopholes are closed.”
Why aren't you using the military numbers?
Is it because it completely invalidates your rebuttal?
This bill ensures that military voters are protected and loopholes are closed.
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) August 7, 2025
Hamadeh then cited Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies: “‘The typical civilian Congress was looking at [when UOCAVA was created] was, for example, a State Department foreign service officer in Europe for a several-year assignment who would return to his or her home in Maryland or Virginia or another state when that assignment ended,’ Spakovsky told The Federalist. Spakovsky explained the legislation was surely not intended to permit expatriates, or other individuals who left the country and have no intention of ever returning, to continue voting.”
Overstepping his authority & again demonstrating his flagrant disregard for the integrity of our elections, @Adrian_Fontes is exploiting voting in the name of the very servicemembers who protect that freedom.
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) August 11, 2025
Answering the efforts of Adrian Fontes to interfere, and blasting the Democrat in a post to X, Hamadeh wrote, “Overstepping his authority & again demonstrating his flagrant disregard for the integrity of our elections, @Adrian_Fontes is exploiting voting in the name of the very servicemembers who protect that freedom. Congressman Hamadeh’s PROVE Act fixes this.”
Although uncounted ballots from the highly contested 2022 election were destroyed, a former Arizona Secretary of State employee and current reporter is claiming that Congressman Abe Hamadeh is delusional for believing counties followed the law.
Last November, all ballots from the 2022 election were destroyed in accordance with Arizona law. Over 9,000 of those destroyed and allegedly valid ballots were never counted in the election — all provisional votes that may have resulted in Hamadeh winning the attorney general’s race over then-Democratic candidate and current attorney general Kris Mayes.
One of those ballots belonged to the husband of State Senator Wendy Rogers, according to the lawmaker.
My military veteran husband's ballot for Abe Hamadeh was one of the 9,000 that never got counted. https://t.co/DwFOJfmXOE
These provisional ballots belonged to voters who were forced to cast provisionally due to failures by the state’s voter registration system, according to legal discoveries that would emerge over the course of Hamadeh’s challenge of the election.
The counties reportedly did not discover the thousands of uncounted provisional ballots due to a delay in response from the counties to Hamadeh’s legal team. The tardiness of the counties’ response times — along with a superior court judge’s months-long delay in signing his orders — jeopardized and ultimately resulted in the defeat of Hamadeh’s legal challenge to the 2022 election.
The statewide recount announced late December 2022 reduced Mayes’ lead over Hamadeh from just over 500 votes to less than 300 votes out of millions of ballots cast. The slashed lead resulted from major ballot-counting errors by Pinal County. The county failed to account for nearly 400 votes cast for Hamadeh and about 100 for Mayes due to “human error” — a vote difference of over 500 that grew Hamadeh’s margin.
About 70 percent of Election Day votes were for Hamadeh.
In an X post on Monday, Hamadeh accused Democrats of stealing the 2022 attorney general’s race.
“No, they stole [the election],” said Hamadeh. “Burned 9,000 uncounted ballots.”
Yet, the former Secretary of State staffer and data and elections reporter for ABC 15 Arizona, Garrett Archer, called Hamadeh “delusional” and unserious for reminding the public of the uncounted ballots that were destroyed and claiming the possibility of those ballots being valid.
“Abraham Hamadeh has a former troll run his social media. I have to think this is coming from that person. Because this take is delusional,” said Archer. “Why do people take this garbage seriously? Is it just a game or is it a complete capitulation of critical thinking in favor of an emotion driven reaction?”
Now….now they burned 9,000 ballots. @AbrahamHamadeh has a former troll run hia social media. I have to think this is coming from that person.
— The AZ – abc15 – Data Guru (@Garrett_Archer) June 2, 2025
Beyond the thousands of destroyed uncounted ballots, it was argued by Hamadeh’s counsel in his case contending the 2022 election that Maricopa County included hundreds of invalid early ballots for Mayes.
Around the date the ballots were set to be destroyed last November, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected Hamadeh’s challenge to the 2022 election results.
The disenfranchisement of thousands of voters wasn’t an unlikely occurrence in the 2022 election. While secretary of state that year, Governor Katie Hobbs admitted about 6,000 Arizonans were mistakenly registered as federal-only voters.
A year later in November 2023, Hobbs issued what critics called a “confession” of sorts describing potential disenfranchisement caused by the state’s voter system in her Elections Task Force final report.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
