Activists reported that they have turned in more than 420,00 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universality of Arizona’s school choice program.
Supporters wearing red shirts reading “Public School Proud” affiliated with Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSA) gathered outside the secretary of state’s office to watch the box truck delivery of the boxes containing the signatures for the ballot initiative. Both SOSA and the Arizona Education Association (AEA) were behind the initiative.
SOSA and the AEA contend the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program diverts far too much in funding away from public schools. Families within the program don’t have to depart their public schools; however, since the expansion of the ESA program to all students in 2022, enrollment in public schools has declined. Defenders of the ESA program counter that per-pupil spending in the program costs less than in public schooling.
ESA program funds may be used for private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, homeschool curriculum, educational therapies, textbooks, educational software, testing fees, and college courses.
The Protect Education Act (PEA) would impose income restrictions on the ESA program.
Estimates show that approximately 20,300 current students in the ESA program would be disqualified under the PEA initially, though that number would grow to exclude more than half of Arizona’s families with school-aged children due to inflationary impact on incomes outpacing the income cap adjustment.
The act would also impose accreditation requirements and further restrictions on spending.
The ESA program has reported the enrollment of more than 100,000 students. More than 8,200 were listed as new students enrolled for the next school year.
Those who support keeping the universality of the ESA program have been maneuvering to preserve protections for some member families.
The Republican majority in the state legislature passed a ballot measure of their own last month: HCR 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the confiscation of ESA program funds from students belonging to military families.
Should voters approve both the lawmakers’ measure and PEA, it is likely the latter would be voided under language included in the former.
In addition, Doug Ducey, the former governor who signed universal school choice into Arizona law, made an announcement Thursday of a political action committee dedicated to securing school choice protections for military families. Ducey was announced as the chairman of the Protect Military Families PAC.
“Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families,” said Ducey.
Serving alongside Ducey on the political action committee is Ashley Ragan, president of InCompliance AZ.
Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families.
That is why today, we are proud to launch Protect Military Families PAC @ProtectMilFam.
The Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank and litigation organization, filed a motion in the Maricopa County Superior Court earlier this week on behalf of two military families involved in the ESA program.
The organization said that about 1,000 other military families stand to be disqualified from the ESA program should the universalization end.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court has kept a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s donor disclosure law alive, ruling that conservative organizations and anonymous donors may try to prove Proposition 211 violates the state constitution’s free speech protections as applied to them.
In its June 29 decision in Center for Arizona Policy Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State, the court did not strike down Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act. The justices rejected the plaintiffs’ broad facial challenge to the law, along with their claims under the Arizona Constitution’s Private Affairs Clause. But the court ruled that the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous donors sufficiently alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements could unconstitutionally burden protected political speech and association.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop their as-applied challenge and attempt to show that compelled disclosure of donors could expose supporters to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
Scott Freeman, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling “an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure.” He added that the court recognized that citizens are entitled to try to prove compelled donor disclosure violates Arizona’s free speech protections.
“From the very start, this case has been about protecting the freedom of everyday Arizonans,” said Peter Gentala, President of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). “No one should have to choose between supporting a cause they believe in and fearing harassment, retaliation, cancellation, or personal safety. Today’s decision affirms what we’ve always known to be true: our constitutional freedoms belong to every one of us, not just to those whose views happen to be popular at the moment.”
The Voters’ Right to Know Act requires nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
The court’s majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ann Timmer and joined by Justices James Beene and William Montgomery, along with retired Justice Rebecca Berch. Justice Kathryn Hackett King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Maria Elena Cruz was recused.
The majority held that Arizona courts must interpret the state constitution’s Speak Freely Clause independently from the First Amendment. The court said federal free speech cases may be consulted when helpful, but the Arizona Constitution remains its own source of free speech protection. “The Speak Freely Clause tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause’s protective scope,” Timmer wrote.
The court also concluded that donations made to an organization for the purpose of funding campaign media or knowingly allowing donations to be used for that purpose can constitute expressive conduct protected by the Arizona Constitution’s Speak Freely Clause.
For compelled election disclosure laws, the court adopted an Arizona-specific standard requiring the state or another defender of the law to show that the disclosure requirement meaningfully furthers election integrity or transparency and does not unreasonably burden or hinder protected expression.
Applying that framework, the court found that Proposition 211 meaningfully furthers election integrity and transparency. The court also found, however, that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the disclosure requirements may impose a concrete burden on their speech because public disclosure could expose donors or organizations to harassment, retaliation, reprisals, or other harms tied to their advocacy.
The court cited allegations that CAP and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) had faced threats and harassment connected to their issue advocacy. The opinion noted that CAP alleged it received a message stating, “Sooner or later, you will die, and some of us pray it is sooner,” and “You are a cancer that will soon be sliced out of our nation’s sick body. I will make it my personal mission to bury every single one of you.” AZFEC reported that staff had received threats of violence and that one staff member’s car had been vandalized in retaliation for communicating AZFEC’s message.
The two anonymous donors alleged that they had previously donated more than $5,000 to nonprofit organizations involved in campaign media and would limit future donations to avoid disclosure. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to allow the as-applied free speech claim to proceed.
“Free societies depend on people being willing to speak, advocate, and support important causes without fear of retaliation,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Today’s decision ensures that Arizonans will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Arizona Constitution protects those freedoms.”
Andrew Gould of Holtzman Vogel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, said the decision establishes that the Arizona Constitution is an “independent source of liberty” and confirms that Arizona courts are not required simply to follow federal free speech doctrine, adding it “recognized that plaintiffs may challenge compelled donor disclosure when it chills protected expression.”
The Goldwater Institute’s case page states that the organization represents the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two private donors in the lawsuit against the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, and public officials charged with implementing and enforcing Proposition 211.
Campaign Legal Center, which represents Voters’ Right to Know, framed the ruling as a victory for disclosure. In a statement, the organization said the court affirmed Proposition 211’s constitutionality by rejecting the broad challenge to the law while allowing the plaintiffs to attempt to prove serious harm from the disclosure requirements as applied to them.
Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter said the ruling affirmed “Arizonans’ right to know” who is spending major money to influence elections. The organization said Proposition 211 was supported by 72% of Arizona voters in 2022 and was designed to trace original sources of money spent in elections.
Justice King’s partial dissent, joined by Lopez and Bolick, would have gone further than the majority. The dissent argued that political advocacy before an election is core political speech and that anonymous speech contributes to liberty.
The case now returns to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ as-applied Speak Freely Clause claim. The court did not strike down Proposition 211, and the plaintiffs still must prove that the law unconstitutionally burdens their speech as applied to them.
A Goldwater Institute-backed measure to constitutionally protect Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) funds for children of military families will go before Arizona voters in November after receiving legislative approval.
House Concurrent Resolution 2048, sponsored by Rep. Michael Way (R-LD15), asks voters to amend Article XI of the Arizona Constitution by adding a new section prohibiting the state from confiscating money from certain scholarship accounts of students who are children of military families.
Under the resolution text, the prohibition would apply if the scholarship account is established and maintained by the state under a program that designates children of military families as eligible to receive scholarship money, and if the student may use the money for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary educational institutions. The resolution states that the provision is not limited to scholarship account programs established and maintained by the state only for children of military families.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student whose parent is serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or was killed in the line of duty. The measure defines “confiscate” as seizing, transferring, or otherwise taking money from a scholarship account.
The resolution includes exceptions for closures of accounts tied to individualized findings of illegal activity or wrongdoing after due process. It also accounts for routine account closures, including voluntary closure or failure to renew an account, graduation from an eligible postsecondary institution, or loss of eligibility after a student fails to enroll in an eligible postsecondary institution for at least four consecutive years after graduating from high school.
HCR 2048 also states that if a bill enacted into law or a voter-approved measure on or after Nov. 1, 2026, violates the proposed constitutional provision, the entire bill or measure is void and a court may not sever any portion of it. The resolution directs the Secretary of State to submit the proposition to voters at the next general election.
The measure passed the Senate on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote and passed the House on final reading June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
The Goldwater Institute described the measure as its “Military Family Protection Act” and said it is intended to protect military families participating in Arizona’s ESA program from future efforts to redirect or reclaim scholarship funds.
The Arizona Department of Education (AZED) currently lists 100,713 students enrolled in the ESA program this school year. The department’s Fiscal Year 2026 Quarter 1 report, covering July 1 through Sept. 30, 2025, counted 93,993 ESA students, including 975 students in the category for students whose parent is active-duty military or was killed in the line of duty.
Goldwater’s Director of Education Policy, Matt Beienburg, told lawmakers that military families should not lose scholarship funds through a separate ballot proposal aimed at the ESA program.
“There is a current ballot measure being proposed to attack the scholarship funds and confiscate the scholarship funds of children, including military families,” Beienburg said. “These families should not be treated as a piggy bank to raid. These are families who have protected this nation.”
Rep. Way said the measure is intended to prevent Arizona from reclaiming scholarship money after families were promised access to the program.
“This measure asks a very simple question: should Arizona be allowed to take scholarship money from military families after we promised them? My answer is no,” Way said.
The referral comes as opponents of the ESA program are circulating the Protect Education Act, a proposed ballot initiative that would impose new restrictions on the ESA program. The campaign says the measure would require background checks and safety standards for voucher-funded schools, add spending transparency rules, prohibit non-educational and luxury purchases, cap family income for ESA eligibility at $150,000 with annual inflation adjustments, require unused ESA funds to be returned, and require voucher-funded schools to be accredited or administer approved assessments. The campaign says students with disabilities would be exempt from the income cap and assessment provisions.
In an op-ed for AZ Free News, Matthew Ladner and Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation wrote that AZED published the results of a random audit of the ESA program in March 2026, “finding very low rates of misspending relative to other publicly funded programs and even lower rates of fraud. Less than 2% of ESA funds were spent on unallowed items, and 0.3% of the funds were spent on items considered ‘egregious’ or fraudulent.”
AZED disputed claims that the ESA program had a 20% fraud rate in a March release, saying about 2.0% of dollars spent by ESA account holders were for items deemed unallowable under program rules and that actual fraud or egregious purchases accounted for 0.3%.
“The submission of a purchase that is deemed unallowable does not constitute fraud,” AZED said. “Most are innocent mistakes, such as an error in a form that must be resubmitted, or educational items that are not on the allowable list but that the user could have in good faith believed were permitted. Some examples would be backpacks, lunch boxes and water bottles.”
AZED said the 20% figure represented program participants selected for risk-based auditing and “had nothing to do with fraud.” The department said action is taken to recover or collect funds or refer matters to law enforcement when necessary, and that more than $1.2 million had been recovered through that process.
Opponents of HCR 2048 have argued that its voidability provision could invalidate ESA reform proposals if voters approve conflicting measures. ABC15 reported that critics said the measure is aimed at blocking the Protect Education Act, while supporters said it is intended to protect scholarship funds promised to military families.
HCR 2048 was one of three education-related ballot referrals approved before the Legislature adjourned. Senate Republicans said the measures were intended to protect military families, direct more education dollars into classrooms, and restrict the use of taxpayer-funded school resources for labor organization activities.
“These scholarship funds were created for helping the children of military families pursue higher education,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman David Farnsworth said. “When government faces budget pressures, dedicated funds can become tempting targets. Arizona should never balance its books on the backs of military families or treat money set aside for their children’s futures as a piggy bank.
“This referral permanently protects those funds and ensures they remain available for the students they were intended to serve.”
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ5) has introduced legislation that would establish a federal pathway for patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases to access individualized investigational treatments when no approved treatment options remain.
According to a press release from Biggs’ office, the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act was introduced this week by Biggs and Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), with companion legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).
The legislation builds on the original federal Right to Try Act, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump and provides terminally ill patients access to certain investigational treatments that had not yet received full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“One of my first efforts upon taking office in January 2017 was to partner with Senator Ron Johnson to champion Right to Try, which we passed through both the U.S. House and Senate,” Biggs said. “Many of us know people who are terminally ill and desperately seeking to extend their lives. Right to Try gives these individuals hope, freedom, and power to try potentially life-saving drug therapies.”
Biggs said supporters of the original legislation sought to provide patients with additional treatment options when facing terminal illnesses and that the new proposal would build upon that framework.
“Our coalition was unwilling to let one more American die without this chance, and we are motivated to build on this original bill with the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act,” Biggs said. “I am honored to again help lead this bill in the U.S. House, and I pray we can quickly send it to President Trump’s desk to be enacted into law.”
According to the bill sponsors, the legislation is intended to address advances in precision medicine and genomics that have enabled treatments tailored to individual patients. The lawmakers argue that existing regulatory pathways were designed for therapies intended for broader patient populations and do not adequately accommodate patient-specific treatments.
“We are entering a new era of medicine where breakthroughs in genomics and precision therapies can create treatments designed specifically for an individual patient, but our regulatory system was built for a different time and simply hasn’t kept up,” Harshbarger said. “This legislation makes sure patients have a clear, durable path to pursue individualized treatments when all other options have failed.”
Under the proposal, patients diagnosed with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases could access investigational individualized therapies under physician supervision when no approved treatment options remain. Patients would need a physician’s recommendation before receiving treatment, which would be administered in qualified healthcare facilities that meet federal safety and quality standards and are subject to Institutional Review Board oversight and informed consent requirements.
Johnson said the measure would expand upon the original Right to Try framework by addressing therapies developed for individual patients and rare diseases.
“Right to Try 2.0 builds on that success and would provide access to individualized, rare disease and one-patient therapies that the current regulatory environment has yet to accommodate,” Johnson said. “This is about medical freedom and putting doctors and patients at the top of the treatment pyramid.”
The legislation would also establish a statutory framework for individualized treatments rather than relying solely on administrative guidance. According to Biggs’ office, the FDA released draft guidance in February outlining a framework to support the development of individualized therapies, but the sponsors argue congressional action is needed to create durable patient protections and access pathways.
The Goldwater Institute, which helped pioneer the original Right to Try movement that was enacted into federal law in 2018, also advocated for the introduction of the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act.
In a statement, Goldwater Institute President and CEO Victor Riches said, “No American should be forced to beg the government for permission to try to save their own life, and no bureaucrat should prevent a patient from accessing cutting-edge therapies. The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments opens the door to the latest advances in medical treatment and brings the federal government into the 21st century.”
While medical technology has evolved at a breathtaking pace, regulatory systems remain stuck in an era of mass-produced drugs.
The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act will ensure that our laws keep pace with modern innovation, removing the bureaucratic barriers that…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 9, 2026
The proposal also has roots in Arizona. According to the release, Right to Try legislation received nearly 80 percent support in the Arizona Legislature in 2014 during Biggs’ tenure as a state lawmaker. The release states that Right to Try policies have since been adopted in 41 states, while “Right to Try 2.0” laws addressing individualized treatments have been enacted in 17 states, including Arizona.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case determining whether Arizona State University (ASU) can mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings for its employees.
Professor Owen Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after ASU required him to take a DEI training called “Inclusive Communities” (ASU referred to their version of DEI as “DEIB,” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging”).
ASU requires the Inclusive Communities training as a condition of employment upon hire and every two years.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, filed on Anderson’s behalf. Goldwater Institute attorney Stacy Skankey said the case represented Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable for violating the law.
Arizona law prohibits any mandatory trainings which impart “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.”
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job,” said Skankey. “That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all.”
The Inclusive Communities training included materials which taught that white supremacy exists as a structural phenomenon, minority faculty don’t have authority or control due to structural inequalities like racism and sexism, white privilege and white fragility exist and impact communities, white people have a duty to combat their privilege, racism can be implicit even if not intended, and sexual identities yield power.
Transcript examples from the training materials were included in the Goldwater Institute’s filing within the Arizona Supreme Court.
Along with the training, ASU formerly required employees to pass an accompanying module quiz. This exam graded certain answers as correct which served to advance DEIB ideology; the Goldwater Institute argued this final test further proved the training served as an impermissible mandate for employees to accept blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Anderson said ASU’s mandate violated state law because the training assigned “race blame” based on skin color.
Anderson added that ASU’s training was rooted in a Marxist dichotomy reducing the world to oppressor versus oppressed, and that the training imparted impermissibly discriminatory teachings that conflicted with his religious and political beliefs. Anderson is a tenured faculty member who teaches philosophy and religious studies.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” said Anderson. “Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue — it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Anderson’s lawsuit. The court ruled that the law doesn’t have a provision allowing individuals like Anderson to seek legal recourse.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
