by Matthew Holloway | Jan 25, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Goldwater Institute is asking a federal judge to allow Maricopa County taxpayers to see how public funds have been spent during more than a decade of federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Tuesday, Goldwater urged the U.S. District Court to reconsider a 2014 order that keeps the federal monitor’s invoices confidential. Under that order, the court-appointed monitor, Warshaw & Associates, submits billing records exclusively to the judge, placing them outside public view.
Scrutiny of the court-appointed monitor has been growing in recent weeks. Over $300 million has been spent on oversight in the past 14 years, with approximately 10% going to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw, according to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin. The Board submitted a court filing in December asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to end federal oversight of MCSO. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell agreed in a post to X, writing, “There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, explained, “That means Maricopa County taxpayers have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent on one of the most important services the county provides.”
“Although the Goldwater Institute has repeatedly requested copies of these invoices, the county does not have itemized statements, and the federal monitor refused to produce them,” he added. “But as we point out in the brief we filed on Tuesday, the government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are. The court in this case has never done so—and even if it had, circumstances have changed in the decade since the lawsuit began.”
The filing comes as Maricopa County separately argues that continued federal oversight of MCSO under the Melendres v. Arpaio ruling is no longer justified. In a pending motion, the county contends that the sheriff’s office has implemented substantial reforms and that the monitorship should be terminated.
In its brief, Goldwater argues that the continued sealing of the monitor’s invoices prevents taxpayers from knowing how their money is being spent and undermines transparency principles embedded in Arizona and federal law.
“History did not end in 2014, and continued federal oversight of MCSO cannot be based on decade-old facts,” the brief states. “It’s crucial that Maricopa County taxpayers be permitted to know where their tax dollars are going — and that’s hindered by the existing orders and continued federal oversight without a full public accounting.”
The court has not yet ruled on either Maricopa County’s motion to end federal oversight or Goldwater’s request for public access to the monitor’s billing records.
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 | Jan 16, 2026 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
An Arizona State University faculty member, who also serves as an associate director, was captured on video acknowledging that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming continues at ASU despite Executive Orders and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) policies directing the elimination of the programs.
In footage from Accuracy in Media (AIM) circulating online, an ASU official identified as Rebecca Loftus, Associate Teaching Professor and Associate Director of the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, is shown discussing how DEI efforts persist at the university, saying the programming is now “just not as broadcast as it was before,” according to posts and videos shared on social media platforms.
In January 2025, the DOE announced it was dismantling DEI-related offices, removing DEI references from public-facing materials, and directing staff to eliminate related programs as part of a department-wide policy shift under the Trump administration. The department said the move was intended to end what it described as discriminatory or non-merit-based practices tied to DEI frameworks. It warned that institutions continuing such efforts could face scrutiny over federal funding.
The video, originally posted to YouTube, was later shared on X by Corey A. DeAngelis and circulated more broadly as Instagram Reels and X posts. In the footage, Loftus can be heard making statements that ASU’s diversity initiatives are still in effect, albeit with less public emphasis than in earlier years.
According to AIM, Loftus, speaking with an undercover investigator, was recorded stating that, “Most of our faculty do tend to be a little more on the liberal side. You have to be careful with the language that you use. We’re doing pretty much what we were doing before.”
The outlet reported that she went on to describe a body known as “the idea office,” an internal group responsible for “designing” criminology classes for a “majority-minority student body,” with AIM characterizing such groups as “how DEI-related instruction is being concealed through new internal structures.”
Loftus is later seen telling the investigator: “You’re not going to find very many programs that are going to broadcast it as before because the federal funding for universities, especially state-run universities like ASU… If you have federal funds that are withheld, it really makes a big impact.” She reportedly added that entire classes are still being devoted to race, ethnicity, and gender, and said that ASU has been bringing in outside figures to present these classes.
In a later clip, when confronted about the undercover video, she can be seen telling Adam Guillette, President of Accuracy in Media, that she has “no idea” what he’s talking about and urged him to “talk to our Director” before requesting he leave her office.
ASU’s use of diversity training and DEI programming has been the subject of a legal challenge in recent years.
In March 2024, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ASU faculty member challenging ASU’s “Inclusive Communities” training requirement as violating Arizona law prohibiting certain diversity trainings funded with public money. That lawsuit, Anderson v. Arizona Board of Regents, remains active in the state court system.
The Goldwater Institute’s online materials describe the training as covering systemic bias, privilege, and related concepts.
At the time of this report, ASU administrators had not issued a public response to the video clips widely circulated on social media, nor had the university clarified whether the recording was conducted with consent or in a sanctioned setting.
The footage has been reposted and commented on by multiple users, including calls for questions about the university’s DEI direction. One user suggested contacting the ASU Board of Trustees regarding the issue; however, no official response from the board has been posted publicly as of this report.
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 AZ Free Enterprise Club | Dec 5, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Despite the noble work of Republican lawmakers over the past five years to reduce the state’s burden on taxpayers (lowering and flattening the income tax, eliminating tax on renters, and addressing taxes on food,) cities and towns are constantly undermining this progress through rampant tax, fee, and utility rate increases.
Arizona’s affordability is being eroded through the insatiable tax-hungry decisions of city and town councils and their year-over-year spending sprees. If taxpayers have not noticed already, surely, they are feeling the pinch as these tax and fee hikes continue to stack one on top another. Red or blue, no city is immune, most likely your costs are going up…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 2, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Jim Griset, the proprietor of a souvenir store, an art gallery, and a Harley Davidson shop in Prescott, has secured a hard-fought victory in his efforts to bring his vision of a new hotel to the city’s historic downtown. Represented by Goldwater Institute attorney Jon Riches, Griset’s victory successfully overturned a City Council ruling that upheld the Prescott Preservation Commission’s denial of his permit.
According to the Goldwater Institute, Griset has sought to transform three buildings he already owns on Prescott’s historic Whiskey Row into a hotel. The buildings already house his existing businesses, but he has endeavored since 2023 to bring the hotel into being that would “complement the surrounding architecture and preserve the charm and character that make Prescott special.”
As noted by Goldwater, none of the buildings in question are listed as historic. Still, they are located within the city’s designated historic district and thus require approval from the Preservation Commission.
Writing for Goldwater Riches explained:
“When Jim first submitted his application in 2023, the commission rejected it—not based on any clear or objective standards, but in response to NIMBY [not-in-my-backyard] opposition and vague impressions. Instead of pointing to identifiable criteria in the city’s preservation code, the commission relied on subjective notions like whether the design was ‘respectful’ of the district’s ‘intimate scale.’
Those terms don’t appear anywhere in the law. They’re not defined. They’re entirely subjective—which is exactly what the law is supposed to prevent.”
The law Riches refers to is The Permit Freedom Act, a Goldwater Institute-developed law enacted in 2023. He notes, “The Act prohibits local governments from making new rules midstream or applying vague, subjective standards to block lawful use of private property. And that is precisely what Prescott did.”
When Griset applied for the permit and was denied, he reportedly took the commission’s feedback, revised his designs, and worked to meet the standards set. “Yet every time he met the standards placed before him, the standards seemed to change,” Riches wrote.
When the denial was appealed to the Prescott City Council, the Council ruled against Griset. The council brought in a neutral historic preservation expert, who found that Griset had met the standards, and Goldwater attorneys brought the potential violation of the Permit Freedom Act to the City’s attention. Goldwater told the city, “Based on this review, under the Permit Freedom Act, there was simply no legal criteria authorizing the denial of his permit,” per Riches. However, the Commission again ruled 3-2 against Griset and his hotel plans.
Riches noted that in 2024, Prescott’s City Council sold the old City Hall building to a property developer with similar plans for a four-story hotel in the very same district. But it wasn’t rejected by the Commission or Council.
On November 4th, the City Council heard Mr. Griset’s appeal. Riches wrote, “Several council members spoke openly about the importance of private property rights and the need for fair, consistent rules—not decisions driven by subjective preferences or political pressure. Members of the public echoed the same: government rules must be fair, consistent, and objective. They should not favor some over others.”
Riches concluded, “Property owners in Prescott, and across Arizona, deserve certainty. They deserve to know the rules before they invest. When government shifts the rules or invents new ones as it goes, it undermines confidence, deters investment, and violates the law.”
The council voted to overturn the Preservation Commission’s decision. Mr. Griset’s hotel plan is pending approval from Prescott’s city zoning and planning commission and, subsequently, from the Council. A water service agreement will also require approval.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Nov 25, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court held a hearing on Monday to decide whether the city of Phoenix can hide certain public records.
The city is being sued by the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, over its hiding of records concerning union negotiations.
In Goldwater v. Phoenix, the Goldwater Institute argued the city of Phoenix has a duty to disclose those records in order to allow the public to have an informed decision, and because they serve as the entity negotiating on behalf of the public.
The organization filed their lawsuit in March of 2023 after the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) declined to provide a draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) for public input at the end of 2022. PLEA had provided its MOU drafts in preceding years.
Per the city’s “Meet and Confer” ordinance, unions must submit MOUs by Dec. 1 in the year before the expiration of an operative agreement so that the public may provide input prior to negotiations between the union and city.
Despite not having a draft MOU available for the public to review, the Phoenix City Council moved forward with a meeting to collect public comment on an unsubmitted draft.
The city then began negotiations in January 2023.
The city of Phoenix refused to give PLEA’s draft MOU to the Goldwater Institute upon request, claiming the records were exempt from public records disclosure because public scrutiny would burden negotiations.
The city claimed they were protected under the state’s public records law exemption allowing the withholding of records should they prove detrimental to a government’s best interest.
“Releasing those types of materials would create a chilling effect on the parties’ willingness to candidly engage with each other and it would hinder the negotiations process,” said the city in their denial message.
The city also expressed concerns that public access to MOUs would politicize union negotiations.
Parker Jackson, Goldwater Institute staff attorney, disagreed that these records were covered by the best interests exemption.
“With few exceptions, public records must be made available to the public,” said Jackson in a press release. “When there’s a need to protect things like personal privacy or public safety, the government must be able to show that specific and significant harm is likely to result from public disclosure. It cannot simply withhold information based on self-interested speculation that some minimal inconvenience ‘might’ occur.”
In January, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Arizona Superior Court so that court could privately review unredacted and redacted versions of the contested MOU documents, and determine whether the documents deserved exemption from public disclosure according to the best interests of the state.
The Arizona Supreme Court is considering two issues in this case:
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not requiring the City, after it invoked the “best interests of the state” exception, to establish a probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, as Mitchell v. Superior Court requires?
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not applying the Carlson v. Pima County balancing test de novo to independently determine whether the City’s purported interests in nondisclosure outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure?
The public may watch the archived video of Goldwater v. Phoenix here.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
