A ballot initiative to end the state’s universal school choice program is facing a new challenge to the validity of its signatures.
The Goldwater Institute filed the challenge in court on Monday.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) also announced that it joined Goldwater’s legal challenge, with AZFEC Vice President of Policy Greg Blackie serving as a plaintiff in the case. According to AZFEC, it worked alongside Goldwater and other school choice advocates to review petition sheets, identify alleged irregularities, and help ensure Arizona’s ballot qualification laws are enforced.
The Goldwater Institute said “a large amount” of the more than 415,000 signatures submitted appeared to be “fallacious.” The initiative needs about 256,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The complaint raised more than 73,300 objections; the complaint asserted that, with all signatures removed as a result of the objections, the ballot initiative would be left with fewer than 256,000 valid signatures.
The 900-page complaint filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court stated that the signatures weren’t properly registered with the secretary of state’s office as required by law.
Specifically, the complaint raised objections including paid but unregistered circulators, signatures gathered prior to circulator registration, false residential addresses, permanent address contradictions, bad telephone numbers or email addresses, false identities, bad service addresses, and ineligible, missing, or mismatched IDs.
Additionally, the Goldwater Institute claimed that certain circulators were ineligible to collect signatures because they had been convicted of a criminal offense involving fraud, forgery, or identity theft; convicted of another felony offense in which their civil rights haven’t been restored; or adjudicated an incapacitated person.
Individuals named as ineligible circulators were convicted of felonies and other crimes related to drugs, human trafficking, manslaughter, sexual abuse of a minor, assault, kidnapping, weapons misconduct, forgery, false reporting, and credit card forgery.
Finally, the complaint claimed that certain circulators failed to write their full and correct assigned circulator identification number on multiple petition sheets.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said the allegations raised questions about the campaign’s vetting and oversight of paid petition circulators.
“Save Our Schools and the teachers unions have spent years accusing ESA families of fraud and demanding greater scrutiny of parents. Now, their own campaign is facing serious questions about the people they hired to gather signatures,” said Mussi. “Arizona’s election laws must be fully enforced. If this campaign failed to collect enough lawful and valid signatures, it must not qualify for the ballot.”
Goldwater Institute CEO and President Victor Riches criticized the initiative for its heavy sourcing of out-of-state special interest funding.
“This is a shameless attack on Arizona’s parents, funded by an out-of-state union,” said Riches. “They’re trying to game the system by turning in tens of thousands of invalid signatures in an effort to destroy the most successful school choice program in the country. This won’t happen on our watch.”
The Goldwater Institute also stated in a press release that the original title of the initiative was misleading.
If enough signatures are validated and voters approve the measure, the Protect Education Act would impose an income eligibility cap on the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
Doug Ducey, former Arizona governor, was quoted in the Goldwater Institute press release saying the entire effort to dismantle the ESA program proved the true intentions of teachers’ unions. Ducey signed the bill into law that made the ESA program open to all students.
“Once again, we are reminded how little these out of state unions care about Arizona students and their parents,” said Ducey. “This measure would strip tens of thousands of Arizona families of educational choices they have made for their children, forcing students out of the schools that are serving them well and back into schools they chose to leave. That is unacceptable, and we will vigorously challenge this measure at every possible step.”
In response to the submission of the ballot initiative signatures earlier this month, Ducey launched a political action committee to secure school choice accessibility for military families.
Protect Education, Accountability Now (PEAN), the organization behind the ballot initiative, filed a challenge last week to the competing legislature-referred ballot initiative that would negate their proposed ballot initiative.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix must release records of their closed-door labor union negotiations.
The ruling came from a challenge initiated in 2022 by the Goldwater Institute regarding the refusal of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association’s (PLEA), the police union, to publicize its draft contract proposals for public comment prior to negotiations with the city.
The PLEA proposal concerned its 2023-2024 memorandum of understanding (MOU) which contained expenditure terms for tens of millions of taxpayer dollars as well as the employment terms for law enforcement.
Rather than submitting drafts of the MOU for public review and comment by early December as required by city code, PLEA submitted letters of intent mentioning its aim to negotiate wages and benefits. The Phoenix City Council chose to accept those letters of intent as sufficient for the public to comment on without seeing draft MOUs.
Goldwater Institute requested those draft MOUs. The city refused, claiming these documents were exempt from public records requests under state law allowing exemptions based on the “best interests of the state” because disclosure “could create a chilling effect” on negotiations.
Only after the city and PLEA reached a final agreement did they publicize a draft MOU for public comment in April 2023. The city ratified the MOU about two weeks later, in early May 2023.
That MOU has since expired, having lasted only through June 2024.
The trial court had ruled that the city had sufficiently established “potential material harm” that could occur from disclosing draft MOU materials.
“While significant, the general concerns about transparency, advocacy, and accountability identified by [Goldwater] are different, however, from the particularized interest in preserving the ability to negotiate labor agreements free of political pressure, collusion, and unnecessary delay due to impasse,” said the trial court. “The City provided testimony from individuals directly involved in the collective bargaining process and with experience in labor negotiations with and for the City of Phoenix.”
However, the Arizona Supreme Court in its ruling said that speculative claims of harm were insufficient alone.
The court determined that the city would have to release some or all of the MOU records that it had withheld. In order to determine the nature of such a release, the court ordered the lower court to review the withheld documents.
The court ruled that it was the city’s burden to prove the likelihood of specific, material harm that would occur from the disclosure of contested public records, as well as the causal connection between the disclosure and that harm that could occur.
The Goldwater Institute said in a press release that the high court ruling affirmed citizens’ rights of public disclosure and an ability to provide input.
“City residents and taxpayers deserve to know what the union was demanding and what city leaders were offering during that process. But all of that was kept hidden from the public,” stated the Goldwater Institute. “Citizens have a right to know what their government is up to and should have an opportunity to provide feedback about labor negotiations and other public activities. As today’s decision affirms, that’s the whole point of our public records laws.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A recent campaign ad from the Democrat incumbent governor cost her millions, but critics and past reporting indicate the ad is misleading and takes credit for work done by Republicans.
Gov. Katie Hobbs’ 30-second “Work” ad released last month claimed that she reduced electricity bills, cut red tape to build more affordable housing, and balanced the budget. Critics across the political spectrum assessed these claims as misleading.
Utility rates have increased by more than 25% under the Hobbs administration.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club calculated based on Energy Information Administration data that utility rates in Arizona have increased by an average of 27% under Hobbs’ tenure. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) sets rates.
The largest donor to Hobbs’ controversial inaugural fund, Arizona Public Service, also wants to increase the utility rates by 14%. That ratemaking case is ongoing with the ACC.
The Hobbs administration imposed more red tape on housing construction that had the effect of imposing a housing moratorium. A court struck down that red tape earlier this year as an unlawful overreach in agency rulemaking, a ruling which has the potential to put Arizona taxpayers on the hook for over $1 billion in compensation claims.
One developer duo, Buckeye Tartesso I and II, already filed such a claim last September with the help of the Goldwater Institute. The duo is seeking over $320 million in compensation for lost value, an amount their demand letter claimed was a compilation of conservative, not maximum, estimates.
Budget talks were repeatedly called off and subjected to a bill moratorium by Hobbs as she tried to impose what Republican lawmakers characterized as unrealistic revenue assumptions, hidden tax increases, and cost-raising policies.
In the thick of budget talks earlier this year, House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) commented that Hobbs’ budgeting style was reminiscent of the more liberal-style budgets coming out of California: fiscal approaches which increase government size and create inconsistencies within the tax system. Hobbs held out on securing tax conformity for months to align the Arizona tax code with many of the congressional changes passed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Hobbs has been accused by bipartisan critics of turning her inheritance of a $2.5 billion surplus from former governor Doug Ducey into a $1.6 billion shortfall.
Last summer, a report by the Common Sense Institute Arizona found that state spending outpaced the $3.3 billion in revenues that emerged following the passage of the flat tax in 2023.
Per the Hobbs campaign, the ad buys required millions from her campaign coffers.
Additionally, the Hobbs campaign press release implied that the Spanish-speaking version of her “Work” ad, “No Se Rinde” (“Doesn’t Give Up”), was uniform in its messaging. However, the ads contained key differences that indicated an awareness of Arizona’s split demographics.
Both opened with a characterization of Hobbs’ background as a mother who worked multiple jobs and as a social worker, but differed distinctly in their portrayals of Hobbs’ approach to governance.
The English-speaking ad, “Work,” depicted Hobbs as a budget and policy expert with key wins in electricity bill and red tape cuts, and school lunch and community college scholarship expansions.
The English ad described Hobbs as working fast food and Uber jobs to make ends meet. It included the misleading claims that Hobbs was responsible for balancing the budget without raising taxes, reducing electricity bills, and cutting affordable housing red tape, along with the valid claims that she expanded school lunches and community college scholarships.
The Spanish version of the ad, “No Se Rinde,” depicted Hobbs as a social worker with key wins in medical debt forgiveness, medical cost cuts, and salary boosts. Hobbs forgave $30 million in medical debts early on in her administration.
The Spanish-speaking ad similarly characterized Hobbs as having a background as a working mother, but only highlighted her past Uber driving work and expanded on her time as a social worker as mainly aiding female domestic violence victims. The ad further diverged in describing Hobbs as responsible for canceling tens of millions in medical debt, reducing medical costs with discounts up to 80 percent, and raising salaries.
A Centers for Disease Control report published in 2024 suggested that Latino and Hispanic women have a disproportionately higher risk of experiencing domestic violence: one in three, indicating an occurrence average up to three times higher than white women.
Close to a quarter of all Latinos in Arizona are uninsured, as are nearly half of all illegal aliens, according to a 2022 research analysis from the Latino Policy & Politics Institute. Approximately 80% of Latino families in Arizona reported financial trouble according to recent polling by UnidosUS; nearly half of Latinos across Arizona, California, and Texas reported medical debt in a 2024 UnidosUS poll.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute has filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to intervene on behalf of two Air Force veterans in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect certain scholarship funds for children of military families.
The motion was filed on behalf of Nickolas Kupper and Robert Figueroa, whom Goldwater identified as Air Force veterans whose children currently participate in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The proposed intervenors are seeking to defend House Concurrent Resolution 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which the Legislature recently referred to the November 2026 ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona, and voter Linda May Lyon against the State of Arizona and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. According to Goldwater’s motion to intervene, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block HCR 2048 from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona's military families don't deserve to have their children's educational opportunities ripped from their hands. That's why we're stepping up to defend them. https://t.co/ayRcX5JbBE
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 2, 2026
Goldwater said in a July 2 announcement that Kupper and Figueroa are seeking to defend the measure because their families have used ESA funds for years and have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
“Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as Defendants to defend the constitutionality of House Concurrent Resolution 2048 (‘HCR 2048’), the ‘Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,’ which is a legislative referral passed to protect the educational stability of military families,” the motion states.
HCR 2048 proposes adding a new section to Article XI of the Arizona Constitution. Under the measure, the state could not confiscate funds from the scholarship account of a child of a military family if the account is maintained under a state program that designates such students as eligible and allows the funds to be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student who is the child of a person serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, who was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or who was killed in the line of duty.
The proposed amendment also contains a nonseverability provision. If a future law or voter-approved measure violates the military-family scholarship protection, the entire conflicting law or measure would be void, and a court could not sever only the offending portion.
The House passed HCR 2048 initially on March 2, the Senate passed it on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote, and the House passed the final reading on June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
Goldwater’s motion argues that Kupper and Figueroa have a right to intervene because the lawsuit directly threatens their ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s education funding.
“By seeking to keep HCR 2048 off the ballot, Plaintiffs directly threaten to block Proposed Intervenors’ ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s educational funding,” the motion states.
The filing also argues that the existing government defendants cannot adequately represent the families’ specific interests. Goldwater said Fontes is defending the measure as a neutral election administrator, while Kupper and Figueroa are defending the substantive validity of the proposed amendment because their children rely on ESA funds.
In its July 2 statement, the Goldwater Institute said, “The Arizona Constitution is clear: Arizona voters have the right to amend the state constitution, and the Military Families Protection Act would trump the activists’ efforts to cripple the scholarship opportunities currently afforded to Arizona military families and others.”
The lawsuit comes as ESA opponents are also seeking to place the Protect Education Act on the ballot. Save Our Schools Arizona says the proposal is intended to “reform Arizona’s universal ESA voucher program” and increase transparency and accountability.
The Protect Education Campaign announced last week that it submitted 421,451 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The Protect Education Act proposal would require unused ESA money to revert to the state and be directed to public schools, and it would bar families making more than $150,000 annually from joining the program. It would also ban ESA spending on non-educational or luxury items and require the Arizona Department of Education to report how much voucher funding each school receives.
HCR 2048 could conflict with the Protect Education Act because the proposed constitutional amendment would block future laws or ballot measures from changing the protected scholarship-account funds for military families.
Goldwater argued in its motion that the litigation is directly tied to that conflict, saying an adverse ruling could remove HCR 2048 from the ballot and leave the families’ ESA accounts vulnerable to “regulatory and financial rollbacks” under the competing Protect Education Act.
“Without HCR 2048, Proposed Intervenors’ educational accounts will remain highly vulnerable to systemic legislative and political volatility, including the exact regulatory and financial rollbacks slated under Plaintiffs’ competing ‘Protect Education Act,’” the motion states.
Kupper and Figueroa are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants, either as a matter of right or by permission. They also said they intend to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim rather than expand the litigation with counterclaims.
The case is assigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer.
Arizona families using the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program will no longer be required to submit curriculum documentation when purchasing general educational supplemental materials, such as basic school supplies, under a settlement agreement announced by the Goldwater Institute.
The agreement resolves a lawsuit brought by ESA parent Velia Aguirre against the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), and Superintendent Tom Horne over the documentation requirements.
The settlement, which took effect July 1, states that ESA families “shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document” when purchasing items identified as “general educational supplemental materials” in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook.
After pushing this bureaucratic abomination for 2 years, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes has walked back its unlawful demands. No more permission slips needed to buy pencils and children's books:
The dispute began after Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office sent a 2024 letter to the ADE opening a public monies investigation into ESA spending approvals. The Attorney General’s Office said at the time that ADE guidance appeared to allow expenses beyond the statutory framework for the ESA program, including the approval of supplementary materials without documentation demonstrating a curricular connection.
In the letter, Mayes’ office asked the ADE to “promptly cease approving supplementary material expenses without the requisite documentation of a curriculum nexus,” and requested information on ESA spending for supplementary materials, curriculum materials, and textbooks from the 2019–2020 school year through the 2023–2024 school year.
The Goldwater Institute, which represented Aguirre, said in a September 2024 press release that the directive forced parents to justify purchases of basic school supplies and educational books. Goldwater said Aguirre had purchases such as “Where the Red Fern Grows,” a periodic table poster, and pencils rejected for failing to satisfy the curriculum documentation requirement.
Arizona law allows ESA funds to be used for several categories of educational expenses, including tuition at qualified schools, textbooks, tutoring, curricula, and supplementary materials.
The law defines “curriculum” as “a course of study for content areas or grade levels, including any supplemental materials required or recommended by the curriculum, approved by the department.”
After Mayes’ 2024 letter, the ADE posted guidance stating that supplementary materials, including common school supplies such as pencils, paper, glue, and crayons, required curriculum support. The ADE’s ESA support page stated that items previously allowed without curriculum documentation “now do require a curriculum.”
Goldwater filed suit in September 2024 on behalf of Aguirre and Rosemary McAtee, arguing that the documentation requirement imposed new burdens on families buying ordinary educational materials. Goldwater said at the time that parents were being required to show that each purchase was explicitly called for in a curriculum, including items such as pencils, erasers, flashcards, and children’s books.
Under the settlement, ESA families purchasing general educational supplemental materials must attest that the items are intended to support a curriculum or course of study for the qualified student and are not being purchased for another purpose. The agreement also requires ESA holders to indicate the curriculum or course of study the materials support by selecting categories such as reading or grammar, social studies, science, mathematics, physical education, art, vocational instruction, or other.
The agreement states that the ADE will not require a specific curriculum document as a prerequisite for approval or processing of general educational supplemental material purchases. It also provides that the ADE may require an ESA holder to enter the name of the curriculum or course of study in a text box when selecting “Other,” once technologically feasible or no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2027.
The settlement does not eliminate the ADE’s oversight authority. Rather, it states that nothing limits the ADE’s ability to review or audit individual expenditures or ESA accounts, disallow expenses, seek repayment, or report an ESA holder to the Attorney General’s Office for investigation of fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures.
The agreement also preserves the Attorney General’s authority to investigate or enforce the law in cases involving fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures, and to request information in specific cases where there is a reasonable basis to believe a violation occurred.
The State disputed in the settlement agreement that the ADE enforced the alleged documentation policy and maintained that the ADE has the authority and obligation to confirm that ESA expenditures are allowable under statute and rules. The parties agreed to resolve the case to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation.
Goldwater characterized the settlement as a victory for ESA families.
“ESA holders shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document when purchasing items identified as ‘general educational supplemental materials’ in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook,” Goldwater wrote, quoting the settlement agreement. The organization said the change means families will no longer have to provide individualized curriculum documentation for ordinary educational purchases such as pencils and children’s books.
In a press release on July 2, Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, summarized the legal victory:
“This means no more manufactured paperwork from parents simply to appease the bureaucratic whims of politicians. No more wasted hours explaining why hundreds of individual items, like pencils or children’s literature, are necessary for a child’s education.
“Instead, parents will simply acknowledge via a single check box for a purchase order or reimbursement request that the purchases are intended to support the course of study for an ESA student. What was once the needless compounding of minutes into hours to comply with the attorney general’s demands will now be two clicks of a mouse.”
The parties agreed to file a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice within 10 days of executing the settlement.
